Over the course of the next few weeks or possibly months, I'm going to pose a high-level political process question to the SC faithful. These questions will be mostly about how the government is fundamentally structured rather than on some sort of issue. My hope is that we can all debate from first principles on an issue that isn't readily discussed in normal political discourse.
Today, I'll ask questions about ballot access laws.
Getting on the ballot in some states consumes a great deal of resources, especially for minor party and independent candidates. This is also true (albeit less so) for major party candidates. Usually, major party candidates have to get a very small number of signatures (in Ohio, it's 50 for US House) to get on the ballot, while independents and minor party candidates have to get many more to appear on the ballot (in Ohio, its usually about 2 orders of magnitude more for US house). Is this fair? Does the state have an interest in making independents and minor party candidates get more signatures or is this another example of "separate but equal"?
__________________________
I didn't break the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...
None of the Above....
Well, I guess the higher signiture tally for thrid party candidates is there, because the people had spoken in the last election and they clearly said they only wanted to vote for a candidate with a chance to win.
Then there is the chance that a Richard Pryor wannabe runs on a "None of the Above" platform.
Gerrymandering by the Big Two and ballot access laws are there to protect the people from voting in a non-major party candidate.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Generally speaking
I think the high signature count is to discourage any political activity outside the Big 2. Having only two viable parties makes campaigning much easier (at least we're better than the other party) and also makes for easier demonization of the other guys (everything that sucks is their fault).
In other countries FPTP systems like ours still have more than two parties represented at the federal level. In the UK, 11 parties are represented, but UK Parliament could be considered a 3-party system. In Canada, they have 4 parties represented and could reasonably considered a 4-party system.
The key difference in Canada and the UK is that their ballot access laws are equal for all parties, large and small.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I didn't know that
It certainly doesn't sound fair.
However, I don't want every crank cluttering up the ballot, and this is one way to keep them out. Presumably there are better ways to control access -- I'll have to think about it.
What do you suggest for alternative ways to cut down on "third parties" that are really just one-person ego trips?
(Promoted and bumped)
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Voters' rights must be protected
There is this idea that if we had simple ballot access laws that there'd be 30 or 40 candidates on the ballot per office. This is simply not the case. In states where ballot access is very easy, there are not this many candidates. Comparatively speaking, it's pretty easy to get on the ballot as a statewide independent in Ohio (5,000 signatures), but we generally have only a few people on the ballot:
2006 SoS: 4
2006 Governor: 4
2006 Senate: 2
2004 President: 4
As I described above, the UK have equal ballot access laws across the country. In the UK a petition of 10 signatures gathered within the district is required along with a £500 deposit (about $1000). This deposit is returned if the candidate gets more than 5% of the vote. Generally speaking, about 5 or 6 parties contest each seat and usually only the 3 major UK parties get their deposits returned.
In any case, the right of a "crank" to be on the ballot is greater than your preference to not have him on. As Richard Winger states in his essay "What Are Ballots For?
":
Ballots are to permit the voters to vote for the candidates of their choice. If there are voters who wish to vote for a candidate, and that candidate is omitted (against his or her will) from the ballot, then the ballot is faulty. It isn't doing its job. The purpose of ballots is to facilitate the wishes of voters, NOT to control whom they vote for.
I don't think it's a problem to have one-person ego trips on the ballot. If they have anything interesting to say, they'll get some votes and possibly win. If you don't want to vote for someone, then that is your right. What is pretty ridiculous is telling me that I can't vote for someone because they're "not serious" or because they'll clutter up the ballot.
The 2003 California Gubernatorial recall election went off without a hitch even though over 100 names were on the ballot. Yeah, it may have taken a few extra seconds to find the name of the candidate of choice for each voter, but that's a pretty small price to pay to allow everyone to vote for the candidate of their choice. And as I explained before, having that many candidates is not likely.
The question isn't really about the rights of candidates to be on the ballot, but about the right of the voter to vote for his/her candidate of choice.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That's what write-in is for
Sorry, I see no good reason for ego-trips cluttering up the ballot, and the downside is that it might confuse voters.
Anyway, the deposit (returned if you get over 5%) idea sounds reasonable, along with enough signatures to correspond to some small percentage of the expected vote.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
That's still not equal access
In many states write-ins are not counted or are simply not allowed. For instance, you may not make any write-in votes in Oklahoma (at least for President). In other states they are not counted unless directed to do so by court order. I can swear that Nader had to go to court in 2004 to compel a state to count his write-in votes (but I can't find a link). And even then, equal access means just that: equal access to have one's name listed on the ballot.
And once again, you suffer from the belief that there would be a plethora of candidates per office if ballot access were equal. Putting aside the fact that "too many candidates" is not a good reason to restrict access to the ballot, we've already seen that voters are not confused by up to hundreds of candidates as in the California Recall election. Who are these people who get confused if more than 2 or 3 names are on the ballot per office? I'd like to meet one. And before you say old Jewish ladies in Florida, that was due to a bad ballot design; there wasn't any reason for such a poorly designed ballot. People in the UK and Canada seem to be able to vote just fine with 5 or 6 candidates for office.
As far as "ego-trips" go, I'd like to hear your definition of one. All I see are people running for office. If by "ego-trips" you mean "people in it for themselves", then we've got "ego-trips" on every ballot already. If by "ego-trips" you mean minor party and/or independent candidates, then you're begging the question: minor party and independent candidates shouldn't get equal access to the ballot because they're minor party and independent candidates.
If you're worried about people playing the spoiler, that's not a reason to restrict ballot access. That's a problem with the voting system, which will be addressed in topic #2.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
the Buchanan-Gore effect
While it would be nice to allow everyone onto the ballot, we have seen that it can cause organizational problems, as it did in Florida where the presence of Buchanan on the ballot confused a lot of people who would have otherwise voted for Gore.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Still not a good reason
Again, that's not a reason to keep people off the ballot, but a reason to pay closer attention to how the ballot is designed.
You're in effect saying that the election administrators are so incompetent that they can't handle creating a ballot if the number of candidates is higher than X, so because of the incompetency, we have to restrict access to X candidates.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
bizzare requirements
Pennsylvania's ballot access rules require that independent candidates for statewide office gather a number of signatures proporational to the voter turnout in the previous state-wide election.
This is reasonable on its face, but there are massive swings in turnout between Presidential and non-Presidential election years...so you actually need a lot more signatures to get a candiate for Governor (or Attorney General, or Treasurer) on the ballot than to get a candidate for President on the ballot.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Agreed
Ohio law is as follows:
US House:
Major Party - 50 signatures
Minor Party - 25 signatures
Independent - 1% of last vote in the district for Governor
Statewide:
Major Party - 1000 signatures
Minor Party - 500 signatures
Independent - 5000 signatures
Now, Ohio recognizes no minor parties because our laws for starting a new party are difficult (in fact it was ruled unconstitutional) and even harder to stay on the ballot, so the Greens, Libertarians, etc. have to run as independents. The Libertarians have successfully sued their way onto the ballot since we have no constitutional way to get a new party on the ballot anymore. The Socialist Party is filing suit as well.
The 1% issue you speak of has reared it's ugly head. When the law was made 1% of the last vote for Governor wasn't all that much. Now it's quite a bit. I know in my district (OH-9), you'd need about 2100 signatures to get on the ballot. That's nearing almost half the number of signatures need to be on the ballot for a statewide office. To boot, in Presidential election years, Ohio moves its primary for all offices from June to March. So if you're wanting to run for US House in such a year, you need to petition during winter months since signatures for independents are required the day before the primary.
This is way more complex than it needs to be.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Ballot Access, technically not 2-party
I haven't voted in many elections (I watched my parents in 1996, I skipped 2000 and voted in 2004), but I have noticed that most ballots have more than 2 choices for President. Not sure about the down-ballot offices, but at least for President I usually see a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and even a Socialist Worker candidate.
__________________________http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
That's right, but it doesn't go to the question
For one thing, New York has pretty sane ballot access laws; they allow fusion (more than one party can nominate the same candidate) for instance. The point I'm trying to make is that it is in almost all cases harder to get on the ballot as a Libertarian, Green, etc. than it is as a D or R. Why is it acceptable that the state require more from a minor party/independent candidate to be listed on the ballot than from a major party candidate? It'd be one thing if the ballot access was uniformly difficult, but it isn't. In most states major parties have one set of rules and then minor party/independents have another set.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Portland has a public financed system for mayor
It has had some bumps but seems to reasonably work. I'll get some facts together about the system and post it.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ballot access
First; this is a great idea (both the series, and this individual topic).
Second; I'm glad you chose this topic, since the election system is one of my main interests in politics.
Third; I think it's hard to discuss the ballot system on its own, since it is intimately tied to the electoral system (how votes are counted). Issues like Proportional Representation and Instant Runoff probably don't fall within the confines of this (ballot) discussion, but they would obviously provide a radical change to the ballot.
Okay, to the big points:
- I think it's semi-fair for the "big parties" to have different ballot access rules. This is typically tied to their participation in the state-run primary elections: they need fewer signatures because they are getting signatures for the primary election, whereas independents (including minor parties) are getting signatures for the general elections. I'm glad that states have gotten the duopoloy to invite public participation in their nomination process.
- I like NY's fusion system, since it allows minor parties to get "major party" status, even in a plurality election system where there is strong incentive for voters to rally around a small number of candidates.
- I think that voters should be allowed to participate in the primary elections of different parties for different levels of government. For example, many cities are one-party towns (e.g. Pittsburgh is Democratic) so people who register as Republicans (with a focus on national politics) are basically excluded from the local elections. If we accept the strategic imperative that the electorate should divide itself into two evenly-sized voting coalitions(parties), then it follows that these coalitions should be built independently for each level of government, because there are different issues at each level (either do to the different jurisdiction of governments, or because of the demographic/ideological makeup of the community). I think this would also work to reduce partisanship, because people who are opposed at one level of government will be allied at a different level.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
splitting up Presidential power
Hey Stinerman,
If you're looking for additional topics in this series, one I'd like to see is the idea of splitting up Presidential power among multiple elected officials. This would make the Federal government more like state governments with independently elected AGs and Treasurers.
Another idea would be to discuss runoff elections and proportional representation.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
I'll make it #3
#2 is alternative election systems. It might get too big, so I might split it up into several parts.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Front page?
I'll also front page these (rather than needing an admin to promote them) pending Ender's approval.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Absolutely (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Another high-level issue
This is more of a legal issue than a political issue...
I was reading some information about surrogate pregnancy, and noticed that our legal system basically has three ways of treating voluntary economic interactions:
Most interactions ball in the first or third category. However there is a small set of interactions where contracts are neither prohibited nor enforced. Surrogacy arrangements sometimes fall into the second category where there is no prohibition on paying a person to carry your baby, yet a contract for them to relinquish the baby cannot be enforced.
So the issue that I want to raise, is to what extent the government should take a hands-off approach to many of our economic interactions. Should we avoid a hands-off approach due to its ambiguity, or should we encourage it to the extent that it can be used as a protection of natural, inalienable rights?
I'm just throwing out ideas.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas