Slashdot Mirror

Politics almost never offers more then two actual practical choices. There's a government. They do shit. You vote for it, or you vote against it. There isn't really another option.

In some systems you can express your disdain for the main party (say the CDU/CSU and SDP in Germany) by voting for a junior coalition partner (the Free Democrats and Greens). In others you can choose to support a Junior coalition partner (say the French Communists) in the first round and then hold your nose and vote Hollande in the second round.

But this isn't that different then choosing to support the Greener candidate in the Democratic primary. Which is why American third parties freaked out when Cali adopted a version of the French system. Rather then decide "hey second is way easier then first, and if we get a dozen or so seconds we'll eventually get lucky and be the only alternative when pro-gun-control Senator Yee gets arrested for gun-running."

I didn't remember where, but here's the first clear reference I found when searching for tea party candidates on ballots. It mentions such candidates in FL, NV, NJ and NY in 2010.

I didn't know about the BTP, but from its goals and name, it seems clear they were part of the tea party movement. Do you disagree?

Here in California, abolishing write-ins gets proposed every couple of years and there. Many states have some severe hoops to jump through before a candidate can be written in. Regardless, the funding in many campaigns for the two major parties ensures that the populace only really knows their names and not any information about "fringe" candidates. Even the people themselves cast allegations of "throwing away votes".

I ask: Do you know who you will write-in if your congress-critter votes to pass SOPA? Can you name who you will vote for instead to your critter when you complain/threaten?

Anyone can write all they want. But they are not counted unless your state allows write in votes.
Ballot Access Wiki down a couple pages for the US. Then there is Ballot-Access News where you can get more info on the battle to allow we the people to have a little bit of a real vote. Not just the pretend selection between the two.

After all, give me all of your money now or half now and the other half before I leave, are not real choices. Yet that is how I see the current voting structure. You can select this D-crook or this R-crook.

There is a lot of info about the history of closed ballots on this site: Ballot Access It takes a bit of digging but it is there. This article is interesting The Importance of Ballot Access One item which it states is that access to the ballot has been degrading over time. As we gradually become something other than what the founders imagined.

As I understand it there are two ways to change laws. One via the judiciary branch. The other is via referendum. This requires a large number of signers on a petition 50,000+. And those in power may disallow many of the signers claiming many reasons. So groups attempting this method usually try for twice as many votes as necessary.

Then we have the shining example of Wyoming (If memory serves) where the people got a measure on the ballot then the measure passed yet those in power have decided to ignore it. As I remember the people voted to legalize marijuana yet the government blocked it. The case I am talking about occurred in ~2006. I was living in Colorado at the time and hearing about this on the radio. This is how our government really works.

Another example of our vote being worthless is the electoral college. Should "we the people" actually elect someone other than one of our two "approved" choices, the electoral college would step in and vote for the "proper choice". No the electoral college may vote for whom ever they choose the popular vote is only sort-of a guide-line.
There is of course the last, third, method of changing the laws. The founders of the US realized this when they included the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that is why the incumbent government wants to remove that right.

There is a lot of info about the history of closed ballots on this site: Ballot Access It takes a bit of digging but it is there. This article is interesting The Importance of Ballot Access One item which it states is that access to the ballot has been degrading over time. As we gradually become something other than what the founders imagined.

As I understand it there are two ways to change laws. One via the judiciary branch. The other is via referendum. This requires a large number of signers on a petition 50,000+. And those in power may disallow many of the signers claiming many reasons. So groups attempting this method usually try for twice as many votes as necessary.

Then we have the shining example of Wyoming (If memory serves) where the people got a measure on the ballot then the measure passed yet those in power have decided to ignore it. As I remember the people voted to legalize marijuana yet the government blocked it. The case I am talking about occurred in ~2006. I was living in Colorado at the time and hearing about this on the radio. This is how our government really works.

Another example of our vote being worthless is the electoral college. Should "we the people" actually elect someone other than one of our two "approved" choices, the electoral college would step in and vote for the "proper choice". No the electoral college may vote for whom ever they choose the popular vote is only sort-of a guide-line.
There is of course the last, third, method of changing the laws. The founders of the US realized this when they included the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that is why the incumbent government wants to remove that right.

That depends on the state you live in. According to this article http://www.ballot-access.org/winger/iba.html since the late 1800's.

My personal experience: The 2004 election in Oklahoma had only two candidates to select from for president. Had there been any other candidate on the ballot I could have voted but as it was the State took away my vote, without due-process.

My point is that the choices you are allowed are fixed.

You may vote for the Republican dejour or the Democrat dejour. Most states do not allow open ballots http://www.ballot-access.org/.
You can choose to put your money in my left pocket or my right pocket. Your pocket is not a choice.

Choose, but choose wisely. - Which shell is it under?

- Cynicism, the ultimate result of experience.

Actually, Democracy doesn't work for a few reasons:
1. The system is easily corrupted and breakable. This has probably been going on for a LONG time, but recently, there were irregularities in Florida during the 2000 election and problems of various sorts throughout the country with Ohio being the most notable. (It is funny because the Greens and Libertarians actually worked together to get the Ohio recount, which was fixed by election officials.)
2. The system should use the popular vote and not the electoral college. How broken the EC is has been debated, but I think a change might not be a bad thing. (How can it be a good thing to have someone win an election that more people voted against then for?)
3. Voter apathy. This is yet another problem that appear widespread in the US. As you can see, our turnout is not too good.
4. The parties have changed what they represent and have even begun to become middle-of-the-road parties, who would rather get elected then worry about their party morals. This isn't a failure of democracy but of the US Presidential System. I have a few friends who would argue for parliamentary style government, but this sort of change would not happen without a revolution. Why would the two major parties risk losing their foothold.

There are quite a few other reasons, but people being too dumb is not the first one. (Though, in all honesty, it is probably a factor. People just do not understand what they are voting for and/or vote for the wrong reasons.)

But the idea is that every candidate must have some minimal amount of VETTED signatures (say 5%).

That number sounds familiar... ah, yes, here it is:

"Georgia: The legislature passed a law in 1943 requiring that new party and independent candidates submit a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters in order to get on the ballot for any office. Previously, any party could get on the ballot just by requesting it. The result has been that since 1943, there has not been one third party candidate on the Georgia ballot for U.S. House of Representatives."

http://www.ballot-access.org/winger/fbfp.html

I'm sure you have the best intentions at heart. All you need now is a cynical appreciation of just how easy it can be for incumbents to abuse the election system to shut out challengers. I suspect that public campaign financing will never become as anti-democratic as, say, plurality voting, but I'm sure that after it's been through a few Republican- and Democrat-controlled rulemaking sessions it'll make a nice extra moat around their castle.

Libertarian Part is a major party...

No, the Libertarian Party has ballot status...that's about it. According to this piece from USA Today last year, there were about 55 million registered Republicans and about 72 million registered Democrats. Wikipedia tells me there are 200,000 registered Libertarians. Now, they do run more candidates than all other parties combined, but I don't think they even have anyone in any state legislatures right now.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/070106.html#11 has some different total registration numbers (that USA Today article was the best I could find on short notice), but it tells the same story. Even the Green and Constitution parties have more registered members. You't think with the way the Republicans have been operating the last 6 years that there's be a bigger swell with the libertarians, but they continue to be only a minor blip with pretty decent internet marketing.

Sorry, but that just isn't true. It may be true in your state, but not nationwide. A couple of references:

http://www.ballot-access.org/winger/fbfp.html
http://www.reforminstitute.org/resources/scorecard 03/

Let's face it, you don't need bin-laden to tell you we've been screwed by both parties.

If you *REALLY* want to get technical, both campaings could, theororetically, be prosecuted under anti-trust laws for their debate agreement or even racketeering (RICO statutes) for all the legal manoeuvres before, during, and likely after the elections. (Intimidation, voter fraud, extortion [vote for me or else everyone gets it], rigging an election [Nader's woes]...)

Yeah, I know I'm in a "swing state," yada, yada, yada, but I look at it this way: What if? I'll be voting for someone that really does represent my views best, and, if elected, would cause repurcussions in D.C. that would be felt around the world.

Unlike Ralph Nader he is on the ballot in 49 states.

One thing I got from the bin-laden transcript the media seems to miss is he is telling us we --the voter-- have the power to steer our country but our apathy has led us down this road of conflict.

I've voted every year since I was 18. I don't think I've wasted any votes except in the last election.

I won't do it again.

(oh, god, i'm gonna get flamed aren't I?)

Neither party

I'm sorry, you seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that there are only two parties to pick from. Allow me to share some info with you. For convenience, let's consider only the Presidential election.

There are actually 6 candidates for President who are on enough (I believe) states ballots to have a chance to win the election. Bush and Kerry, obviously, but also:

Mike Badnarik - Libertarian

David Cobb - Green

Ralph Nader - Independent

Mike Peroutka - Constitution

In addition, Roger Calero, the candiate for the Socialist Workers Party, is on the ballots in 14 states.

Finally, there are at least four other candidates who are on the ballots in at least two states:

(from ballot-access.org):

Socialist Party (Walt Brown) is on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Socialist Equality Party (Bill Van Auken) is on in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, and is in court in Ohio.

Prohibition Party (Gene Amondsen) is on in Colorado and Louisiana.

Workers World Party (John Parker) is on in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.


More details can be found at ballot-access.org

And a list of political parties in the United States is available as well.

seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.

The Libertarian Party is.

Schedule for Bill Moyer's Now

The Third Parties

Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.

-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.

Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.

In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)

In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)

Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on

Feel free to check out the Ballot Access Status!

http://ballot-access.org/
and in more depth by state
http://ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html

And the main two are on by default in most cases. They have to meet a set of requirements, but as large as their parties are and with the resources at their disposal, it's hardly a challenge for them.

http://ballot-access.org/
and in more depth by state
http://ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html

And the main two are on by default in most cases. They have to meet a set of requirements, but as large as their parties are and with the resources at their disposal, it's hardly a challenge for them.

In a perfect world you would be right, however the ballot laws in most states create very costly barriers in time and money to just getting on the ballot in the first place. There are voter thresholds that strongly favor the two main parties wherein they need expend no effort to get on the ballot themselves while excluding the rest.

Votes help towards those meeting those thresholds for the next election cycle. Meeting the threshold means that money and time that would have been spent getting on the ballot can be spent instead on the candidate and the platform.

I'm not necessarily saying the tradeoff is worth it in every case, but it's wrong to say that a third party vote is worthless.

It's unfortunately not an issue many people are familiar with, and though it varies from state to state, the degree of repression is shocking. Work for any third party though and you'll quickly gain an intimate knowledge of just how unfair and smothering ballot access laws can be.

Ballot Access News

Just keep hugging that imaginary teddy-bear and voting republican - you're Mr. Ashcroft's wet dream...

Oh, trust me, I read your post. I even noticed the spelling mistakes....

You must be a weak Democrat, since you did not qualify your comment... ...I don't want to waste points on mindless flames from republican shills.

The recent election demonstrates that moderate republicans do not hold those "sacred rights" very highly.

After all, many people get all in a tizzy over Microsoft's dominance of software operating systems. Yet the last time the Republicans or Democrats did not control both the Congress and the White House (and indirectly, the judiciary) was in 1854, when the Republicans ousted the Whigs.

Perhaps Americans have truly preferred the Democrats or Republicans for the past 146 years, but I'm inclined to believe the system is rigged.

Indeed Richard Wringer, editor of Ballot Access News argued that U.S. voting system is so rigged that it violates international law:

In reality, America's ballot-access laws are so stringent, and third parties are repressed to such a degree, that the U.S. is probably in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement the U.S. signed in 1990 that requires nations to:

"Respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of equal treatment before the law and the authorities."

Other reforms I'd like to see:

• elimination of the electoral college, to be replaced by direct popular election
• institute preferential or Borda voting instead of winner take all
• proportional representation should be instituted for seats in the House and Senate
• ballot access should be open to anyone willing to pay the marginal cost of adding the candidates name to the ballot
• option to delegate one's vote to someone else. Why? Because, on most issues, I have neither the time, interest, or skill to adequately evaluate who or what is most likely to achieve the goals I want. However, I do know individuals who do have the time, interest, and skill whose judgement I trust, and I would like them to decide. As it is now, a man who uses a bookmark to read People magazine has the same influence has as a man who has a PhD. in economics.

After all, many people get all in a tizzy over Microsoft's dominance of software operating systems. Yet the last time the Republicans or Democrats did not control both the Congress and the White House (and indirectly, the judiciary) was in 1854, when the Republicans ousted the Whigs.

Perhaps Americans have truly preferred the Democrats or Republicans for the past 146 years, but I'm inclined to believe the system is rigged.

Indeed Richard Wringer, editor of Ballot Access News argued that U.S. voting system is so rigged that it violates international law:

In reality, America's ballot-access laws are so stringent, and third parties are repressed to such a degree, that the U.S. is probably in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement the U.S. signed in 1990 that requires nations to:

"Respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of equal treatment before the law and the authorities."

Other reforms I'd like to see:

• elimination of the electoral college, to be replaced by direct popular election
• institute preferential or Borda voting instead of winner take all
• proportional representation should be instituted for seats in the House and Senate
• ballot access should be open to anyone willing to pay the marginal cost of adding the candidates name to the ballot
• option to delegate one's vote to someone else. Why? Because, on most issues, I have neither the time, interest, or skill to adequately evaluate who or what is most likely to achieve the goals I want. However, I do know individuals who do have the time, interest, and skill whose judgement I trust, and I would like them to decide. As it is now, a man who uses a bookmark to read People magazine has the same influence has as a man who has a PhD. in economics.

After all, many people get all in a tizzy over Microsoft's dominance of software operating systems. Yet the last time the Republicans or Democrats did not control both the Congress and the White House (and indirectly, the judiciary) was in 1854, when the Republicans ousted the Whigs.

Perhaps Americans have truly preferred the Democrats or Republicans for the past 146 years, but I'm inclined to believe the system is rigged.

Indeed Richard Wringer, editor of Ballot Access News argued that U.S. voting system is so rigged that it violates international law:

In reality, America's ballot-access laws are so stringent, and third parties are repressed to such a degree, that the U.S. is probably in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement the U.S. signed in 1990 that requires nations to:

"Respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of equal treatment before the law and the authorities."

Other reforms I'd like to see:

• elimination of the electoral college, to be replaced by direct popular election
• institute preferential or Borda voting instead of winner take all
• proportional representation should be instituted for seats in the House and Senate
• ballot access should be open to anyone willing to pay the marginal cost of adding the candidates name to the ballot
• option to delegate one's vote to someone else. Why? Because, on most issues, I have neither the time, interest, or skill to adequately evaluate who or what is most likely to achieve the goals I want. However, I do know individuals who do have the time, interest, and skill whose judgement I trust, and I would like them to decide. As it is now, a man who uses a bookmark to read People magazine has the same influence has as a man who has a PhD. in economics.

After all, many people get all in a tizzy over Microsoft's dominance of software operating systems. Yet the last time the Republicans or Democrats did not control both the Congress and the White House (and indirectly, the judiciary) was in 1854, when the Republicans ousted the Whigs.

Perhaps Americans have truly preferred the Democrats or Republicans for the past 146 years, but I'm inclined to believe the system is rigged.

Indeed Richard Wringer, editor of Ballot Access News argued that U.S. voting system is so rigged that it violates international law:

In reality, America's ballot-access laws are so stringent, and third parties are repressed to such a degree, that the U.S. is probably in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement the U.S. signed in 1990 that requires nations to:

"Respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of equal treatment before the law and the authorities."

Other reforms I'd like to see:

• elimination of the electoral college, to be replaced by direct popular election
• institute preferential or Borda voting instead of winner take all
• proportional representation should be insituted for seats in the House and Senate
• ballot access should be open to anyone willing to pay the marginal cost of adding the candidates name to the ballot
• option to delegate one's vote to someone else. Why? Because, on most issues, I have neither the time, interest, or skill to adequately evaluate who or what is most likely to achieve the goals I want. However, I do know individuals who do have the time, interest, and skill whose judgement I trust, and I would like them to decide. As it is now, a man who uses a bookmark to read People magazine has the same influence has as a man who has a PhD. in economics.

After all, many people get all in a tizzy over Microsoft's dominance of software operating systems. Yet the last time the Republicans or Democrats did not control both the Congress and the White House (and indirectly, the judiciary) was in 1854, when the Republicans ousted the Whigs.

Perhaps Americans have truly preferred the Democrats or Republicans for the past 146 years, but I'm inclined to believe the system is rigged.

Indeed Richard Wringer, editor of Ballot Access News argued that U.S. voting system is so rigged that it violates international law:

In reality, America's ballot-access laws are so stringent, and third parties are repressed to such a degree, that the U.S. is probably in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement the U.S. signed in 1990 that requires nations to:

"Respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of equal treatment before the law and the authorities."

Other reforms I'd like to see:

• elimination of the electoral college, to be replaced by direct popular election
• institute preferential or Borda voting instead of winner take all
• proportional representation should be insituted for seats in the House and Senate
• ballot access should be open to anyone willing to pay the marginal cost of adding the candidates name to the ballot
• option to delegate one's vote to someone else. Why? Because, on most issues, I have neither the time, interest, or skill to adequately evaluate who or what is most likely to achieve the goals I want. However, I do know individuals who do have the time, interest, and skill whose judgement I trust, and I would like them to decide. As it is now, a man who uses a bookmark to read People magazine has the same influence has as a man who has a PhD. in economics.

After all, many people get all in a tizzy over Microsoft's dominance of software operating systems. Yet the last time the Republicans or Democrats did not control both the Congress and the White House (and indirectly, the judiciary) was in 1854, when the Republicans ousted the Whigs.

Perhaps Americans have truly preferred the Democrats or Republicans for the past 146 years, but I'm inclined to believe the system is rigged.

Indeed Richard Wringer, editor of Ballot Access News argued that U.S. voting system is so rigged that it violates international law:

In reality, America's ballot-access laws are so stringent, and third parties are repressed to such a degree, that the U.S. is probably in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement the U.S. signed in 1990 that requires nations to:

"Respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on the basis of equal treatment before the law and the authorities."

Other reforms I'd like to see:

• elimination of the electoral college, to be replaced by direct popular election
• institute preferential or Borda voting instead of winner take all
• proportional representation should be insituted for seats in the House and Senate
• ballot access should be open to anyone willing to pay the marginal cost of adding the candidates name to the ballot
• option to delegate one's vote to someone else. Why? Because, on most issues, I have neither the time, interest, or skill to adequately evaluate who or what is most likely to achieve the goals I want. However, I do know individuals who do have the time, interest, and skill whose judgement I trust, and I would like them to decide. As it is now, a man who uses a bookmark to read People magazine has the same influence has as a man who has a PhD. in economics.

What state do you live in? There is a Libertarian candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Harry Browne is in 49 states and D.C., while it's Neil Smith in Arizona.

My source? Ballot Access News.