PoliBlog

Creating higher, I'd call them discriminatory, barriers for "fringe" candidates is wrong and antidemocratic. All candidates should have the SAME barriers to ballots, and it should be up to the voters to decide who are "fringe" candidates, not the two old political parties. By allowing the two old parties to decide that ALL other candidates are "fringe" candidates we are dangerously close to the ballot policies of Fidel Castro. I do believe candidates should be able to show a minimal level of support through petitioning in order to appear on the ballot, but then there is NO reason why the two old parties shouldn't have to follow those same requirements. One example if I may. In Illinois, for an opposition party to run candidates for all 118 state representative races, that party would need to collect 326,000 raw signatures in 90 days and pray the courts sided with them on all the frivolous court challenges. By comparison, the Republicans and Democrats can "slate" candidates with only one signature per candidate for a total of 118 signatures. An opposition candidate has a barrier 2,700 times higher than the two old parties. This is not at all different than saying our troops in Iraq are fighting for a "democracy" that would allow the Shiites to make it 2,700 times harder for Kurds to run for public office, or 500 times harder for Shiites to run for public office. These barriers are NOT keeping "clutter" off the ballot. 30 of 59 Illinois Senate races went unopposed. Republicans and Democrats have no problem having more than 5 candidates on a primary ballot, but it suddenly becomes "clutter" to allow more than one or two candidates on a general election ballot. Democracy demands that we allow the voters to decide which candidates are "fringe" candidates, not the two old parties with their power to make rules that benefit them and oppress their competition.

Well, I can't comment on Illinois law, as I am unfamiliar with it. I would concede that 326,000 signatures is a it much, to say the least, however.

And I will also concede that there are numerous speciifc examples of ridiculous barriers to get on the ballot.

However, the truth of the matter is that most (indeed, one could almost say "all") third party candidates lose, and do not have adequate support in the electorate--even once on the ballot.

This is not the fault of the two parties, but rather is an artifact of both our political culture and our electoral system. Plus, the Reps and Dems are hardly ideological monoliths--there is a lot of political space in both for any number of POVs.

Also, I would point out that there is an easier route for new politicos to try: going through the primaries of either the Reps or Dems. That is how (former) Libertarian Ron Paul of Texas won his current seat in the House: by winning the Republican Primary.

Indeed, I would argue that had Ross Perot pursued the Democratic nomination in 1992, rather than going the "independent" route, he likely would have been elected president.

And the voters do decide on the fringe candidates--they essentially never win.

We're both right. On the national stage, opposition candidates never win (except the example of the then new Republican Party of Lincoln when there were no ballot restrictions for them to hurdle). But I would contest that the "lower" down the ballot you go, you will find opposition candidates that do or could win. But those same unequal ballot barriers apply lower on the ballot also.

Libertarians and Greens, for example, have been successful winning local races when they've been able to overcome the obstacles. Those candidates would serve as a farm team to build support and possibly win higher offices. But when and if they go to run for the higher offices, much of their resources go just toward trying to get on the ballot if they are even allowed to, leaving them with fewer resources to go toward actually winning that office.

Opposition candidates could win county board seats in Illinois if there was a level playing field for ballot access. But our law requires us to run candidates for every possible office up for election in the county, including the State's Attorney that requires a lawyer. And then to run that full slate of candidates we need 50 times more signatures than they do for each position. The Rs and Ds don't have to run candidates for all the offices and rarely do. Opposition parties could win on the county level if we had a level playing field. Once we win at the county level we would have candidates qualified and with enough local support to win state rep races. Once we win state rep races we would stand a better chance of winning state senate races and so on up the chain over time.

You are right that we don't win on the national stage but that is also a function of not being allowed to run and build support on the local stage. Obviously, I mostly only know about Illinois. We ran 10 candidates in non-partisan local elections last year and 5 of them won, 3 against school board incumbents. We have more than 30 elected Libertarians in Illinois in non-partisan local offices. I know that isn't a lot, but they do and will vote for "fringe" candidates. But our candidates that have won non-partisan elections for school board, can not then run for county board as the next logical office. In fact, no opposition party has EVER been able to run a single slate of candidates for county offices in Illinois since those ballot rules were established in the 1910s.

That is why we don't win higher up the ballot. We aren't allowed to even run lower on partisan ballots to build to the point of being able to win on the state level. You say we should then just give up and run as a Republican or Democrat. With that logic, the Republican Party shouldn't exist, and the civil war would have probably been delayed right along with the end of slavery as Abraham Lincoln should have never been President.

We shouldn't have to give up and join the lesser of two evils. Instead, the principles of democracy should be upheld in allowing open, free, and equal elections. I'd contend if that happened, we would see more opposition candidates win at all levels eventually. Because no opposition candidate has won the Presidency is not a good excuse for keeping opposition candidates off the ballots at lower positions like county offices.

Another thought. It's like expecting a baseball team to consistently succeed at the AAA and major league level while forbidding them to have a minor league system below AAA.