"Porn king Larry Flynt WANTS to rule California?"

I thought he already did.

Larry Flynt is a Democrat, but I'd bet most people would call him a fringe candidate. Same with Lyndon LaRouche. And David Duke on the Republican side. Why shouldn't there be laws that make it harder for these idiots to run for office, since there are laws making it harder for Ross Perot, John Anderson, Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, etc to run for office?

Having higher standards for non old party candidates does no one any good. I'll point you to Illinois in 1986 when Lyndon LaRouche candidates won two Democratic primaries for statewide constitional offices. A mess ensued when Adlai Stevenson II dropped off the Democratic ticket as Gov. because of the LaRouchies, tried to run as an independent but even he couldn't meet the requirements and lost in court, and finally had to sue his way on the ballot as some made up third party. That set a stupid precedent of being able to run in the primaries for one party and in the general election under another party. He lost big.

This is the unintended consequence of forcing fringe candidates into the two old parties.

Why not have arbitrary ballot access laws that make it harder for women, or minorities, or non-lawyers, or people with last names more than 8 letters to get on the ballot? A handful of our old party US Senate candidates in Illinois have never been elected to any office before, why don't they have to prove the same "level of support" that opposition candidates that have won elected office before have to?

I keep harping on this because you are a polisci professor in hopes your students might learn our democracy is extremely marginal and certainly discriminatory.

I profoundly disagree with that assessment, although I know that there are examples of ufair and unnecessary barriers that can be cited. And some states in particular have unduly onerous barriers, but they aren't impossible ones (as Perot's example demonstrates).

Indeed, the Perot, Anderson, Paul and Ventura examples don't really further your argument--they all managed to get on the ballot, and, with the exception of Jesse, lost spectacularly. So there was something beyond ballot access at issue there.

The bottom line is that I haven't had time to adequately respond to your length and thoughtful post of yesterday; however, I would re-iterate that the electoral rules of the US, beyond issues of ballot access, create a situation where only large, catch-all parties have a shot. it is a mathematical thing.

Larry Flynt is a Democrat, but I'd bet most people would call him a fringe candidate. Same with Lyndon LaRouche. And David Duke on the Republican side. Why shouldn't there be laws that make it harder for these idiots to run for office, since there are laws making it harder for Ross Perot, John Anderson, Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, etc to run for office?

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic here or not, but I would point out three things: 1) Flynt isn't a Democrat for electoral puposes unless he actually files as such, 2) Therefore, Perot, et al. and Flynt have the same opportunities or barriers to run as Democrat/Republican v. as a Third Party candidate, and 3) In the context of the run-off, any shmoe can get in the ballot with very low barriers to entry, which was the point of the post that started this convo earlier in the week.