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.
Comment by Steven — Thursday, July 31, 2024 @ 1:45 pm
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.
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.
Comment by trigger — Thursday, July 31, 2024 @ 1:36 pm
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.
Comment by Steven — Thursday, July 31, 2024 @ 1:45 pm
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.
Comment by trigger — Thursday, July 31, 2024 @ 6:06 pm
A good friend can tell you what is the matter with you in a minute. He may not seem such a good friend after telling.
Comment by Rhodes Mark — Sunday, January 25, 2024 @ 8:47 pm
Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2024 @ 1:44 pm