Via RSS
Via Twitter
When a candidate files for office as a candidate representing a recognized political party, they just submit a form and financial disclosure and they are on the primary ballot. A recognized political party is based on the percentage of votes that they received in the previous election. A candidate of a non-recognized party or NO PARTY affiliation must collect a number of signatures of registered voters in their election district. That will get them on the general election ballot but not the primary ballot. This gives candidates of recognized political parties a clear and unfair advantage over those candidates not allowed on the primary ballot. During the primary campaigns candidates are able to raise campaign contributions, gather supporters, appear in forums, participate in debates, and generally raise awareness of their candidacy. Party affiliation should have no bearing on ballot access. Neither the US Constitution nor the Alaska Constitution (haven’t researched other states) mention political parties, or primary elections for that matter. The “two party system” is only perpetuated by excluding others as much as possible from gaining equal access to ballot.
The Case for Ballot Access Reform
The Emperor's Rants and Observations makes the case for ballot access reform:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The concept of the ballot may need to be revised before we worry about access to it. Once upon a time all you needed to contend in an election was a press to print your own ballots for voters to put in the box. Access was not an issue. That issue probably arose with the adoption of the Australian ballot and the use of voting machines with their limited number of lines. Those reforms, aimed at correcting abuses perpetrated by the major parties, may have had the unintended effect of helping cement the Bipolarchy in place.
Ironically, in some cases, the first machines were introduced to address problems with the old paper ballots, as in New York, I think, but now many argue against the newer machines because they leave no paper trail.
From my own research, the movement to adopt voting machines was driven by fears of ballot stuffing, ballot stealing, and other forms of tampering to which the old ballot box system seemed chronically vulnerable. Among good-government types, there was also a belief that machines would encourage more ballot splitting and thus undermine local political machines. I think the old machines are fine except for the inevitable ranking they impose on parties, which seems to result from any kind of standard ballot.
That's what I was thinking of, Tammany. I like pulling the lever too.
Post a Comment