should it be easier for 3rd party canidates to make it on the ballot

[Scipio7777777]

in several states nadar has recently been banned from the ballot because he does not have enouhg sigs on his petition

some states require that you need 300000 plus sigs to get on the ballot should it be easier for nadar (or any ohter 3rd party canidate to get on the ballot for a state)?

[GrassDragon]

What would be the point of making it easier? If he can't even get the required signatures, he's obviously not going to do very well in the election. Why bother putting him on the ballot?

[Scipio7777777]

because every one should have the right to run (even if they wont win) and it will hurt Kerry:)

[Valjean]

because every one should have the right to run (even if they wont win) and it will hurt Kerry:)
That's a bad thing.

You just want Nader on the ballots so he can steal votes from Kerry as those who would likely vote for Kerry would vote for Nader where as those who would likely vote for Bush don't vote for Nader. You know Nader isn't going to win. We shouldn't put canidates on the ballot if they aren't going to win, because then they're stealing votes for another canidate who is much more likely to get into the White House.

[hammocksleeper]

You just want Nader on the ballots so he can steal votes from Kerry as those who would likely vote for Kerry would vote for Nader where as those who would likely vote for Bush don't vote for Nader. You know Nader isn't going to win. We shouldn't put canidates on the ballot if they aren't going to win, because then they're stealing votes for another canidate who is much more likely to get into the White House.No, I think it should definitely be easier to get on the ballot. I want to vote for whoever the hell I want. I don't want anyone controlling whom I can and cannot vote for.

The problem is even worse at the state level, where every year scores of public officials go into the elections as uncontended incumbents.


Here are some quotes from a nice article I found.
(http://www.ballot-access.org/winger/wabf.html)

"In the 1896 general election, every single congressional district in the nation had at least two candidates on the ballot. The average district had 3.1 candidates on the ballot. In the 1912 general election, the average election ballot had 4.1 candidates for Congress. But in 1984, there were only 2.3 candidates for Congress on the typical general election ballot, and one-ninth of the districts (49 out of 435) had only one candidate on the ballot. The modern-day voter's choice is even more limited in state legislative races. In 1984 6,881 seats were at stake. An astounding 2,815 (41 percent) had only one candidate per position on the ballot.

"Originally, there were no ballot access restrictions whatsoever in the U.S. ... no petitions, no filing fees, no loyalty oaths, no declarations of candidacy. The government had no control over who could run for office, or whom voters could vote for. This is because, before the 1890's, the government didn't print the ballots! Instead, parties printed them and distributed them, and any voter was free to make his own ballot or to alter a party-printed ballot. Even after the state took over the job of printing the ballots, it was easy to get on the ballot in virtually every state. In 1924 Senator Robert LaFollette was able to get on the ballot in 47 states as a third party candidate for president, and he needed to collect only 75,500 valid signatures to achieve this. That number was one-fourth of 1 percent of the number of votes cast that year. And he didn't need to go to court in any state to get on the ballot (although he did file a lawsuit in California to get a second listing on the ballot there).

"How things have changed! In 1980 John Anderson needed 647,792 valid signatures to get on the ballot of all states, which was .75 percent of the number of votes cast that year, triple the 1924 percentage. And he had to sue eleven states to force them to accept his signatures, or to force them to list his vice-presidential candidate. Even though Anderson was so popular that unpaid volunteers collected all his signatures, ballot access cost him $6 million, money that he could have put to better use, such as buying television time.

"How did we get this net of restrictions? Restrictive ballot laws began during the 1930's. In 1931, Florida abolished all means for independent candidates and new parties to get on the ballot. In 1937 California raised the new party petition from 1 percent of the last gubernatorial vote, to 10 percent. In 1939 South Dakota also raise the new party petition to 10 percent.

"The trend continued after World War II. In 1952 Ohio raised the new party petition from 1 percent to 15 percent. In 1961 Wyoming abolished all procedures by which a new party could get on the ballot. In 196 Idaho did the same. And when Alaska came into the Union in 1959 the legislature failed to provide any means for a third party or independent presidential candidate to get on the ballot, a gap that was not corrected until 1968. Many of these restrictions were excused on the grounds that the U.S. is a 'Two-Party system' and that everyone was free to participate in one of the two major parties, so it didn't really matter if third parties were locked out."

The excuse mentioned in the last part of the quote is complete bullshit; political parties hold primaries because they want to be able to put their full support behind a single candidate. Other prospects should be free to leave the party and get on the ballot without party support. It only seems like the US is a "two-party system" because we have made it so with restrictive legislation.

[Valjean]

No, I think it should definitely be easier to get on the ballot. I want to vote for whoever the hell I want. I don't want anyone controlling whom I can and cannot vote for.

The problem is even worse at the state level, where every year scores of public officials go into the elections as uncontended incumbents.


Here are some quotes from a nice article I found.
(http://www.ballot-access.org/winger/wabf.html)

"In the 1896 general election, every single congressional district in the nation had at least two candidates on the ballot. The average district had 3.1 candidates on the ballot. In the 1912 general election, the average election ballot had 4.1 candidates for Congress. But in 1984, there were only 2.3 candidates for Congress on the typical general election ballot, and one-ninth of the districts (49 out of 435) had only one candidate on the ballot. The modern-day voter's choice is even more limited in state legislative races. In 1984 6,881 seats were at stake. An astounding 2,815 (41 percent) had only one candidate per position on the ballot.

"Originally, there were no ballot access restrictions whatsoever in the U.S. ... no petitions, no filing fees, no loyalty oaths, no declarations of candidacy. The government had no control over who could run for office, or whom voters could vote for. This is because, before the 1890's, the government didn't print the ballots! Instead, parties printed them and distributed them, and any voter was free to make his own ballot or to alter a party-printed ballot. Even after the state took over the job of printing the ballots, it was easy to get on the ballot in virtually every state. In 1924 Senator Robert LaFollette was able to get on the ballot in 47 states as a third party candidate for president, and he needed to collect only 75,500 valid signatures to achieve this. That number was one-fourth of 1 percent of the number of votes cast that year. And he didn't need to go to court in any state to get on the ballot (although he did file a lawsuit in California to get a second listing on the ballot there).

"How things have changed! In 1980 John Anderson needed 647,792 valid signatures to get on the ballot of all states, which was .75 percent of the number of votes cast that year, triple the 1924 percentage. And he had to sue eleven states to force them to accept his signatures, or to force them to list his vice-presidential candidate. Even though Anderson was so popular that unpaid volunteers collected all his signatures, ballot access cost him $6 million, money that he could have put to better use, such as buying television time.

"How did we get this net of restrictions? Restrictive ballot laws began during the 1930's. In 1931, Florida abolished all means for independent candidates and new parties to get on the ballot. In 1937 California raised the new party petition from 1 percent of the last gubernatorial vote, to 10 percent. In 1939 South Dakota also raise the new party petition to 10 percent.

"The trend continued after World War II. In 1952 Ohio raised the new party petition from 1 percent to 15 percent. In 1961 Wyoming abolished all procedures by which a new party could get on the ballot. In 196 Idaho did the same. And when Alaska came into the Union in 1959 the legislature failed to provide any means for a third party or independent presidential candidate to get on the ballot, a gap that was not corrected until 1968. Many of these restrictions were excused on the grounds that the U.S. is a 'Two-Party system' and that everyone was free to participate in one of the two major parties, so it didn't really matter if third parties were locked out."

The excuse mentioned in the last part of the quote is complete bullshit; political parties hold primaries because they want to be able to put their full support behind a single candidate. Other prospects should be free to leave the party and get on the ballot without party support. It only seems like the US is a "two-party system" because we have made it so with restrictive legislation.Well, I agree, except in the case of this election. It's a showdown between Bush and Kerry. All having Nader on the ballot this year will do is take votes away from Kerry and thus get Bush reelected (which is bad. Very, very bad). If Nader had more support, such as a 3rd of the people liked him and he stood a chance against Bush, then I'd be okay with him being on the ballot. Though I'd still want Kerry.

[Scipio7777777]

would you have been agasit ross perot running against bush sr. and clinton?

[hammocksleeper]

Well, I agree, except in the case of this election. It's a showdown between Bush and Kerry. All having Nader on the ballot this year will do is take votes away from Kerry and thus get Bush reelected (which is bad. Very, very bad). If Nader had more support, such as a 3rd of the people liked him and he stood a chance against Bush, then I'd be okay with him being on the ballot. Though I'd still want Kerry.
OK, perhaps you're right when you say Nader is "taking away (stealing?) votes from Kerry," but please don't try and tell me who to vote for by restricting who gets on the ballot. There are lots of good initiatives out there that serve to mitigate the problem of "Nader vote swindling." Take a look at this, I just found out about it today:

votepair.org

If you were planning on voting for a third party candidate, such as the Green party or Libertarian candidates, but you live in a swing state, you can "swap" your vote with someone who lives in a state that more solidly favors a single candidate. For example, Bush will almost certainly win the state of Alabama, so a vote for Kerry doesn't mean much. It means much more in a swing state such as Florida, and the site will pair someone who wants to vote for Kerry in a securely Republican state with someone who lives in a swing state but would rather vote for someone other than Kerry. These people agree to vote for the other's choice. An interesting concept.

[Valjean]

Meh...well, I don't really wanna limit people's voting...

I just don't want anyone voting for Nader. :P

[Scipio7777777]

That's a bad thing.

You just want Nader on the ballots so he can steal votes from Kerry as those who would likely vote for Kerry would vote for Nader where as those who would likely vote for Bush don't vote for Nader. You know Nader isn't going to win. We shouldn't put canidates on the ballot if they aren't going to win, because then they're stealing votes for another canidate who is much more likely to get into the White House.
Meh...well, I don't really wanna limit people's voting...

I just don't want anyone voting for Nader. :P
Do i smell a hypocrite?

[Valjean]

Do i smell a hypocrite?
OMG FLIP-FLOP!!1!11!!

Heh, oh well. Like politicians don't flip-flop (Not just Kerry). :P

But yeah...I don't really want to keep people off the ballot, I just don't want people to vote for some people on the ballot, like Nader. I wasn't thinking clearly before, then HS brought something to my attention and I changed my oppinion.

but please don't try and tell me who to vote for by restricting who gets on the ballot.
So to that I responded:

Meh...well, I don't really wanna limit people's voting...

I just don't want anyone voting for Nader. :P
So yeah.