The Election Law Journal is an eight-year old quarterly journal. All the articles are peer-reviewed, and the journal is the only scholarly publication that covers the entire spectrum of issues related to election law. It is found in university law libraries and university social science libraries. Anyone may subscribe, but it costs $771 per year.
The most recent issue contains a book review of Theresa Amato’s “Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny”, a 432-page book published last year. The review is by Professor Mark Rush, Professor of Politics and Law and head of the Department of Politics at Washington and Lee University. The review is very favorable to the book. Rush says, “Amato’s call for systemwide electoral reform is unassailable. The structures and the practices that characterize American elections are indefensible…It is clear that the American presidential election system would not survive the scrutiny of the electoral observers we send to other countries…Amato’s argument is powerful and eloquent.” The review concludes by saying that the book is a “piercing, thoughtful, well-written analysis of the contemporary American electoral process.”
Rush also adds, “Her account of Nader’s being shut out of presidential debates in Illinois, banned from the buildings in which they were taking place, and being threatened with arrest if he tried to attend the debate is truly amazing and frightening.”
I enjoyed Theresa Amato’s book.
It was an enjoyable, informative walk down memory line looking back a decade ago.
2000
Having personally collected 12,500 signatures in 2000 to put Professor Tex Wood on the ballot for U.S. Senate, 2,000 signatures to put Rick “for Rail” Herron on the ballot for U.S. House, and 12,000 signatures to put Ralph “for Rail” Nader on the ballot as the Green Party candidate for U.S. President, Theresa Amato and her husband were very familiar figures.
Learning what Ms Amato and Mr. Nader were dealing with, while I was on the street (and a few hundred others like me were gathering signatures)was fascinating.
It is amazing how many of those issues from 1996, 2000, (before, and since) were predicted and highlighted by Green Party candidates…Ralph chief among them.
Thanks for the news of the review.
Regarding this quote,
Rush also adds, “Her account of Nader’s being shut out of presidential debates in Illinois, banned from the buildings in which they were taking place, and being threatened with arrest if he tried to attend the debate is truly amazing and frightening.â€
I’m on a lunch break right now from collecting petition signatures.
As veterans know, and fellow 2010 petition gatherers know, we continue to confronted with such threats and abuse every day.
The positive lesson to take from that last sentence is that Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Independents, and Green Party folk get out there every day and continue to confront the obstacles, and succeed getting on the ballot across America.
Ballot access is such a delicate yet important issue for the American electoral system. I would like to add the following question: what if the % that’s used for signatures could be used for votes? In other words, if a state “n” decides to say that “ballot access is for parties who get 5% of the votes for Governor or President” but would instead say “ballot access is for parties that get 5% of the votes for the winning candidate for Governor or President”, that would be a huge step forward.
1. Uniform definition of Elector in all of the U.S.A.
2. Equal nominating petitions.
3. P.R. legislative bodies
4. A.V. nonpartisan executive officers and all judges.
NO party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions are needed — which now are super- dangerous in producing party hack extremist candidates.
#4: How about a nominating petition with ONE signature – the candidate’s signature? That would be equal would it not?
This principle of one person, one vote, one nomination could also reduce or eliminate the problems you number 1,3 & 4.
# 5 Sorry a telephone book ballot is a bit much.
Perhaps 0.1 percent for legislative body candidates — with P.R.
Perhaps 0.3 percent for executive/judicial offices — with A.V.