The Monkey Cage is a political science blog established in 2007. Here is a general discussion of California’s Proposition 14, the top-two election system, or jungle primary.
The opening says Proposition 14 passed with 54% of the vote, but every indication, as more and more ballots are being counted, is that the true figure is 53%.
Today’s Fargo Forum (June 18th) had a story on how a Libertarian candidate was not placed on the primary ballot due to an error on the part of the Secretary of State, but will be on the general election ballot anyways. Probably, one of the first significant report I seen on state third parties in the State by the Forum in a long while.
Richard:
As I have already expressed in a previous post, I have mixed feeling about Proposition 14, because philosophically, I believe the voters – not the parties and their hacks – should decide who the nominees for public office will be.
George Washington strongly warned against “factionalism” and political parties over some 200 years ago. Washington, who only believed white men were qualified to vote, still believed men – not party bosses – should decide who will govern us. It is the “partisan political system” which has for the most part destroyed this nation -not the voters.
I understand your desire to have a choice on the federal law-mandated congressional election day. And in the previous post, I had suggested (if Proposition 14 is not overturned) to work to move the “Top Two” system from June to the “November-December” time-frame like Louisiana has. You reminded me that new federal law prohibits such a “November-December” time-frame for the future.
Still, this would be the best of both worlds. Voters like you, who feel they are voting for the candidate of their choice ONLY when such is held during the election enviroment of a General Election in November, would have that choice, but for those (like me) who feel the voters,i.e. the people, should decide who will be the nominees,(and the office holders) would too have that choice.
Even if Proposition is upheld as law, it is not all lost for 3rd parties. The problem with many 3rd partisans (and some independents) is they want to “whine” and “moan” like some spoiled child. They don’t want to get off their lazy butts and put forth attractive candidates and raise some money for their campaigns. Some 3rd partisans are only interested in “getting a message out,” than winning. You can get that message out in the first round of a “Top Two” primary system, just as you can in one where the 3rd party nominees and the independent candidates ARE listed on the General Election ballot in November.
In the once “Solid South,” the Democratic Primary in most of the states was THE election. As many as 10 or 12 candidates, for example, would run for Governor of a state. Sometimes 5 or 6 of the candidates were well-financed, and had evenly divided support (percentage-wise) among the voters. Usually a 2nd Democratic Runoff was reqired because no candidate had a clear majority and state law demanded such runoff.
In this example, every body knew the winner of the 2nd Democratic Primary would be the next governor, still his/her name went onto the General Election ballot (more of a formality-and a requirement of law) and sometimes, and sometimes not, faced a GOP nominee (who usually in most cases was an “unknown.” Sometimes they even faced a 3rd party nominee or an Independent.
Where maybe as many as 500,000 or more voters participated in either the 1st or 2nd Democratic Primary, usually only half that many – sometimes even less – voted in the General Election with the Democratic nominee getting any where from 80% to 95% of the vote.
The point I am making is, these voters were just as emotionally involved in the “political enviroment” of the primary election as you are a general election. I’m not suggesting you are this way, but I suspect many 3rd partisans salivate when they see the name of their 3rd party on a general election ballot. I suspect this is one of the reasons why many 3rd partisans opposed Proposition 14. But if 3rd partisans, will stop their childish complaining, get off their duffs and run candidates in races they might have a chance to win, we might start seeing more 3rd party nominees make it to the “Top Two.”
Lastly, many 3rd partisans are lazy even when their nominees would be listed on the general election ballot-if they can just get them on the ballot. About 3 or 4 years ago, I asked a local State Senator to introduce a bill into the Alabama Senate which would have allowed 3rd parties and independents the option of paying filing fees, or collect signatures on petitions for ballot position. This bill actually passed out of the Senate Ethics & Elections Committee. But because of lack of support elsewhere – particularly from 3rd party leaders – it died.
While this bill was being debated, I actually had one leader of a 3rd party in Alabama to tell me on the telephone to the effect “I don’t like this bill because it means I’ll have to pay X number of dollars for filing fees.” I was so flabbergasted with his comment, I didn’t immediately think to retort, “well, why should you be paying the filing fees anyway?” “Shouldn’t the candidate you’ve nominated have some motivation to pay his or her fee himself or herself”? “If the candidate is really serious about running for office, wouldn’t you think he or she would do whatever is necessary to raise funds at least for the filing fee?” Give me a break!!
But this is the problem with many 3rd partisans and 3rd party leaders. They have no political savvy and some have little understanding of the process. Some don’t know the difference between a precinct and a primary.
As I’ve said before, “3rd partisans are their own worse enemy.” No need to say anymore!
#2, your lengthy comment doesn’t even address the point about how the ballot measure is responsible for making it vastly more difficult for minor parties to remain on the presidential ballot. Nor do you discuss how it injures write-ins. California voters in the past have always been free to cast write-in votes in the general election and have them counted…always. Now that’s gone. And if Jim Riley posts here and says the write-in ban and the more difficult party qualification can be changed in the legislature, I already know that, but that’s not likely to happen. Also Law Professor Rick Hasen even thinks the write-in ban will be upheld in the courts. So don’t gloss over these harms.
Write-ins — 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 is still around.
P.R. and App.V. = NO primaries are needed.
See the various multi-party P.R. regimes in *modern* civilized nations —
New Zealand
Germany
Israel
Etc.
— unlike the Stone Age party hack minority rule gerrymander systems in the nearly dead U.S.A. — inherited from England / Great Britain in the early 1600s (when P.R. did NOT exist).
I can’t believe this. Otherwise intelligent people quibling about Prop 14 as if there were ANYTHING about it which rises above its intended purpose – that of further “fixing” elections in the U.S.
#2 above should know better. The concept completely disconnects party function from the process, even that of the two so-called Major Parties. It goes in exactly the opposite direction from progress towards an improved political discourse, which would be made possible by better voter participation in Party affairs absent nonsense like the “top-two” concept.
#2 has some nerve… accusing alternative party people of laziness because they don’t want to have to pay a bribe to get into the works. After suffering the kind of crap I’ve dealt with for the last 12 years, I have no patience with half-measures either. True new parties – if they’re on target with their purpose – shouldn’t put up with such stuff, and any state govt which imposes fees is only playing a different octave of the same old tune, petition or no petition. No, #2, they’re not lazy. They’re worn out from beating their heads against the bricks trying to get in.
With “top-two”, party activity is meaningless in practical terms. The SOS of every state which adopts such an abomination should at least have the decency to come out with provisions to outlaw party activity in favor of an auction on the Capitol steps; because that’s what its all about with “top-two”: Elective offices to those whose special interest buy-outs are the largest, and the voting public be damned meanwhile.
Your comments make me physically ill. Shame on you.
Charles Foster
Abilene, TX
#2: You describe the working of the old one-party system in the South. Louisiana’s “top two”/”open primary” is an extension of that system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.
“… 500,000 or more voters participated in either the 1st or 2nd Democratic Primary, usually only half that many – sometimes even less – voted in the General Election…”
In 1959, the last time that the Democratic nominee for governor of Mississippi ran unopposed, there was a total of 57,641 votes in the general election.
Kentucky and Oklahoma are the only states outside the South that have party runoff (or second) primaries, and KY will likely eliminate its second primary provision before next year. Also, TN, FL, and VA do not have second primaries, and as of 2012, the only party primaries that Louisiana will have will be for president. And NC has a 40% threshold to avoid a second primary.
#2: “… new federal law prohibits such a “November-December” time-frame for the future.”
Say what? The law says that, if a state wants to ensure that its members of Congress are elected with 50%-plus, it may have a runoff at some point following the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Both Louisiana and Georgia now have December runoffs.
The party hack gerrymander MONSTERS in the gerrymander Congress and all gerrymander State legislatures (ALL puppet robots of the left/right special interest gangs) have created the circa 16 TRILLION govt fixed debts since 1929 — with Trillions and Trillions more in unfunded predictable liabiities — social insecurity, etc.
Result – a quite possible economic collapse of Western Civilization.
The quicker the party hack gerrymander regimes are doomed the better.
P.R. and App.V.
Richard:
I know you are concerned about write-in opportunities being lost, as well as ballot access being maintained for presidental elections. I agree, my comments did not fully address those rightful concerns. And I am concerned too whether you realize it or not.
But my point is, that we are our own worst enemies Richard! I’ve been involvd in 3rd party activity – on and off – for some 40 years. Like another writer said, “they’re worn out from beating their heads against the bricks trying to get in.” I know full well what he means. I’ve been there too.
But as I’ve on several occassions, expressed to you and others, this 3rd party and independent ballot access struggle has GOT TO BECOME A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. But most of you ignore me. You seem to think if we’ll just keep trying to get legislation passed, and with a favorable court decision here and there, we’ll change all of this.
Richard, at the rate of our gains compared to our loses, the Millennium will have come and gone before we see any real progress.
What we need to do is stop critizing other people’s suggestions – whether they are off target or not – and set up the nucleus for a civil right movement to address these issues. As I’ve shared before, COFOE could be the organization, and BAN could be the medium, used to target certain states to protest in, i.e. picket selected polling places with 3rd partisans and independents (even some from all neighboring states) holding signs, etc., pointing out to the onlooking voters how 3rd parties and independents are denied participation in the election process for their candidates. With the right kind of media exposure, the issue will in time spread.
But as I’ve said, nobody even appears to give a hoot. They’d rather “bitch” and “moan.”
And I’m just about tired of hearing all of the “bitching” and “moaning” that I care to. I’m, even as I write this, considering moving to Florida – where finally an equal and reasonable ballot access law for all parties and independents exists, and help to organize a county committee for the Independent Party there.
In a small county in Florida, with the option of paying the filing fee or collecting the signatures for the candidates – which is obtainable in a small county – I could enjoy seeing a 3rd party grow and have influence, while the rest of you who refuse to accept reality can continue to “cry in your beer.”
Nothing personal intended by these comments, but that is the way I see it!
Charles Foster, I’m sorry if my previous comments “make you physically ill,” but I call them as I see them. With some 40 years – off and on – in the 3rd party and independent arena, I know what I’m talking about, and I too have become “worn out beating my head against the bricks trying to get in.” And it’s the 3rd parties leaders who are often the worst obstacle – not the legislators dealing with a ballot access bill. A previous comment of mine on this or another issue on BAN, illustrates just what I mean by the “obstacles caused by 3rd party leaders.”
You obviously do not believe in the wisdom and advice give by our greatest President – George Washington – regarding political parties. You fail – for whatever reason – to accept that political parties – even the 2 major parties – are the cause of the problems of our nation. Yes, political parties have a role to play and should play a role, but it’s the “people,” not the party, or the political hacks, or the doctrinaire philosophers, who should decide who gets nominated or elected.
Remember the first words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution which begins with: “We the people…” Yes, “We the people…” not “We the parties…” or “We the political hacks…” or “We the political doctrinaires…” But, “We the people…”
If you want a political party whose sole purpose it is to “indoctrinate” the voters, then find one, or organize one, and work within it. And whether you have to operate within a “non-partisan” election (i.e., mostly city or town elections), the first round of the “Top Two” system, or in the traditional one that allows the names of your nominees to be on the General Election ballot, then operate to your heart’s content and preach your philosophy or doctrine to the voters as you wish. And if your candidates are fortunate enough to convince the voters – whether in a “non-partisan” election, the first round of a “Top Two” system, or the traditional system, to be “nominated” in the “Top Two” system, or elected under the traditional system, then more power to you!
But you do not have an “automatic” or even a constitutional right to have YOUR party or its nominees on the ballot at the expense of the wishes of the voters. The voter’s wishes come first.
Lastly, Mr. Foster, I’m sorry, but our election process has to have rules regarding ballot access -or else you have chaos in the process. Otherwise, you’d have 25 or more candidates running for every office being voted on. The election ballot would be as “large as a bed sheet.”
This is why the courts have ruled – and I concur with them – that a process of gathering signatures is constitutional to prevent, as the court points out, “fraudulent or frivolous candidacies [and] ensure efficient election procedures, and minimize voter confusion as the result of overcrowded ballots.” I do, however, feel that a 1% signature requirement, rather than a 5% signature requirement as the courts have ruled, is more fairer and constitutional, but I also believe a 1% of the salary filing fee should be allowed as an option to signatures, and it is also fair and constitutional, although I am not aware of any court decisions regarding filing fee requirements. Perhaps Richard is more up to date on this.
I’m sorry if you believe paying a filing fee is a “bribe” to participate in the process, but a reasonable filing fee is a reasonable requirement to demonstrate that the candidates or the party is serious, and not just attempting to “draw attention to themselves” or to “see how many votes they can get” even though they don’t raise a finger or spend one penny on campaigning. Our election process is a serious process or our republic, that men have fought and died for from the Revolutionary War until the present. It is NOT a game to be toyed with or played for amusement.
Whether Libertarians, Constitutionalists, American Independents, Reformers, Greens, Peace and Freedomites, or straight out “Independents” like myself, it IS time to stop the moaning, the bitching, and the finger-pointing and work together to make this ballot access struggle a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE as I’ve attempted to call for in other comments. COFOE could be the organization,and BAN the medium to coordinate and organize.
But I am afraid that many 3rd partisans suffer from what is called the “Brooklyn Dodger” syndrome. The old Brooklyn Dodgers would win pennant after pennant, and would usually play the New York Yankees in the World Series. They, accept for 1955 World Series against the NY Yankees, would lose series after series. Following the loss, Dodger fans would proclaim, “Wait until next year.” “Wait until next year.”
The truth is, that for many of these Dodger fans, they DIDN’T care if they ever won or not. They enjoyed the “loser” status, the “underdog” status, and they came to prefer that “loser” status. Many 3rd partisans are like this. They would rather “moan” and “complain” about not getting on the ballot, election after election, because they know if their candidates DID get on the ballot, they might have to then start acting like serious parties and candidates and start offering some real answers for solutions to the issues of our states and nation. It’s easier and more fun to complain and point fingers, than it is to offer answers.
I know I’ve stepped on toes, but I’ve gotten to the point, after some 40 years of this childish and immature activity of some 3rd paritisans and their leaders, that I’ve about had it, and don’t care if I step on some toes.
So if you want me to stop sharing what I believe are the REAL problems regarding ballot access, then say so and I will.
To Steve Rankin:
I was basing my comments regarding the “November-December” time-frame based on what I had understood Richard to have written. Correct him, if he is in error.
#3 You have not explained why you think that performance of a party in the Insurance Commissioner race should determine whether or not the party has a presidential preference primary or presidential candidate on the ballot.
The party qualification change does not take effect until after the 2014 elections, with effect in the 2016 presidential election.
If anything, Proposition 14 has exposed how ridiculous it is to require 173,000+ signatures to run for President, and only 65 to run for governor.
Is there any other State where the ratio is anywhere close to 2500:1?
Embrace the reform.
Embrace the dark side, Luke. It is your destiny!
#12 “If anything, Proposition 14 has exposed how ridiculous it is to require 173,000+ signatures to run for President, and only 65 to run for governor.”
Indeed it is ridiculous. Would you agree that it’s also ridiculous for statewide independent candidates in Texas to have to collect 43,991 signatures in barely two months to qualify for the ballot? How about 74,108 signatures for Presidential candidates?
In connection with the coming top 2 primary in CA (pending any court cases by the usual suspects) —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Assembly_elections,_2008
[Shocking that even 9 of the 80 Assembly districts were allegedly competitive.]
The best minority rule gerrymander maps that money could buy — with the 2000 Census low/high tech computerized gerrymander programs.
Even better/worse EVIL maps for the 2012-2020 elections using the 2010 Census programs ??? Duh.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent ANTI-Democracy minority rule — by the arrogant EVIL party hacks — a bunch of mini-Stalins/Hitlers in CA.
#3 Does Rick Hasen think that the write-in provisions (Section 8606) will be upheld by a court, or that they might be.
Elections Code (Section 13) says that a voter has a right to cast a write-in vote in all elections, including the general election for a voter-nominated office. That right would be nullified if there are NO circumstances where a write-in vote could be counted.
Elections Code (Section 13) says that a candidate has a right to run as a write-in candidate in any election, including the general election for a voter-nominated office, subject to Section 15341. That right would be nullified if there are NO circumstances where the candidate could be elected.
Elections Code (Section 13204 and 13207) require that a write-in space be printed on all ballots.
Elections Code (Section 15341) says that a write-in vote shall not be counted unless a candidate has complied with Part 3 of Division 8 (beginning with Section 8600).
Elections Code (Section 8600 to 8604) Require a write-in candidate (in order for write-in votes to be counted) to file a Statement of Write-in Candidacy along with 65 signatures for statewide office, or 40 signatures for a district offices, at least 14 days before the election. No fee is required.
Elections Code (Section 8605 and 8606) are not requirements that a write-in candidate may comply with, but rather directives to election officials canvassing the vote as to how to interpret the number of write-in votes that were counted for a candidate.
California Constitution Article II, Section 2.5 says that a voter has the right to have a valid vote counted. A name written-in the space provided by the government on the official ballot form of a candidate who has totally complied with all regulations required of a write-in candidate and is qualified for the office is a valid vote.
Now let’s look at the single section of the Elections Code that supports your notion:
8606. A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted.
It literally say “A person (…) shall not be counted.” where the ellipsis represents a phrase qualifying person.
So what does it mean for a person to “not be counted”? Does it mean that if a voter writes the name of a candidate on a ballot, the candidate will be omitted from the census?
It simply does not make sense. If we look at the construction of Section 8605, we see that they apply not to the counting of votes, but what happens after the (write-in) votes are counted. So the most reasonable interpretation is that Section 8606 says that the votes will be counted, but under no condition, including a write-in candidate receiving the most votes, may the candidate be elected.
But that is contrary to Elections Code (Section 15450 and 15452) that specify that elections are by plurality.
#16 Standard statutory stuff –
Most recent law applies.
Specific prevails over general.
How soon before the many gerrymander MONSTERS in the CA legislature change ALL laws affecting their gerrymander survival ??? — especially the ballot access sections in the CA election code directly affecting them.
Which of the New Age gerrymander incumbents in ALL States is NOT a Stalin/Hitler MONSTER from Hell ???
#7 Beginning with the 2010 general election, overseas absentee ballots must be sent 45 days before an election date. A state may apply for a hardship waiver explaining how they are going to make sure overseas voters have enough time to vote. In particular the new law says:
42 USC 1973ff-1(a)(9) if the State declares or otherwise holds a runoff election for Federal office, establish a written plan that provides absentee ballots are made available to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters in manner that gives them sufficient time to vote in the runoff election.
#14 They are reasonably consistent standards. The standard for presidential elections is based on votes cast for president; while that for statewide office is based on votes cast for governor.
#17 There is absolutely nothing in SB 6 that says that the a space for casting a write-in shall not be printed on a ballot, nor that a candidate may not file a statement of write-in candidacy for a general election for a voter-nominated office.
Section 8606 says specifically (paraphrase) “Gobbledygook” It can be interpreted in one of two ways:
It can be interpreted as meaning that “if a voter writes in the name of candidate in the space provided on the ballot for write-in votes and that candidate has filed a proper and timely statement of write-in candidacy to have write-in votes counted, that totally valid vote shall not be counted.” 8606 does not say that such a vote is not valid. It says that it shall not be counted. That is a violation of the state constitution that says valid votes shall be counted.
Alternatively, it can be interpreted as meaning, “even if the number of write-in votes cast for a write-in candidate who has filed a proper and timely statement of write-in candidacy to have his votes cast” is larger than that of any other candidate, the candidate may not be elected. That violates any rational definition of what an “election” is.
#19 By that standard, California used to be even more consistent than Texas prior to the passage of Prop 14. Your beef with California was that the requirement of 173,000 signatures for statewide independent candidates was excessive.
Do you believe that it’s excessive for statewide independent candidates in Texas to have to collect 43,991 signatures in barely two months to qualify for the ballot? How about 74,108 signatures for Presidential candidates?
#21 My beef with was with the opponents of Proposition 14 who declaimed you won’t see any independent candidates on the ballot after Proposition 14, neglecting to mention how rare they were currently (for example, 9 congressional candidates since 1964 in over a 1000 races, and no statewide races since 1978).
It is demonstrably easier to get on the ballot as an independent in Texas, than in California.
#22 Do you believe that it’s excessive for statewide independent candidates in Texas to have to collect 43,991 signatures in barely two months to qualify for the ballot? How about 74,108 signatures for Presidential candidates?
#23 I think you are using outdated numbers for President. It is now 80,875. If California calculated its requirement in a similar fashion, it would only require 135,773; and for governor 86,795.
Texas also requires lists of write-in candidates to be posted in each voting booth. Chuck Baldwin received roughly twice the write-in votes in Texas as he did in California.
Get a bit real.
CA SB 6 [the law enacted regarding Prop. 14] obviously will be torn apart (aka amended) by the party hacks in the CA legislature to reduce the number of candidates — i.e. even worse separate and unequal ballot access requirements — to the maximum extent possible to get past the moron courts.
For the clueless and delusional – Each New Age gerrymander left/right party hack incumbent has been since about 1964 [start of the Vietnam War] an arrogant EVIL ENEMY of the PEOPLE — think about the rubber stamp robot party hacks in the Stalin/Hitler legislative bodies — and the more recent robots in the Iraqi Saddam regime legislative bodies.
The gerrymander MONSTERS directly control about 40 percent of the U.S.A. economy — BIG $$$ are at stake.
P.R. and App.V. = NO primaries are needed.
#24 Do you believe that it’s excessive for statewide independent candidates in Texas to have to collect 43,991 signatures in barely two months to qualify for the ballot? How about 80,875 signatures for Presidential candidates?
#25 The political hacks don’t want to impose barriers on themselves. The 40 and 65 signatures are all that were needed to get on the primary ballot. They don’t want to make busywork for their own candidates. Any independent or 3rd party candidate who has the financial or popular support to be competitive will have no trouble meeting any petition standard that the major parties will be willing to set for their own candidates. If you start requiring a few 1000 signatures to get on the ballot for a district race, you are going to be cutting into your own supporters.
#26 I think the two month period is consistent with having nominations made contemporaneously. I think the signature thresholds are reasonably equivalent to the support demonstrated by the Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican parties in the past.
Texas does not have a filing fee for independent or minor party candidates.
#28 Thanks.
#27 Actually, Jim, you’d be surprised by some states. Virginia has the same signature requirements for primary ballot access for recognized political parties that independents and other candidates have for the general election. In addition, candidates in the primary need to pay a filing fee.
For the state legislature, the signature requirements are pretty modest (about 125 for House of Delegates and 250 for State Senate). However, statewide candidates need to come up with 10,000 signatures to appear on the primary ballot, including at least 400 in every Congressional District.
The 10,000 signatures also applies to the Presidential primaries in Virginia.
#27 WAKE UP.
The incumbent party hacks want NO opposition in *their* political concentration camps (aka gerrymander districts), if possible.
i.e. each party hack incumbent is the legislative TYRANT/DICTATOR of his/her concentration camp — and in many cases is also the executive tyrant [ward boss] — see the ROT in the Chicago, IL city council, etc.
The U.S.A. is as *democratic* as a rock on Mars — due to
1. Unequal ballot access laws.
2. Minority rule gerrymanders.
3. Plurality nominations in many areas.
4. Plurality elections in many areas.
I.E. one totally EVIL monarchy/oligarchy mess — since 1776.
The media is brain dead.
The party hack courts are super brain dead.
The fall of Rome will seem like child’s play compared to what is obviously coming in the various gerrymander regimes.
P.R. and App.V. — Save Western Civilization.
Prop 14 was a disaster that effectively made third parties illegal in CA. As third parties (containing the occasional pro-freedom choice) become more attractive, the establishment simply makes them illegal. Excellent strategy, …well played.
Now, contrast that with nonexistent libertarian strategy.
If there was any intelligence in the USA, then there would have been a full-scale violent rebellion when McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” was passed. Instead, the sheep simply acquiesced to yet another direct violation of basic American values as prosaic as democratic elections and free speech.
This shows me that we will eventually get the chance to see what kind of totalitarian America can produce. I imagine when he comes to America, wrapped in a flag and quoting the bible, he (or she!) will be something in-between Hitler, Stalin (can’t forget the “social safety net”-excuse-for-death-camps), and Kim Jong Il the younger. Maybe we can have our own mausolocracy, just like North Korea!
In fact, why even have a living dictator, when the oligarchy can probably make do with a dead one? Simply propping up Reagan’s withered corpse and playing a few anecdotal “anti-government” platitudes would probably be good enough for this nation of sleepwalking government school graduate zombies. LOL!!
The people in California will never notice their loss of semi-free elections as they transition to mock elections with zero choice. They wouldn’t know what to do with them if they had them, as evidenced by recent history. …And that includes the braindead “Libertarians”.
I have become convinced that the Federal Reserve Money Masters are better at politics than libertarians are. I see little evidence that Libertarians care about winning elections, or expanding individual freedom. Whenever anyone does anything that might possibly lead to electoral success of any kind, he is drummed out of the LP faster than he can say “Thanks for nothing!”…
I know why the LP can’t elect anyone. I have watched the LP elect people, and asked them how they did it. There is no interest in individual freedom in the LP. There is only a group of middle-aged (mostly white) men who want to impress younger women by having a “hip cool” radical political philosophy.
At any time the LP wants to elect libertarians they can call me up, and I’ll show them the way. …I’m not going to hold my breath waiting. LOL.
I’m off to go work for initiatives that don’t matter, in a crumbling country that voluntarily waived its last chance at individual freedom. I hope to save up enough money to be able to escape when this country that my parents’ generation ruined finally begins ramping up the execution of dissidents. Hopefully, I’ll get out before I can join Aaron Patterson’s cell block in this ugly cesspool of unfreedom we call the USA!
#29 Texas used to require petitions for primary candidates, but after there were a few instances of faked signatures, they decided to go with fee only. The in lieu signature thresholds are similar to the ballot qualification for independents (except statewide is 10,000).
For some reason, there are petition requirements in addition to the fees in the larger counties. Perhaps it is try to screen out some candidates (there are 100 judges or so in Harris County, so it would be pretty easy to sneak through a primary on a name, and then get elected on a straight ticket vote. So the parties hold signature signing parties where the screened judicial candidates can gather signatures.