Several minor parties are hoping for unusually high shares of the vote this year, so as to give them ballot status in states where they don’t usually poll enough votes to remain on the ballot.
Libertarians hope to meet goals in the following states in which they usually don’t get enough votes to remain on: (1) Illinois, where 5% of the vote for any statewide race keeps the party automatically on the ballot in 2012 (for statewide office only). Libertarians have only once before met this goal in Illinois, in 1994. (2) Iowa, where 2% for Governor would make the party ballot-qualified for the first time ever; (3) Maryland, where 1% for Governor would keep the party on the ballot; the party has only tried to get 1% for Maryland Governor once before, in 2002, and only got .68%; (4) New Hampshire, where 4% for either Governor or U.S. Senator would make the party ballot-qualified for the first time since 1996; (5) New York, where 50,000 votes for Governor would give the party qualified status for the first time ever; (6) Texas, where 2% for Governor would keep the party on the ballot for the next four years (Libertarians always poll 5% for one of the lesser statewide offices but that only gives ballot status for two more years); only once before, in 1990, has the party polled 2% for Governor of Texas.
Also, the better the party does for Governor of Georgia, the better its chances of gaining ballot status for all U.S. House, state legislative, and county partisan offices. The law requires 20%. Although this is a very difficult requirement, if the party polls 10% for Governor, or even 5% for Governor, its chances of overturning the state’s restrictive definition of “party” would be greatly enhanced, the higher its percentage. The past best showing for Libertarians for Governor of Georgia was in 2006, when Garrett Hayes polled 3.84%.
The Green Party hopes to poll 3% for Governor of Arkansas for the first time, which would maintain its qualified status. The best the party has done for Governor of Arkansas so far was in 2006, when Jim Lendall polled 1.63% in a four-person race. This year Lendall is one of only three candidates on the ballot. The Green Party also hopes to poll 1% for Governor of Maryland; its best past showing was .87% in 2006. And it hopes to poll 50,000 votes for Governor of New York, which it has done only once before in its history, in 1998, when Al Lewis polled 52,533 votes. Of course, the Illinois Green Party hopes to again exceed 5% for Governor of Illinois, in order to keep its full party status.
The Constitution Party is already ballot-qualified in Colorado, but if its gubernatorial nominee, Tom Tancredo, polls 10%, it will be a qualified major party and will have a chance to participate in the random selection process with the Democratic and Republican Parties for the top spot on ballots.
The Moderate Party is hoping to poll 5% for Governor of Rhode Island, so as to keep the party qualified. It has never before run for Governor of Rhode Island.
This post does not mention vote tests in certain other states this year, in which it is normal for the parties to meet the vote test. For example, the Green Party is virtually certain to regain its status as a qualified party in Massachusetts, because it has always polled enough votes to meet the Massachusetts vote test in any election year that has more statewide offices than just President on the ballot. Rather, this post concentrates on vote tests that normally don’t get met, but which may this year.
Nick Youngers, a Libertarian Party activist who now lives in South Korea, has started the “Libertarian Donors Club”, to stimulate donations to Libertarians running in some of the races described above. IndependentPoliticalReport has more information about the club here.
The Peace and Freedom Party of California should be able to pull 2% or more for at least one of its nominees for state office; that would qualify the Party for four more years.
This is a very critical time for PFP-CA due to the new, upcoming, “top-two” voting procedures in the Golden State. The Party is at a crossroads situation and will not be able to continue on in its present form. If PFP-CA goes down the correct road, it will adapt, evolve, grow, and flower. If it takes the wrong road, it will become more rigid, devolve, stagnate, and die out.
The choice is there; the opportunities are there; and I intend to be part of the process. That is one of the main reasons why I changed my voter registration back to PFP-CA on the ninth of this month. In addition, I want to be at least one person who will attempt to bring a more moderating influence to the Party.
Every election is N-E-W and has ZERO to do with any prior election — by the very definition of *election* = making NEW choices.
The Libertarians have never received even 25,000 votes for New York governor. I don’t think this will be the year that they more than double their previous best showing.
The Peace & Freedom Party met the vote test eight times (1970, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 2006). The only time it ever failed was 1998, when there were 8 parties (also, PFP wasn’t on in 2002). I am assuming PFP will meet the 2% vote test this year. I didn’t want to list all the instances when it is just routine for a party to pass a vote test. That would be too long a list.
If a party fails a vote test, will that party be off the ballot or do they have a four year window by getting the required percentage. Some states give you two chances to keep ballot status, which includes off presidential years, for statewide office.
None of the states mentioned in the blog post give parties two chances to meet the vote test, except that in Rhode Island, after a party meets the vote test once, it can stay on for two elections. But the Moderate Party has never met the Rhode Island vote test, so it’s do or die this year for the Moderate Party.
Thank you Richard for pulling together the information on vote tests for this year. I like Nick Younger’s idea and will be supporting candidates that he identifies.
California has six parties. There are currently two methods for a party to remain qualified for the ballot until 2014. Each party must meet at least one of those methods. One is for a party to receive 2% of the vote for one of its statewide candidates in a gubernatorial election, and the other is to have 1% of the vote at the preceding gubernatorial election. Starting in 2011 the vote test is eliminated because the voters passed Prop 14 which limits the general election to only two candidates. With alternative parties candidates not reaching any statewide general election ballot, people will eventually register into one of the two larger parties or decline to stateand alternative parties will cease to exist.
Dear C.T.,
The new, upcoming, “top-two” process is the reason why I stated that PFP-CA is at a serious crossroads situation. If the new process continues to hold up in the courts in its present form, it is going to make it critically difficult for the smaller parties (although the American Independent Party, by virtue of its high amount of registrants, may more easily survive). Please read my statement (#1 above) again.
The Green Party and the Libertarian Party are going to be facing a somewhat similar situation in California as the Peace and Freedom Party. They will need to adapt, evolve, and grow – if they are to survive and flourish.
The Constitution Party of Maryland has a slate of statewide candidates and is hopeful of drawing enough votes (1%) to maintain its ballot status for 2012. The CP in Maryland has done a terrific job in just a couple of years of building an active and growing new political party in that state.
the Constitution Party of Florida has its first candidate for senate for the first time in their history.
Iowa Poll: How the third-party candidates fared
Blog post by Carol Hunter • chunter@dmreg.com • September 26, 2010
Iowans will see the names of six candidates for governor on their Nov. 2 ballots. The Iowa Poll conducted last week asked likely voters about the full field.
The exact wording of the question and the results:
If the election for governor were held today and the candidates listed on the ballot were as follows, for whom would you vote? (Candidate names are rotated.)
Terry Branstad for the Republicans, 52 percent
Chet Culver for the Democrats, 33 percent
Jonathan Narcisse for the Iowa Party, 3 percent
Eric Cooper for the Libertarians, 2 percent
David Rosenfeld for the Socialist Workers Party, 1 percent
Gregory James Hughes with no party affiliation, 1 percent
None of these/someone else (volunteered), 2 percent
Not sure, 6 percent
#8 This misinterprets California law.
There is no restriction on which party a voter may register with. California in essence allows write-ins for party registration. Proposition 14 simply recasts a voter registration of “intent to affiliate with party at the next primary” to “discloses party preference”. A voter who currently intends to affiliate with the Salmon Yoga Party at the next primary, will be recast as preferring the Salmon Yoga Party. In registration reports, such registrations are aggregated as “Other”. A voter whose registration currently Declines To State (DTS) an intent to affiliate will be recast as No Party Preference (NPP). These are clearly separate categories.
A candidate may have either their preference from their voter registration appear on the ballot, or may have nothing.
After Proposition 14, a “qualified” party will have the following privileges:
(1) Conduct a presidential preference primary.
(2) Have a presidential candidate on the general election ballot.
(3) Have endorsements for voter-nominated offices appear on the sample ballot distributed with the voters pamphlet.
(4) Be subject to a lot of unenforceable regulation of internal party affairs.
(5) Elect county central committees at the primary.
What you should be working for is:
(1) Convert presidential preference primaries to a direct primary.
(2) Reduce the petition requirement for presidential candidates to the same as for gubernatorial candidates.
(3) Require a majority in the presidential election, with a runoff if no candidate receives a majority.
(4) Convert the performance qualification for presidential primaries and presidential nominations to be based on the presidential election.
(5) Rip out all party-specific language from the Elections Code. Simply define the necessary party functions for state conduct of elections, and that ultimate control of party affairs is vested in voters registered with the party, and let party rules define everything else.
(6) Make the party qualification standard multi-tiered:
(i) A political party should only require a minimal number of registered voters (a few 100), bylaws, officers, and registration with the state. Since qualification would be based solely on registration, and the number would be small, the only way to qualify would be by petition. This would eliminate the write-in option from voter registration forms, but it would also make a defined set of targets for candidate party preference.
Elections for party officers could be convention or mail-only ballots.
(ii) A higher standard could be maintained for presidential primaries, which would become direct nominating primaries.
(iii) Endorsement privileges could be an intermediate level, based on the practicality of printing sample ballots. Since California has relatively few voter-nominated (partisan) offices this might be a quite small number.
See the 1989 Eu case.
1. PUBLIC stuff in the nomination process (if any) — including filling any candidate vacancies.
2. PRIVATE internal clubby stuff — platforms, electing clubby party officers, etc.
Dear Jim Riley (#13): It seems to me that you missed the point that C.T. Weber (#8) was making – just as he missed the point that I was making (#1).
C.T. wrote: “Starting in 2011 the vote test is eliminated because the voters passed Prop 14 which limits the general election to only two candidates. With alternative parties[‘] candidates not reaching any statewide general election ballot, people will eventually register into one of the two larger parties or decline to state and alternative parties will cease to exist.” It does not seem to me that you addressed that issue at all (and you wrote a long article while not addressing it). My point is that this will be the new reality unless the “top-two” is overturned in the court system and that the smaller parties (other than the American Independent Party) will have to adapt, change, evolve, grow, and flower – or die out.
#15 None of the candidates in the general election for a voter-nominated office will represent the party that they have a preference for, so from 2014 (first gubernatorial election under the Top 2 Open Primary reform) no parties will maintain their qualification on the basis of their performance in a statewide election.
But before becoming too alarmed, you need to recognize what privileges are extended to qualified parties. The main one is related to presidential elections. So why not make the qualification tied to performance in the presidential election. It is plain goofy to let a party have a presidential candidate, simply because its candidate for insurance commissioner received 2% of the vote.
If anything, the old system discouraged registration in the P&F party, because the party primaries were usually meaningless. You don’t have to be a member to vote in the general election.
You need to accept the new candidate-centered election system, where parties support candidates, as opposed to the old party-centered system where parties ran candidates.
We may have to accept the new system (if it holds up during the court procedures), Jim. That is what I have been saying: accept (the new reality), adapt, evolve, grow, thrive, and flower. That does not mean that we have to like it.
The party hacks will NO longer have party hack U.S.A. Prez candidates on the general election ballots [technically groups of 12th Amdt Prez Electors]in 2012 ???
“Top-two” will create a one party state.
That single party will hold a single primary that happens to nominate two candidates.
Only members of that single party will be able to participate. Anyone who does not wish to participate in the single, state controlled party will have the two nominees from the single party to choose in November and no one else.
Over time, the current parties will disappear. Powerfull factions will evolve within the single party. They will learn to work to control both winning candidates by controlling issue postioning, funding, and endorsements within the single party primary.
Eventually, the monolithic nominees of the single party state will restrict access to the single party nominating primary through their control of the legislative process.
At this point, if adopted nationwide, the US will have an evil, single-party, c o m m u n i s t, electoral system.
We will have fewer choices on the ballot than in the old single party Soviet Union.
That is the underlying intent of the supporters of “top-two.” They are perfectly aware of what they are creating. It is the evil intent of a tiny cabal. Despite their lies and legalistic arguments of minutiae, their intent is to end free elections in America.
“Top-two” must be stopped.
Dear Richard Winger:
Since I consider you to be one of the few real (and fair) experts on the “top-two” system, would you please explain to those of us who are still trying to learn about it how, precisely, the political parties will retain (or not retain) ballot status. Is it going to be based soley on the numbers of registrants in the parties, or what?
Yes, it will be solely on the number of registered voters. They will need to keep membership equal to 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, which will probably be 100,000 after November 2010.
Does that mean utilizing the gubernatorial votes of the primary election – since it is likely that only the two large parties will make it to the general election?
It’s not a vote test. It is solely based on how many registered members a party has.
Never mind that question; I think that I understand it now. It will depend on how many total votes there are in the General Election for Governor of California. Is that correct?
Well, it seems clear to me that those of us in the Peace and Freedom Party of California (as well as those in the California Green and Libertarian Parties) have to get more serious about party building through voter registration drives. There does not appear to be as much pressure on the American Independent Party of California; that Party seems to have no problem keeping a sufficient amount of registrants. Every party should be trying to grow, however (although I would like to see the Republican Party keep shrinking all across the country).