Two leading British newspapers, the Guardian and the Observer, have jointly carried this story about U.S. politics, and about Americans Elect. One wonders what British readers think when they read that it requires 2,900,000 signatures to get on the ballot of all 50 states, which the newspaper says. In Britain, all candidates for House of Commons get on the ballot with 10 signatures plus a filing fee of 500 pounds, which is returned if the candidate polls 5%. All candidates are treated equally, relative to ballot access.
The newspaper story actually isn’t accurate about the petition total. It is possible to place a presidential candidate on the November ballot with approximately 750,000 valid signatures, if the easier method in each state is used. The higher figure is circulated because Americans Elect is not necessarily using the easier method in each state, especially California.
Circa 20 percent minority rule in the U.K. House of Commons — due to the many parties in the gerrymander districts.
Circa 30 percent minority rule in many legislative bodies in the U.S.A. – due to 2 Donkey/Elephant parties — BUT with many districts having ONLY a Donkey or Elephant since they are safe seat one party gerrymander districts.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
When will the Occupy stuff produce Dec. 1773 type stuff – aka Boston Tea Party — with later stuff – as in 1775-1776 ???
That is because the British use a system like that in California, Louisiana, and Washington where all candidates are placed on the same ballot.
If we take into account the difference in size between congressional districts and parliamentary constituencies (around 6 or 7 to 1), it actually takes fewer signatures to run for the national legislature in California than it does in Caledonia.
UKP 500 = US$ 790. So to have 7 candidates in an area the size of a congressional district would require about US$ 5000. Is even Florida that expensive?
What do you think of the idea of replacing the concept of in lieu of petitions with a return of deposit for candidates who receive a modest share of the vote?
BTW, the UK does not have a president.
It is very inaccurate to say that Britain uses a system like California, Louisiana and Washington. In Britain, parties nominate candidates, and only the nominees of a particular party may use that party’s label on the ballot. Furthermore, all candidates are permitted to run in the general election in Britain; whereas in California and Washington, the general election itself is limited to only two candidates.
The average number of candidates for the House of Commons on the general election ballot is between 5 and 6.
In Britain, a candidate completes a nomination form, which includes the candidate’s consent to nomination, and the signatures of 10 subscribers (subscribers may only subscribe to one candidate’s election). Formally, there is one “proposer” one “seconder”, and 8 others who indicate their assent by signing the nomination form. He also pays his deposit using either cash or a bank draft. Just as in California, the subscribers need not be affiliated with any particular political party.
Britain constituencies of around 100,000; 10 subscribers; deposit of UKP$500 (US$790).
California congressional districts of around 700,000; 40 signers; filing fee of US$1740.
Ratios of 7:1 constituents, 4:1 signatures, 2.2:1 filing fee (though in Britain the fee is refundable for candidates who demonstrate credible support in the election).
In California, a candidate may include additional descriptive information that will appear along with their name on the ballot. They can include their office/occupation/profession and their political party preference. The occupation or profession must be legitimate and may not indicate an endorsement. You could be “Newsletter Publisher” or perhaps “Ballot Access Advocate”, but not “Ballot Access News Publisher”, since that implies endorsement by BAN. Britain does not have the equivalent, but that is not a substantial enough difference to say that the systems are dissimilar.
A candidate in California may also include their party preference, which they must have previously disclosed on their voter registration. In Britain, a candidate may also include a party name or description. This is a relatively new innovation in Britain. Before, candidates stood in their own name, though other organizations such as parties could provide support such as hoardings, organizing hustings event, door-knocking, advertisements (5 syllables vs 4 in the US). These descriptions were at first unregulated, but at present a consent form is needed from a political party.
All candidates who have filed (signatures, fees, description) appear on the ballot (no write-ins in Britain). Britain uses plurality elections. They recently (May 2011) had a referendum on switching to majority elections, but the voters turned that idea down. In California the top two candidates advance to a second election. This majority mechanism was approved by the voters of California in June 2010.
In the first congressional election using the new system, there were 16 candidates.
Britain has easy access to the general election ballot. California has hopelessly difficult ballot access to the general election for Congress and state office.
Also, in Britain a party name is protected, and can only be printed on the ballot if the party nominated that candidate. That is not the case in California.
Pingback: British Newspaper Story on Americans Elect | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
#5 In its first congressional election under Proposition 14, 16 candidates qualified for the ballot (and another qualified as a write-in candidate). How can you consider that hopeless? In relative terms, given the size of districts, ballot access is easier in California than Britain.
Hopeless would describe the situation before the Open Primary where only 12 independent candidates had qualified for the ballot in congressional elections in your voting lifetime in the entire State of California.
In California, a candidate is entitled to have his name, his occupation, and his party preference appear on the ballot. These are his personal attributes. If he attracts enough votes he will advance to the general election, and if he receives the most votes at the general election he will be elected. His Oath of Office will be to uphold the constitutions of California and the United States, not fealty to the party bosses.
Political parties are in no way inhibited in recruiting, endorsing and supporting candidates.