As has been said many times over the years by this site, Great Britain only requires 10 signatures for a candidate to get on a ballot to run for House of Commons. Here is a copy of the British petition form. Scroll down to page two. Candidates also need a filing fee of 500 pounds, which is returned if the candidate polls at least 5%. The British term for filing fee is “deposit.” Thanks to Charles McKeon for the link.
What is the all time record for the number of candidates on a printed ballot for the H.C. ???
What percentage did the winner get ???
—
P.R. in ALL regimes — esp. the DARK AGE U.K. regime.
We could have the same thing here in the United States. But all of us already know why we do not. “They” do NOT want us on the ballot.
Meanwhiled here in Alabama all of us need to contact the members of the CONSTITUTION, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, ETHICS AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE and ask for these committee members to vote for either SB 15 and/or SB 55.
The members names and email addresses of these Senators are:
Bryan Taylor <bryan.taylor@alsenate.org
Phil Williams <philw.williams@alsenate.gov
Paul Bussman <p_bussman@bellsouth.net
Shadrack Mcgill shadrick.mcgill@alsenate.org
Trip Pittman <trip.pittman@alsenate.gov
Tammy Irons<tammy@ironslawfirm.com
Two senators who are members of this committee and who do not have accessible email addresses. However their names and telephone numbers are:
Billy Williams (334) 775-3291
Arthur Orr (334) 242-7891
I trust all who can will contact these senators and ask them to support these good bills.
Given the relative sizes, there are fewer signatures needed to run for office in California for the legislature or Congress. The fee for the legislature is much less, and that for Congress about the same.
California does not require parties to register, and if SOS would follow what the law says instead of what she thinks it should say, a candidate could simply say which party they prefer.
And California ensures the winning candidate has majority support.
Perhaps instead of the in lieu of fees system, California could institute a deposit system.
#3 is just plain wrong in his comparisons of California requirements to British requirements. The British deposit to run for the House of Commons is 500 pounds, which is currently equivalent to $787.59. The filing fee in California to run for the state legislature (either Assembly or Senate) is $952.91, which is more than the British deposit (though arguably close enough to be considered “about the same”), and the filing fee to run for the House of Representatives is $1,740, more than twice as much as the British deposit. The filing fee to run for U.S. Senate in California is $3,480, more than four times the British deposit.
As for the number of nomination signatures required, the British 10 for constituencies averaging roughly 92,000 in population is substantially less in relation to population than the 40 required in California for Congress (districts averaging around 702,000 residents) and State Senate (districts averaging roughly 931,000 residents), but about the same for Assembly (districts averaging about 465,000).
Of course, moving to a deposit system would defeat the purpose of the signatures in lieu system, to provide a way that candidates and potential candidates who can’t afford to pay filing fees can still run. It doesn’t matter whether a candidate (maybe) will get the deposit back if s/he can’t afford to post it in the first place.
#4 “Given the relative sizes”.
You reversed the numbers. So in the UK, a candidate needs one signature per 9200 persons, vs. 11,6000 for Assembly; 17,550 for Congress, 23,275 for Senate.
So imagine the candidate can persuade 1 in 1000 persons to sign his petitions (not all are rejections, some persons are not eligible to sign).
In Britain, he would need to contact 11% of the population. In California, between 9% for Assembly, and 4% for the Senate).
Presumably our candidate has some supporters, who would help share the burden of the filing fee. In Britain, a candidate who received a donation from 1/10 of 1% of the population would need $8.56 from each. Our fortunate Californian for Assembly, $2.29, for Senate $1.15, for Congress $2.48.
The British deposit to run for MEP is UKP 5000, and this is for an area with less population than California.
The U.K. House of Commons is being cut from 650 to 600 gerrymander districts for the 2015 scheduled election — so there may be some change in the ballot access stuff — in the DARK AGE U.K. regime having NO written constitution.
With just ten signatures I think you are kind of splitting hairs in coming up with a ratio of signatures to population. It’s such a small number a candidate could get all of them at a gathering of friends and relatives for Thanksgiving Dinner and then have coffee and desert, or at a local monthly meeting of a political party. No one is going to say, “Ten signatures? I give up. I can’t get ten people to sign,” but change the number to 10,000, the number of signatures to get on the ballot of a presidential primary in Virginia, and you stop most people in their tracks–even candidates discussed in national media.
Three candidates walked away from the 12th most populous state, Virginia, rather than try and come up with 10,000 signatures–Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, and Jon Huntsman. Rick Santorum is getting a lot of attention the last few days–but Virginia ran him off with its requirement of 10,000 signatures, with the result voters in Virginia’s primary March 6 cannot vote for Rick Santorum. He’s not on the ballot. Nor is Newt Gingrich. Nor is Rick Perry. Nor are Michelle Bachman, Jon Huntsman, and Herman Cain.
Democracy requires nothing of a candidate. Democracy welcomes candidates. Burden candidates with “requirements” and you burden democracy itself. Virginia’s presidential primary exemplifies that. You can vote for Mitt Romney, you can vote for Ron Paul–or you can vote for nobody at all. That’s not a presidential primary. It’s a sham.
I wrote to the Public Information Officer of the Electoral Commission in London who forwarded the link to the 2009 Nomination Forms to me. I asked whether he can give everyone some idea about number of candidates on a ballot. I don’t know what “ALL regimes” and “DARK AGE U.K. regime” are.
The DARK AGE U.K. regime was created in 1066 – by William the Conquerer and his gang of killers — i.e. during the BARBARIAN DARK AGE.
Various killer monarchs and oligarchs since 1066 in the English/U.K. regime — see the 1400s esp. War of the Roses stuff between the monarchy/oligarchy gangs.
Gee — almost like the ballot access WARS by the Donkeys and Elephants — in the late DARK AGE U.S.A./States regimes.
#7 Why are you talking about 10,000 signatures?
We are comparing Britain to California. Only those allied with the Forces Of Darkness want to return to the days before Proposition 14, when 10,000+ signatures were required to run for Congress.
In answer to the question posed above the record number of candidates for a parliamentary election was 26. This was in the 2008 Haltemprice and Howden by-election.
#10 In Britain, the candidates attend the vote count, and when the results are announced, in inverse order, each candidate steps forward and is recognized by their supporters.
Ordinarily, they stand on a platform. But in this instance, there was concern that the platform might collapse, so they stood in front.
Re #4: mea culpa re nominating signatures. I did have it backwards regarding them; the number of signatures required for nomination for Assembly in California is roughly equivalent to that required for the House of Commons in the UK, but the nomination signatures are easier for State Senate, for US House of Representatives, and for statewide office in California.
I apologize for assuming that Jim Riley was wrong about everything and not just about filing fees in his post #3 (and in his followup post #5).
Given that candidates don’t raise money only from residents of the district/constituency in which they are running, the population of the district/constituency is essentially irrelevant to how affordable it is to pay a filing fee to be able to run for office.
Proposition 14, that which Jim Riley loves so much, has made it much harder for non-wealthy candidates who belong to a “minor” party to be able to file for the offices to which it applies, and it doesn’t help non-wealthy candidates who belong to a “major” party to do so either. The only candidates it helps are the wealthy (or well-connected) enough that filing fees don’t matter, and arguably non-wealthy independent candidates (who previously needed a number of nominating signatures even greater than the number of signatures in lieu needed for the offices).
The signatures in lieu requirements that now apply to “minor” party candidates, and previously applied only to “major” party and independent candidates, are unfair and arguably unconstitutional. They should be changed to make it easier for non-wealthy candidates to run for office, not ignored in celebrating the advantages that Proposition 14 provides wealthy candidates (and those with wealthy backers) who want to run our government without being subject to any restrictions by parties that might hold to some ideological principles.
#12 In Britain, minor parties would attempt to run nationwide, so while they can redistribute some funds, their deposit per person is no different. A few small parties concentrate on their very strongest areas, but then they have a larger base to gather contributions from.
The same is true in the US. Let’s say there are 300,000 adults per assembly district. An assembly district party needs to gather $500/year to pay the filing fee every 2 years. It has to gather $125 to pay its share of a senate filing fee every 4 years, and perhaps $600 for its share of the congressional fee. Let’s say $1500 per year.
But only 1% of the 300,000 adults support this minor party. If these 3000, contributed $0.50 per year, it would raise the $1500. But many won’t contribute. So you take 1% of your supporters, or 1/10,000 of the adult population. If they would contribute $50/year, less than $5/year would be sufficient. But instead, they might give $25/year or $2/month, and you find 100 willing to gather in lieu of signatures equivalent to $750/year. Let’s say $0.25 per signature. So these 100 members need to gather 3000 signatures per year, or 30 each per year. They can only gather signatures every 2 years, but they can get 2 signatures per person, one for congress, and one for assembly. So every two years, they spend say 30 hours seeking signatures at 1/hour. They can do this 2 hours/day outside work or school over 2 weeks, or 2 long weekends.
The current in lieu of signatures are those that have been in place for nonpartisan elections for 35 years since Lubin v Panish, which was brought with regard to a nonpartisan election for county supervisor. Arguably, the special rule for small party candidates violated equal protection since it made some signatures more valuable than others.