Pete Peterson, the Republican running for California Secretary of State, has now again said that he wants to restore write-in space to the general election ballot for Congress and partisan state office (California still has write-in space for all other offices). See this column by Peterson in Fox & Hounds. Peterson had said this earlier in a Secretary of State PPIC candidate forum in Sacramento on September 11.
Unfortunately, no newspaper in California has yet informed its readers of Peterson’s stand on this issue, or the fact that so far at least, his Democratic opponent, State Senator Alex Padilla, does not favor restoring write-in space. California and Louisiana are the only two states that ever had write-in space and then abolished it.
There will be a Secretary of State candidates’ debate in Berkeley, on Thursday, October 9, at 2299 Piedmont, Berkeley, adjacent to the U.C. Berkeley campus. The event is in International House, in the Chevron Auditorium, at 6:30 p.m. The event is free but registration in advance is required; use this link. Individuals who live in the San Francisco Bay Area may wish to attend. If members of the audience are allowed to ask questions, perhaps Senator Padilla can also be pressed on the write-in issue. If California were to restore write-ins, minor party members could continue campaigning during the general election season, by appealing for write-in votes.
The Peterson column weakly defends the top-two system, but Peterson kindly linked to two columns by Joe Mathews that make strong criticisms of California’s top-two system.
California voters defeated a top-two initiative in 2004, Proposition 62. Proposition 62 permitted write-ins, including write-ins for candidates who had run in the primary and failed to place first or second.
What candidates are attacking minority rule gerrymanders and calling for —
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. ???
In 2004, the California legislature put a competing measure on the ballot in order to confuse the voters.
Unless someone has millions – if not billions to spend – write-in campaigns usually are a waste of time. Except for a few exceptions, few people have every been elected as a write-in candidate – the most prominent was that of Strom Thurmond being elected U.S. Senator back in either 1952 or 54.
Even then probably the only reason he won, was the way the Democratic Party State Committee tried to “hand pick” the nominee after the regular Democratic nominee had died suddenly prior to the General Election.
It helped also that Strom Thurmond was still quite popular with South Carolina voters after having carried his state as the regular Democratic nominee for President in 1948.
Maybe for a local office in a small constituency, and when voters are “put out” with the regular party nominee(s), but usually a “write-in” candidacy is only a form of protest.
The usual suspect MORONS fail to detect 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — part of the nearly DEAD USA Const.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
One write-in candidate can make a difference, can win and can have an effect on the vote totals according to what I’ve read.
It’s more harmful to place roadblocks against people unless you’re arrogant and want to limit choices because you’re in charge. For me, it’s the more the better and every voters is a potential tie-breaker.
Free and Equal recently invited and then gave the boot a write-in for Governor of Colorado Marcus Giavanni [Independent] in their upcoming October 8th event because he is associated with the national Unity Coalition:
http://www.usparliament.org/usap-wp
Unity means inclusion of the all, not just with those you pick. The ballot access laws are already overwhelmingly unfavorable for Independents and new splinter parties.
There are reasons why a write-in candidate doesn’t want to be on a ballot-qualified party’s line and it’s probably those same arrogant, egocentric, greed heads, control freaks and power mongers don’t want to hear those reasons.
We must certainly allow the write-in candidate to be a part of democracy, participate and to speak for themselves please.
Jim: Not saying that I don’t think a write-in space should not be available. It should. I was just pointing out that unless someone has money, or is well-liked, and/or the major party nominees are not well-liked, victory for the write-in is not expected in most cases,.
But yes, I’m glad the write-in space is provided in most states. It should be provided in every electoral jurisdiction in the United States.
I use the write-in space of the ballot in Alabama. I actually write-in the name of the candidate who is already listed on the ballot that I wish to vote for. I checked with the Secretary of State and the local county office whose duty it is to count votes, and they told me that my write-in vote is counted. I assume they are telling me the truth. My write-in votes may be added to the regular total of the candidate and under the label (Democratic or Republican – or whatever label – that I am not sure.
I know that several years ago I asked for an official compilation of votes from the Secretary of State’s office, and I found that several votes as write-ins were counted (for candidates whose names were also on the ballot) separately as such and then added (I assume) to the total of the votes received by the candidate of the party label which he or she had received the nomination for.
This way, I maintain my “Independent” status and can say (even is such is not really true) that I voted only for “Independent” candidates. In my opinion this is the best option for those of us in a state which makes it so hard for a 3rd party and a Independent to get on the ballot. I wish more voters in Alabama would do the same thing. I plan to this in November if they will allow me the time it actually takes to write in so many names.
I wish you could you do this in California, and maybe if and when they bring back the write-in provision it will happen on a large scale.
What I should have said in my next to last paragraph in the above reply is, “This way, I maintain my ‘Independent’ status and can say (even if such is not really true) that I voted for a Independent ticket.”
That’s a good idea and a good way to use the write-in option. The problem is that candidates aren’t being treated equally and the USA Parliament has addressed this by opening up our assemblies to be bigger and bigger and so we need write-in candidates like no others do.
Writing in a name (or agenda item) for the first time is how everything gets going so to squash those rights is really nipping democracy in the bud.
http://www.usparliament.org
While I agree that write-in votes should be allowed, in California a write-in candidate must qualify to be a write-in candidate. I also agree that most write-in candidates are ever heard of. My guess is that write-ins will be allowed in future elections in California.
I did not mean that I advocated that write-in candidates must qualify. I don’t. I was only stating how it was done in the past. It will also probably be required in the future.