Since 1943, Georgia has required minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House to submit a petition of 5% of the number of registered voters to get on the ballot for U.S. House. This is so difficult, no independent has done it since 1964, and no minor party candidate has ever done it. The Libertarian Party currently has a lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court against this requirement. Georgia allows the Libertarian Party to be on the November ballot automatically for all statewide offices (state and U.S. Senate alike), but not U.S. House or legislature.
On April 18, the state answered interrogatories, to explain why it has such draconian ballot access requirements for minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House. The state says it has a compelling interest in avoiding the need to hold a run-off general election. Georgia law, since 1964, has provided for run-off general elections for all federal and state office except president. These run-off general elections are in January of the year after the election. Georgia held runoff general elections for U.S. Senate in 1992 and 2008. Both times, the presence of a Libertarian on the ballot for U.S. Senate prevented anyone from getting as much as 50% of the vote in November, for U.S. Senate.
There is an obvious answer to Georgia’s response. The state is free to use ranked choice voting. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harlan mentioned this idea fifty years ago in his concurrence in Williams v Rhodes, 393 US 23 (1968). Williams v Rhodes was an Ohio ballot access case. Ohio defends its Democratic-Republican ballot monopoly by saying that it wants the winner to always receive at least 50%. Harlan wrote in footnote 8 that Ohio is free to use ranked choice voting.
Can ANY genius lawyer or even an appointed HACK judge detect the *equal* in 14 Amdt, Sec. 1 ???
EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME election area.
TOO MANY MORON LAWYERS AND EVEN MUCH WORSE HACK MORON JUDGES TO COUNT SINCE Williams v Rhodes 1968 — a mere 50 years ago.
PR and AppV — stop the RCV infection — akin to the gerrymander infection about the English House of Commons in the 1200s — a mere 700 plus years ago.
ENDLESS political brain R-O-T.
The KILLER tyrant monarchs/oligarchs fill all gaps.
LP-Georgia has 5 candidates running statewide who do not have to petition, and 5 candidates running locally who do have to petition:
Aaron Gilmer, US House 9 (Northeast Georgia needs around 18k signatures)
Martin Cowen US House 13 (Atlanta, East of 285 needs around 23k signatures)
Jay Strickland State House 42 (Marietta/Symrna in Cobb needs 1.999 signatures
Patrick Marcacci State House 52 (Sandy Springs needs 1690 signatures)
Demond Kennedy State House 90 (Jonesboro needs 1676 signatures)
If anyone happens to see this and knows someone who can sign or wants to help, email don.webb@lpgeorgia.com
*Jay Strickland is 1,199 not 1,999
Those who call for RCV in single winner election districts are asking for the one party system like in SF, Oakland and Maine.
The One Party’s system is superior to SF’s one party system.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation (PPR), ranked choice voting in multiple winner districts for twenty-three consecutive years, and PPR works fine.
http://www.allpartysystem.com
Maine is not a one-party state.
The object of the lawsuit is to give voters more choices in November for US House. James, are you against that goal?
Is CA a de facto ONE Party State — merely with the top 2 primary and rigged gerrymander districts ???
Is RCV a perversion version of the top 2 primary ???
PR and AppV — pending Condorcet — Number Votes done correctly.
Maine has turned to the one party system in all single-winner districts they adopt RCV.
humor
Ranked choice voting won’t be considered because Southern blacks consider runoffs racist since it allows the whites to consolidate behind one candidate to defeat the black candidate.
That’s exactly what RCV will do, it will guarantee that the majority block will always win, guaranteed 100% of the time.
Honourable Lani Guinier’s work in TX was NOT about Rob Richie’s and CoFOE’S RCV in single-winner districts, her work was about pure proportional representation (PPR).
We supported her in 1984 when Clinton spurned her for Janet Reno instead (think Waco).
All parties and independents working together for the good of the whole.
My mistake, Bill Clinton won in 1992, he declined Guinier after NAACP asked him to consider Guinier.
“That’s exactly what RCV will do, it will guarantee that the majority block will always win, guaranteed 100% of the time.”
That’s why it won’t be allowed to take effect.
Take it up with Southern blacks, and tell them as a group their fears are unfounded. Whenever you do this, take a video, I want to view it later to laugh at their reaction.
On the other hand, “pure proportional representation”, we’re going to make who gets to the legislatures or not based on how much money they pay to the party to be at the top of the list. Have you looked at South Africa lately? Does that strike you as a good democracy?
Proportional Representation with Open Party Lists, as used in Australia and Sweden among other countries, allows voters to vote for both parties and individual district candidates. If enough people vote for a given candidate, voters can reorder official party lists.