The Daily News of New York city has this editorial about the June 26 congressional primary for the Reform Party in two districts. The editorial has objective information about the small number of voters who participated. It says the state law should be changed to make it more difficult for voters to obtain a primary in which write-ins are tallied. It ignores the much better idea, which the Reform Party has been trying to publicize, that the law should be changed to let small qualified parties nominate by convention instead of primary.
That idea was endorsed in 1951 by the National Civic League, in its publication, “A Model Direct Primary Law”, authored by Professor Joseph P. Harris. At the time he was considered the nation’s leading expert on election administration. The idea has been adopted in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia (for statewide office only), Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In addition, many other states let new qualified parties nominate by convention. And Alabama, South Carolina, and Virginia let all parties, large and small alike, decide for themselves whether to nominate by primary or convention.
Model Const Amdt 2018 —
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
Top 2 would be much much better.
In the NY CD 21 Women’s Equality Party primary the winner got 4 votes.
Final cost for each RP primary vote ???
The Reform Party and the state’s other minor parties should be subject to the same rule as the Democrats and Republicans — you nominate by convention, but if someone gets a certain percentage at the convention, then it’s settled by primary. One standard for everyone, not one for the Uniparty and one for teh minor parties.
Clay — FOUR?
It may sound appealing to say that all parties should be treated exactly alike, but in reality, that is not good policy. A party with millions of registered members is simply different from a party with fewer than 10,000 registered members. The US Supreme Court decision Jenness v Fortson was a horrible decision, but it got one point right. It says, “The fact is that there are obvious differences in kind between the needs and potential of a political party with historically established broad support, on the one hand, and a new or small political organization on the other.”
There is no reason that the government should be annointing political parties big or small with nomination rights.
I concur with Justice Riley.
—
NO primaries.
EQUAL ballot access tests.
PR and AppV.
Tim
http://www.elections.ny.gov/ENR/NYSENRAccessible.html
unofficial election night results – official in few more days/weeks
Cong 21 WEP 4 (!!!!!) is about 80 pct down the page
—
Cong 23 WEP Miltrano 3 (Repeat 3)
Cost per vote ?????
—
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
Also — Each office is totally separate for ballot access purposes
— much too difficult for the SCOTUS hacks to detect
— since 1968 Williams v Rhodes and 1971 Jenness v Fortson
— esp. now with party line logo votes being wiped out —
ie office blocs on ballots — blank spaces only for write-in votes for each office.