The Kansas City Star has this op-ed by Larry R. Bradley about the initiative for a top-four system currently circulating in Missouri. Bradley supports ranked choice voting, but he criticizes the initiative, both because it eliminates the ability of parties to have nominees, and also because it seems obvious that if ranked choice voting is so good, it should be used in primaries as well as general elections.
Bradley does not mention another flaw in the initiative, which is that it makes it almost impossible for a third party to become or remain ballot-qualified. This is because if parties don’t have nominees (except for president), they can’t meet the vote test, except for president. Currently the typical minor party that gets on the ballot in Missouri is able to remain on, because it isn’t that difficult for a minor party to poll 2% for one of the lesser statewide races, such as Auditor or Treasurer. But under the initiative, the only office for which the vote test would still work is president, and it’s extremely difficult for minor parties to poll 2% for president. The Libertarian Party has only done it once (2016). The Green Party has only done it once (2000). The Constitution Party has never done it.
The EVIl Dirty Little Secret —
Minor parties and independents want it to be EASIER to get on ballots than for D/R candidates.
—
EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for SAME office in SAME election area —
will lead to PR and APPV — even Condorcet — RCV done right.
What might seem like an equal test wouldn’t really be equal for reasons you are overlooking. We discussed them on a previous article.
IMO, approval voting should be the default voting method in any primary, unless a political party expressly chooses a different method for it own primary. If a primary has any purpose besides choosing the nominees of a particular party, it should also be to determine which candidates have the broadest support to advance to the final election. IMO, approval voting best allows voters to identify with multiple approval votes, which candidates have the broadest support.
THEN, in the final election you switch to ranked choice voting, FIRST to determine if there is a Condorcet winner with true majority support, OR SECOND, lacking a Condorcet winner, to pick the candidate with the most support after all transfers are exhausted.
If a political party has the freedom of association or dissociation, it should be up to them how they pick their nominees. Whether it’s by primary, caucus, convention, auction, lottery, weigh-in, elimination wrestling match, or whatever – they need to pay for and administer it themselves.
@ Jay: I agree. But, if a party agrees to participate in a state-sponsored primary, the state can set some requirements, such as the method of voting used.
IMO, if a state has a primary, it should be up to a party whether it wants to participate, or bypass the primary, and go directly to the general election with its own nominees. With ranked choice voting, there is no compelling state interest in requiring a party to participate in a primary, because in the final election the rankings will sort all the candidates out.
I don’t see the need for states to sponsor primaries or conventions or any other internal political matters. Similarly, the government shouldn’t run or set rules for union leadership or corporate shareholder board elections. It doesn’t seem like a thing taxpayers should be on the hook for or government should interfere with , much less run, to me.
I don’t see any compelling state interest for government to offer to subsidize, run, or administer any of it, regardless of what rules parties choose for their internal elections. Forcing parties to participate, even less so.
FACTIONS OF PUBLIC VOTERS DOING NOMINATIONS OF PUBLIC CANDIDATES IN PUBLIC GENERAL ELECTIONS.
PUBLIC 3 TIIMES FOR ANY CONLAW DUMMIES.
SEE OLDE TX WHITE PRIMARY CASES 1928-1932 – EARLY *MODERN* SCOTUS ELECTION LAW CASES.
SEE LATER 1989 EU CASE.
If the public is going to subsidize and administer party primaries, what will it do for independent candidates? Subsidize and administer their signature gathering process? Vote on their campaign platform planks?
NOOO extremist primaries.
EQUAL nom pets – 1 voter forms.
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Nominally “equal” isn’t equal. We discussed them on a previous thread, but apparently you’re a little slow, so here it is again: incumbents and establishment candidates with lots of personal money, wealthy friends, organized special interest support, big party leadership support, fame, and media attention – these things tend to go together – have an easier time getting signatures. This is even more true if they have to have one voter forms. Anything that makes signatures harder to gather increases the establishment advantage.
Likewise, no party ballot label increases the establishment advantage, because those candidates have a lot more resources to get their message out to voters and themselves covered in the news, etc. Small party candidates rely a lot more on their party label to communicate to voters than big party candidates, but that communication is neutralized and rendered meaningless if parties have no control over who uses their ballot label.
Parties should have freedom of association and dissociation, so they should decide how to nominate their candidates, whether it’s primary, convention, or any other method. The government should not pay for, administer, or interfere in the nomination process of any party.
Candidates should have their choice of how to qualify for the ballot: either as independents with no ballot label, or by qualifying a party which can continue to exist after their campaign. If the party becomes a continuous organization, future candidates should have the choice of seeking whatever party nomination they wish, with the upsides of party organizational and financial support, positive party brand recognition, and the negatives of loss of complete message independence, negative party brand recognition, and possibly failing to get the nomination. With bigger parties, those positives and negatives are both increases are both increased, vis a vis smaller parties.
No party labels, meaningless party labels, one voter ballot access forms, and lack of party qualification may sound fair on the surface, but in reality it just increases the advantage of incumbents and established candidates, makes it harder for new ideas and less well known, less wealthy and connected candidates to break through.
***EQUAL*** BALLOT ACCESS – BOTH THE COMMIE/FASCIST GANGS WILL SHATTER.
PR – – BOTH THE COMMIE/FASCIST GANGS WILL SHATTER MORE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
FOREIGN REGIMES- ESP GERMANY AND ISRAEL
APPV
TOTSOP
They won’t shatter. Your “equal” ballot access which fails to account for the factors I listed would only concentrate political power even further, and shut out non-incumbents, new and different ideas, and candidates who are not famous, wealthy, or well-connected even more than they are now.
Jay —
Explain away the many parties in all PR regimes
– and even the many parties in some SMD gerrymander regimes
— esp UK and Canada.
USA in politics STONE AGE of monarchs/oligarchs — statist looters/ control freaks.
—-
EQUAL ballot access – 1 voter forms
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
There are many differences between US and other countries and among them, and PR may well be good for getting more parties represented. On the other hand, “equal” ballot access and one voter forms would have the opposite effect, as would one voter forms. To my knowledge, all or most nations with PR allow parties to come up with their own candidate lists in their own ways, not through some government funded and administered primary. They also do have party names next to candidate names, and don’t let candidates use the names of parties without those parties approval.
All of those countries have, in most cases a relatively easy, method to qualify parties for the ballot and for parties to remain qualified. Thus, they are not like whatever you are proposing.
Whether the larger representation of parties makes up for loss of the advantages of local district representation is a separate question.