South Dakota Green Party Submits Petition for Party Status

Posted on by February 6, 2024

On February 6, the South Dakota Green Party submitted its petition for party status. This is the first time the Green Party of South Dakota has ever submitted such a petition. The law was eased in 2018. It now requires a petition of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. In the past the petition was 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote.

Comments

South Dakota Green Party Submits Petition for Party Status — 18 Comments

  5. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2024/02/06/detroit-city-council-chooses-redistricting-map/72496245007/

    Detroit City Council chooses redistricting map
    —
    NEW DET CC GERRYMANDER

    ALLEGED NONPARTISAN — 2 AT LARGE – 7 IN RIGGED G DISTS

    BIT HIGHER MINORITY RULE-

    1/2 X 5/7 = 5/14 CONTROL

    SUPER-WORSE PRIMARY MATH

    ABOUT 70 REPEAT 70 PCT POP LOSS SINCE 1953 – END OF KOREAN WAR.

    ABOUT 95 PCT WHITE TO UNDER 5 PCT WHITE
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  8. If the Constitution were amended to provide for direct popular election of the President, it is likely that Congress would be given manner authority, and would provide for national primaries.

  9. “If the Constitution were amended to provide for direct popular election of the President, it is likely that Congress would be given manner authority, and would provide for national primaries.”

    Which is a good reason to oppose abolishing the electoral college. In the constitutional amendments proposed to have direct election of the President, many of them give blanket power to Congress to write the Presidential election law. Who can fail to see that such legislation would be frequently tailored to support whichever party is in control of Congress?

    A great virtue of keeping the electoral college is that the precise method of choosing the electors is up to each state, and thereby beyond the power of Congress. Are there partisan considerations in each state on this matter? Of course there are. But, as long as different parties control different state legislatures, it is much more difficult to craft an election law that is biased to one party or another on the national level.

  10. Also, some states have a disproportionate effect on the electoral college, as currently operated. Large states find it advantageous to award all their electors to one candidate, and small states have a tendency to have proportionally more electoral votes because of the Senatorial electors.

    I have proposed a couple of reforms for these issues:

    1. The adoption of the Wyoming Rule to apportion the House of Representatives would make both the House and the Electoral College more proportionate to population.

    2. Also, the division of more populous states into smaller states would also give the people of those states greater representation in the Senate.

  11. @WZ,

    I would apportion the EC independently from the House on the basis of US citizens over the age of 18, among the United States and their territories, with one elector per 50,000 persons.

    Electors would be directly elected, with Congress having plenary authority over time, place, and manner.

    Electors would meet as one body to choose the President.

  12. @JR:

    Your proposals would require a constitutional amendment, which my proposals would not.

    The Wyoming Rule would be easy to implement, if the votes are there in Congress.

    Creating new states would be at a higher level of difficulty, as it would require the consent of the legislatures of the affected states.

    But, either of them are less difficult than a constitutional amendment.

  13. ONLY TROLL MORONS DO NOT CONNECT —

    PREZ PRIMARIES — NATL PARTY CONVENTIONS — PREZ/VP NOMINATIONS — PREZ/VP ON NOV BALLOTS VIA STATE PARTIES / EC CANDIDATES — WIN EC CANDS CHOSEN — WIN EC CANDS MEET / SEND VOTES TO DC — 12 AMDT DC CONGRESS MEETS / COUNTS EC VOTES — PREZ/VP TAKE OFFICE
    —
    END THE NONSTOP MACHINATIONS AT EACH STEP – ESP THE MINORITY RULE MATH OF THE EC
    —
    NONPARTISAN PREZ/VP BALLOT ACCESS VIA EQUAL NOM PET/FILING FEE — APPV

  14. @WZ,

    My proposal would be a better alternative than direct national popular vote, since it would alleviate the opportunity to completely intervene in state elections.

    The Wyoming rule would do relatively little to change disproportionality.

    Based on the 2000 Census, Gore and Bush states had almost identical population (note that the 2000 election used the 1990 Apportionment – but that is of no importance to this illustration).

    The House could have been expanded to 1000s of members, but Bush would still have won the EC based on his having won more states and gotten a bonus for the senatorial electors.

    At one time there was a concern that more states would switch to electing representatives at large. Democrats could win whole states, but Whigs might win a few states in cities particularly on the coast. There had always been a few smaller states that elected their representatives at large. Not really a problem with two or three, but with 18 or 20, it could flip the House. That is why Congress required single member districts. It was not so much that it wanted to force smaller states to have districts, it was to prevent larger states from switching to at large.

    Contrast what has happened to the EC. Every state has now switched to at large election, even though in earlier times, many of the popular elections were by district. Congress could do nothing about the switch.

  15. THE SMD EC GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS IN ME AND/OR NE MAY PRODUCE EC VOTE 270 OF 538 — ELECT THE NEXT PREZ/VP

    — WITH PERHAPS 28-30 PCT OF POPULAR VOTES

    >>> ANOTHER MINORITY RULE PREZ ELECTION SINCE 1828

  16. @Jim Riley
    Re: At-large vs. districts

    There is only one president and one vice president at a time. Meanwhile, there are several representatives from each state, depending on population. You are comparing “single-seat” with “multi-seat”.

    Electing representatives at-large does not alone result in all representatives being of the same party and states flipping like a switch. Bloc voting is also required. There are alternatives to bloc voting. It is impossible that Congress did not know about some of them when they mandated single-member districts.

    There is also an alternative to both single-member districts and at-large: Multi-member districts. Again, it is impossible that Congress did not know about this option.

  17. ALL THE CONGRESS EXTREMIST HACKS THINK THEY ARE THE MONARCHS OF *THEIR* RIGGED GERRYMANDER DISTS OR STATES — WANT NOOOO OPPOSITION — BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE.

    SAME FOR STATE GERRYMANDER HACKS.
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  18. @AC,

    This has a good account about when and why Congress required use of single member districts.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gk086k.6?seq=1

    In 1840, Georgia(9), New Jersey(6), Alabama(5), New Hampshire(5), Mississippi(2), Missouri(2), and Rhode Island(2) elected their representatives at large (“general ticket” in paper). Voters could vote for as many candidates as their were to be elected. Alabama had switched for that election from single member district to at-large, and had gone from a 3 Democrat, 2 Whig delegation to 5 Democrats, and there was the specter of other States switching for partisan reasons.

    Political parties would print ballots listing their “nominees”. Even if a voter wrote out their own ballot, they might adopt the party slate. After the 1824 election two national parties had developed. Voters were less likely to vote for Joe or Donald because of their personality, and instead because they were a Whig or Democrat.

    A voter could take a party ballot, and scratch off a name, perhaps because of some scandal they were aware of. But who would they vote for. Perhaps they might choose a favorite son from their community.

    In 1838, the 6 Democrat candidates ranged from 50.17 to 49.86%; the 6 Whig candidates ranged from 50.06% to 49.82%.

    Even with this close race where the difference between 1st and 12th was only 0.35%, 5 Democrats were elected. This split was unusual or rare.

    *You may have a different understanding of the term “bloc voting”. As practiced in the 1830s and 1840s it simply mean extremely disciplined voters. It doesn’t mean that voters could mark one box for Democrat or Whig.

    There were a few multi-seat districts in 1840. New York City (Manhattan) and the Bronx elected four representatives. City of Philadelphia elected two (the City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia candidate were separate entities at that time). Baltimore City along with Annapolis and Anne Arundel elected two members (Baltimore City has always been distinct from Baltimore County). As cities grew, legislatures might be reluctant to divide them.

    There were also 5 clusters of 2 and 3 counties (4 clusters in New York, 1 in Pennsylvania) that elected 2 or 3 representatives. These might be in areas where it was not convenient to divide into two districts.

    For example, Oneida 85K and Oswego 44K elected two representatives. If they had been split, one district would have been twice the size of the other.

    The 1842 Reapportionment Act required use of single member districts and eliminated (or attempted to) all the at-large states and the multi-seat districts in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. New York City was divided with three districts on the southern tip of Manhattan, and the remainder including the rest of the island – though I’m sure that the population would be in the south, with only farmers to the north.

    Congress in 1841 was composed of politicians, not political scientists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.