The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, one of the two daily newspapers for that city, has this editorial scolding the Pennsylvania legislature for not updating the state’s ballot access laws. See here.
The editorial only focused on the ambiguity in the law on the number of signatures needed for a statewide independent candidate. It could have been even stronger if it had mentioned that there are six other Pennsylvania ballot access laws that have been struck down by courts, but never amended. The most shocking example is that in 1984, Pennsylvania’s May petition deadline for independent petitions was struck down, but the legislature has never, in all those years, amended the code to reflect the August 1 date that is actually in force.
The editorial starts out with a factual error. It says George Washington was not a member of a party. Actually he was the leader of the Federalist Party. The leading issue under Washington’s presidency was foreign affairs. The Federalist Party was more favorable to Britain, and despised the French Revolution. The Democratic-Republican Party had the opposite view. Washington was so hostile to the French Revolution, when the French ambassador presented himself to Washington for the first time, Washington had a portrait of King Louis XVI (who had been beheaded by the Revolutionary government) hanging on the wall in his office. Washington was careful to have leaders of both major parties in his cabinet.
Also Washington was not opposed to parties. He was opposed to partisanship and warned against it in his Farewell Address.
Richard Winger
Do you think the editorial is more in favor of allowing independents on the ballot than the legislature?
I think it’s a bit of an overstatement to say that the Democratic-Republican Party (or their precursors, the Anti-Administration Party) was favorable towards the French Revolution.
Certainly they continued to oppose the British during the French Revolutionary Wars as they had done during the American Revolutionary War, whereas the Federalists variously either wanted to side with the British or remain neutral. And certainly they recognized the debt they owed to France for their independence.
But I do not have the impression they were ever pro-Jacobin or pro-Montagnard, or in anyway supported of the reign of terror. In fact, their old ally Lafayette upon his return to France stood by King Louis XVI against Robespierre and other radical proto-socialists.
I thought it was antifederalists, not anti administration. Typo, or sources on that?
I also don’t think antifederalists were pro reign of terror, but I think they generally upheld the original goals of the French revolution before it devolved into the reign of terror. At least that’s what I recall from my reading of history. My memory is getting worse, and I haven’t revisited it lately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
WIKI — ONE MORE VICTIM — CONDORCET
1794 USA NEUTRALITY ACT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Act_of_1794
COMES AND GOES DEPENDING ON USA REGIME MACHINATIONS WITH PRO/CON FORN REGIMES.
My fear is when they eventually do update the laws, the requirements for third parties and independents will certainly get worse.
Quite plausible.