Illinois held its primaries on March 17, 2026. In Massac County, the Constitution Party is a ballot-qualified party, so a primary was held for it. The party is only permitted to nominate for partisan county office. It is a qualified party in Massac County because in November 2024, its nominee for County Commission-at-large, Tim Pearcy, polled 11.8%. The race also had a Republican and a Democrat running. Illinois lets a party that polls at least 5% for a countywide office be a qualified party within that particular county.
At the March 17 primaries, the Constitution Party ballot was chosen by only one voter.
Massac County has a population of approximately 12,000. It is on the southern border of Illinois, against the Ohio River, adjoining Kentucky.
Is that supposed to be surprising?
Yet another illustration of the Kafkaesque, Georgeorwellian, Byzantine insanely overcomplex absurdity of ballot access laws (and of laws in general, and of the ballot system of voting in general).
Who won?
Given that it’s way downstate in the little Egypt area it would be surprising if it was a demon rat.
He or she meant in the constipation one voter primary.
In that case, the real answer is the bureau rats and their crony contractors. Depending on whether they conducted elections by paper or e-ballot those would include e-ballot contractors and everyone in their supply chain or printers and everyone in their supply chain from ink and its components manufacturing, transportation, etc to paper manufacturers from lumber on up.
There are of course also the banksters, tax extortion mob bureau rats, etc.
Before you get excited that all that is a boon to the economy, consider that its less obvious costs – of any type of central planning as to the allocation of resources, as opposed to what happens naturally without it – far outweigh the visible benefits.
As proof, compare economies globally and historically, for example Taiwan vs mainland China today, the two Koreas today, East and West Germany before reunification, etc .
Further proof if any nonspambot asks an intelligent question.
Voter turn out in primaries is lower than voter turn out in general elections. When alternative political parties get their own primaries turn out for them is even lower than turn for Democratic and Republican party primaries, even on a ratio scale, because most voters, including most alternative party supporters, do not know that alternative parties have prinary elections anywhere in the country.
That wouldn’t be a problem if state regimes stopped interfering with party nomination processes, and wouldn’t even be a possibility if elections were reformed fundamentally as Maxim, our mutual friend and my ex-wife Vera, myself, and various folks from Max’s telegram etc group chats and their friends group chats have suggested.
That more fundamental reform would involve party formation and membership recruitment ad hoc by seeing who can persuade whom to stand with whom in the election hall on election night, followed by a standing count of each group at the cut off time. Independents would be any parties of one remaining at that time. The largest group would be the winning party.
As we’ve hypothesized the winning team would be of a self governing nation state in the 10k-1m population range with a voting population of approximately 10-1k. 100k population, 100 voters on average.
However, in the interim before larger nation states can break down to that level and reform their voter eligibility in the ways we propose – for multi precinct elections (not a thing in our hypothetical end state), one of the office’s to be selected by the winning party would be representative(s) to the next highest level vote, where the same process would repeat, at as many levels as necessary.
All the way up to e.g. POTUS, RF President, UK PM, EEEWWWW AKA EU President, or even UN General Secretary, but we hope that level will be eliminated as soon as possible – hopefully very soon – because executive leadership, or indeed any form of government, is an impossible task to manage anywhere close to optimally for areas and populations of that level no matter what systems are devised, particularly over the long term.
For those not already familiar, this would mean that the winning party would select the initial officeholders immediately after the vote that would tender them to be the winning party; thereafter replacing them at will until the following year’s election day.
Intelligent questions are always welcome. Screaming of idiotic “questions” or assertions based on multiple extremely off base presumptions from Spambots isn’t.