Putnam County, New York Republican nominees running for partisan county office have petitioned to list themselves as Libertarian nominees as well. See this story. However, the Libertarian Party does not support them. New York does not provide name protection for unqualified parties. See this story.
Abolish state ballot access censorship laws and replace them with a voter verifiable write-in only general election ballot. No candidate names on the ballot, no party names, no candidate or party fees for the voter to have the name of their candidate counted, no petitions for candidates or parties to have the voter choice counted, no sore losers of party primary elections banned from the voters, no more ballot privileges for incumbents of any party. I call this the Liberty Ballot.
The Liberty Ballot is the centerpiece of three election reforms I advocate to restore constitutional election processes to American citizens. The other two reforms have been authored by others, They are self-districting as proposed by Edward B. Foley and enlarging the the number of seats in the U. S. House of Representatives to restore accountability to voters as proposed by J. D. Quidam at thirty thousand (dot) org.
I find it disappointing, as a co-founder of the Libertarian Party that we have not officially adopted the reforms proposed. Perhaps they need a unified label. I propose Real Federal Election Reform – RFER, or “refer.”
Because they are fucking stupid.
I believe Oklahoma has the initiative, correct?
Foley discusses issues with how and when voters would choose their affinity group, but never comes to a conclusion. If DFR were devising an amendment for the Oklahoma legislature, what provisions would he make?
@DFR:
Interesting post. A few points:
1. I wouldn’t get rid of printing nominees names on a ballot, but I would rather a. make it easier for candidates to appear on a ballot by having several alternative methods for ballot inclusion, such as fees, direct nominations by party convention and caucuses, and by legislative and municipal caucuses, and b. making write-ins easier by allowing write-in candidates to register with the state election office and each of them obtain a unique code number that voters could write in the ballot in place of the candidate’s name.
2. E B Foley’s proposal for self-districting, is a good starting point, but a bit complicated to implement in the form which he proposes. IMO, the easiest way to implement it quickly and easily is to distribute the seats according to existing voter registration. Then, allow the exiting parties to distribute the seats internally according to their own preference. Non-party registered voters could have the remaining seats distributed among themselves in either at-large or overlay districts. The overlay districts could be distributed among the party voters according to the alphabetical order of the last names of the voters, for truly quick and random districts.
3. The easiest and simplest way to distribute the seats in the House is according the the Wyoming Rule, which I have mentioned before.
NY historically has allowed fusion. However, IMO, the parties should consent to have the candidate of another party run on their line.
To have a real right to vote no ballot is needed. Standing count or voice voting is better. I propose eligible voter showing up = voting access. Parties form by voters standing together. Winning party picks officeholders. Officeholders replaced or swapped out at will by the winning party until the following year’s election.
@WZ,
They are technically independent. In New York, independents are allowed to use description that can essentially be a slogan. They get a separate line (unless there is not enough room). The only distinction is for governor. If that line gets enough votes, then the party becomes qualified. In New York “the party” can not be formed until after the election. Anyone can claim the party by filing a set of bylaws. If there is a conflict, the candidates who ran on that line can pick who wins. In 2014 “Women’s Equality Party” was an alternate line for Andrew Cuomo (who would have guessed?). After the election no female active in the Democratic Party wanted to change their registration, so some Republicans filed to take over the party. Finally, they found some women to take over the party.
Larry Sharpe was attempting to run as an independent on the Coalition Party line, but apparently did not get enough signatures. There is a possibility of a lawsuit (per Reddit).
@WZ,
In Massachusetts the 9 “districts” would be apportioned:
Democratic 2.33
Republican 0.76
Unenrolled 5.83
Designation 0.09
If I understand Foley’s method, there would be 2 Democratic districts (e.g. Suffolk, Middlesex, Essex; and everything else)
And 7 unenrolled districts with all the Republicans, Designation, and about 14% of Democrats 0.33/2.33 tossed in.
@Stanley,
How would this work in New York?
You have statewide offices, 26 US representatives, 63 senators, 150 assembly persons.
In 2022 there were roughly 6 million voters. I don’t think Yankee Stadium would hold them all.
Jim Riley, how many times do we need to go over this? For however long governments the size of New York continue to exist, each election would elect representatives to the next higher level election. The process would work the same way at that election for as many levels as required, including federal as long as it exists, which is hopefully not long.
My ultimate goal is that there be no such additional layers. Start with removing them from the top down.
The ideal nation state would be around 10k-1 million in total population, with about 10-1,000 voters.
Evolving technology will soon remove most of the reasons for people and products or raw materials to ever cross those borders. Border crossings of any kind will become very rare with the ability to manufacture at the atomic or subatomic level and create fully realistic and reliable full immersion virtual experiences and communication. Think replicators and holodecks on star trek. We’re not that far away technologically; a generation or two away at most.
@Stanley,
Is dissolution of the USA practicable in 2026?
Is refinement of the electorate practicable in 2026?
Is it practicable to use standing count in New York state in 2026?
If you choose the third, I simply want details. Without a bit of planning it could be a fiasco.
Dissolution will start from the top. The union will get dissolved. No, that’s not practical in 2026. I do believe it will become practical well within the lifetime of at least some people who might be reading.
Further dissolution is likely to come soon thereafter. If I was to somehow live that long, I’d hope to see something like my plan in practice by 2076. Somewhaf sooner isn’t impossible, and certainly by the end of this century.
Of course, that would make me the oldest person to have ever lived since the early parts of the Old Testament times, but life extension technology is improving, with various breakthroughs on the horizon, so it’s not entirely impossible, although I certainly would not bet on it.
Refinement of the electorate is already starting with some very tiny baby steps. They are halting and uncertain, as baby steps tend to be. Organized public support for more dramatic steps is growing, although still far from sufficient at this point.
My plan is not practical in 2026. Neither are the other alternative plans discussed further above. I think my plan or something roughly approximate is more likely to happen by the second half of the 21st century than those other plans are.
@Stanley,
What is the mean size of your ideal nation state? Do you have a possible map for the area currently known as New York state?
Sorry, missed this earlier.
Approximately 100k total population is ideal. I’d give or take an order of magnitude for leeway. Approximately 1 in 1k would be voters, so 10-1k voters total, 100 on average.
I don’t have a map. Natural boundaries and existing political lines are starting points. In densely populated areas such as NYC I would start with neighborhood and police precinct lines.