Thomas D. Elias, California Columnist, Celebrates the Absense of Minor Party Candidates on the California Ballot

Thomas D. Elias, a syndicated columnist in over 50 California daily newspapers, here celebrates the exclusion of minor party candidates from the November ballot. He is not factually correct when he says that there are no minor party candidates on the ballot for any congressional or state office. There are three Peace & Freedom Party candidates for the legislature on the November ballot. All three ran in races in which only one major party member filed to be on the primary ballot. Naturally, when only one major party member runs in a top-two primary, that leaves an opening for a minor party candidate to come in second. All three Peace & Freedom Party nominees happened to have been write-in candidates in the primary.

Elias seems to have no concept that general election season is one of the biggest and most important “public forums” in any free country. Locking out unpopular viewpoints from the general election campaign season represents a massive shrinkage of the free circulation of ideas.

Elias also reveals an unconscious contempt for ordinary voters. When a voter votes for a minor party nominee, that voter understands that he or she is not supporting the major party nominee whom that voter might prefer to the other major party nominee. Because Elias disagrees with that voter’s behavior, he wants to use the power of election law to interfere with voter freedom. This is a highly authoritarian action.


Comments

Thomas D. Elias, California Columnist, Celebrates the Absense of Minor Party Candidates on the California Ballot — 3 Comments

  1. In stating how much better it is that we don’t have third party candidates on the ballot, Mr Elias mentions races in which almost 900,000 California voters cast ballots for alternative party candidates.

    So Mr Elias believes it is good that almost 900,000 California voters might be denied a choice in November. That shows more contempt for the voters than do the third parties that offer choices.

  2. P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
    —–
    See the multi-party P.R. regimes in Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, etc. — HOWEVER — with super-dangerous parliamentary regimes with party hacks having both major legislative and executive powers – i.e. 2/3 tyrants.

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Your email address will not be published.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.