On July 7, Maine Governor Janet Mills signed LD 769, which eases the definition of a qualified political party. The old law said it was a group with 5,000 registrants if it was less than four years old, but if it was four years old or more it needed 10,000.
The new law says a qualified party is a group with 5,000 registered members, regardless of the age of the party.
INDIVIDUALS ARE NOMINATED/ELECTED- NOT PARTIES
SINCE 1776.
MUCH TOO DIFFICULT FOR SCOTUS TO UNDERSTAND.
Amazing!
It’s obviously way too difficult for AZ to understand that parties should be elected, not individuals. Then again, it’s too difficult for AZ to understand there are more important differences between Trump and Hitler than one having been to jail and the other not, that the US is not currently a monarchy, and that he makes bigger mistakes than typographical errors.
A party with 5000 enrolled members will find it difficult to qualify candidates. An enrolled member will be told that they can’t vote in the primary in the news. But they can vote in the nonpartisan election for dog catcher. Enrollment will decline except if the party is listed on registration forms.
Voting access should be at the precinct level, based on party precinct chair availability to represent the party in the precinct publicly for sufficient time before the election, and personal presence in the voting hall on election night. Interim measures:
* switch to in person standing count elections with on the record voting
* switch to voting by party rather than individual
* downsize number of government functions ; get government out of any area other than defense against foreign attack and criminals
* simplify laws
* decrease number of government positions, offices, officials, employees
* make government as local as possible
* voting access through local in person party leadership and presence at elections
* make punishment of crime sure, swift, and severe
* restrict voting rights
* stop population replacement
* measures to encourage working, employing, buying and selling as locally as possible
Directional movement towards any of these goals, among others I’ve posted before, is welcome. Even minor directional movement, and even separately. However, the measures work best taken together. Never the less, even minor changes in any of those directions help.
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, animal control officers are not elected. Even heads of such departments are elected.
Presumably parties will be listed on registration forms once they qualify.
Aren’t elected, are appointed.
They will find it difficult to qualify candidates if candidate qualifications are difficult.
AT LEAST MAXZIM HAS MADE PROGRESS- BULLET POINTS FOR HIS IDEAS — NOT 100-500 WORD SENTENCES.
ELECTION ITEMS SHOULD BE GROUPED TOGETHER — MAY RESULT IN THE OTHER STUFF ???
—
P-A-T
It’s not progress. Writing to attention deficit audiences poses various challenges in eliminating needed details and context. You, on the other hand, have made no progress.
HMMM
MAXZIM – NO PROGRESS – ESP IN SO-CALLED ELECTION REFORMS — BAAACK TO STONE AGE TYRANT REGIMES
1 IN 1,000 VOTERS PICKING STONE AGE CAVE LEADER/TYRANT
—
P-A-T
Sorry, that’s only the case on your fantasy planet or universe. In reality my proposals are what I have said and not your mischaracterized twisting and falsification thereof. You seem incapable of even grasping that government as a whole can be a relatively minor side note in social or civic leadership, much less a tyranny. My proposals make government much less important than family, church, business, charity, fraternity, voluntary neighborhood association, professional guilds, etc.
Furthermore I’m not even for picking a leader (much less a tyrant). Ideal system might have about ten peacekeepers out of 100 voters and 100,000 population, all within plus or minus one order of magnitude. Because of better incentives, peace would largely keep itself, with minor crimes and less intractable disputes addressed outside government through less formal means. Thus, the peacekeepers would be likely part time, and perhaps even ceremonial. Their other jobs and social and civic roles would be much more important than their positions as peacekeepers, which would be up for annual election and replacement by their party within the course of the year.
Far from being tyrants, they would largely be doing a civic duty closer in public perception to jury duty than to any government positions of power, as far as how desirable election to such a position might be.
AZ relentlessly mischaracterizes winning party precinct chair as tyrant. In fact, the position could be eliminated immediately at the conclusion of each annual election. A party might instead choose to replace peacekeepers by assembly of the whole party, by lottery/random selection, by preselected order, by leaving positions unfilled, and so on.
No matter how many times any of these things are explained, AZ continues to lie about them ceaselessly. Perhaps he should create his own characters to put forward his fantasies about what I propose, so he can knock down his own straw men rather than lying about what I propose?
AZZ lies intentionally to waste your time. THAT’S WHAT THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS AND USA DEMON RATS ARE PAYING HIM FOR.
It’s pretty dirty of AZ to keep lying about what Max proposes like that.
Very shameful, the AZ lies and communism. Max proposals deserve better. I read them many times and they don’t sound anything like the AZ LIES about them. They are admittedly extreme, but directionally they all sound correct. There’s nothing about tyranny of any kind. Quite the opposite, it’s a proposal for very minimal, localized, simplified, logical, and unobtrusive government.
BY, it’s annoying, but predictable. AZ sticks to his scripts no matter what responses he gets. I think Pat is right, he’s here to waste people’s time on purpose. He claims he never makes any mistakes except typographical and that anyone who disagrees with or questions him is a troll moron. No matter how many times his questions are answered or lies set straight he repeats them endlessly. I’d debate his version of me if I ever encountered it, but I never have.
Sam, correct. I’m only asking for debate and discussion of the direction of changes, not theoretical endpoints.
Also, AZ is still the guy who claims the only difference between Trump and Hitler is that Hitler went to jail. I don’t know if that means on planet AZ Trump killed tens of millions of people, tried to have entire ethnic groups wiped out, invaded almost an entire continent and chunks of another, seized total power as dictator shortly after taking office, and ended up leaving his country a bombed out wreck divided and conquered by enemies in war while he killed himself in a bunker?
Or maybe on planet AZ Hitler served for four years of peace and prosperity, got persecuted by phone persecutions and impeachments over nothing the whole time, got relentlessly libeled and slandered by his country’s fake news establishment, got attacked by enemy biowarfare, and then was removed from office 4 years later in a fake election which brought a foreign controlled geriatric senile dementia patient serving as a puppet of socialist totalitarians to office.
Was Donald Trump a failed painter and war veteran immigrant? Or was Hitler a successful billionaire businessman, prominent radio drama star, etc? Did Hitler have 5 children, or does Trump have none? Did Hitler tell his followers in the beer hall putsch to protest peacefully, or did Trump lead the J6 trespass in person?
Either way, he also says that the US is currently a monarchy, so there’s that.
@RWP,
Maine has 150 house districts. 5000 enrolled averages about 30 per district. To qualify for a primary requires 25 signatures from party members. Some of the 30 will have died or moved or be on vacation or not realized that their ex-girlfriend had checked the party box. It is actually easier to get signers to change their enrollment and then sign.
But it is unlikely that two candidates will qualify. So when a party enrollee gets a ballot it will only have one candidate. Since it is a RCV, a voter can rank that candidate as 1 or skip the ranking.
It is irrational to enroll in that party. Having the name on the registration card does not make it rational.
I meant phony persecutions, not phone persecutions. Although at least one of them used a perfect phone call as a phony pretext.
It sounds like that system of primary qualifications would have to be changed as well. I seem to recall reading here there are legislative bills and/or lawsuits to that effect.
Your equation presumes that 5,000 voters would be evenly spread among 150 legislative districts. It’s more likely that 5k would increase over time if it stays listed on the form and would be geographically concentrated in some areas more than others.
If the primary qualifications aren’t changed, it would be irrational for people who care about voting in state legislative primaries to enroll in a smaller party. However, many voters don’t care about that. They see their enrollment primarily as an expression of ideological preference, and pay more attention to federal and statewide races. Many don’t care who wins legislative primaries of parties they hold no affinity for.
As you mentioned, legislative candidates can also enroll additional voters in their party to qualify.
@RWP,
Independents can qualify with a petition with 50 signatures and can use any description (e.g., Patriotic Patricians)
I would given you the actual numbers for the Libertarians, but the state flushed their enrollments. They later had to send out notices, but the voter had to reenroll.
They’ll rebuild their numbers, presumably.