Reason.com Commentary on Approve/Approve/Disapprove Voting

Posted on by July 5, 2024
28

Here is a commentary written by Roy Minet, a long-time friend of mine and member of the Libertarian Party from Pennsylvania, who advocates for an electoral system change that would allow voters to cast votes of approval for up to two candidates and up to one vote of disapproval for a candidate in an election. The disapprove votes would be subtracted from the approve votes for each candidate, and the candidate with the highest net approval vote total would win. If no candidate got a net positive vote total, the election would be redone with other candidates on the ballot.

While I don’t think this article will end the debate about differing voting reforms, and Minet admits that there cannot be a “perfect” voting system, I have heard many other people express the desire to allow negative votes for political candidates. It makes for an interesting read.

Twelve Parties Win At Least One Seat in British House of Commons

Posted on by July 5, 2024
32

The United Kingdom held a House of Commons election on July 4. This wikipedia article shows that 12 parties won at least one seat. Scroll down quite a ways. One seat is still not decided as of Friday morning.

The English-Welsh Green Party won four seats, up from just one. The only reason this blog post singles out the Green Party is that there is an equivalent party in the United States.

British ballot access is equal and lenient. Candidates for House of Commons get on the ballot with 500 pounds and ten signatures. Great Britain does not suffer from crowded ballots. The typical district has fewer than eight candidates on the ballot.

June 2024 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Posted on by July 5, 2024
4

MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT REMOVES LEGAL MARIJUANA NOW PARTY FROM THE BALLOT

On May 10, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion in Martin v Simon, A24-0216.  It immediately removes the Legal Marijuana Now Party from the ballot, even though the party has already had a government-administered presidential primary this year and was about to have a primary for Congress and partisan state offices on August 13.  The deadline for candidates to file in that primary is June 4.

The Legal Marijuana Now Party was the only ballot-qualified party in Minnesota, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties.  It was on the ballot because it had polled over 5% for U.S. Senate in 2020.  The law says when a party passes the vote test, it is on the ballot for the next two elections.  Last year the legislature increased the vote test from 5% to 8%, but made that effective after November 2024, so the party was on the ballot until the Minnesota Supreme Court removed it.  Now Minnesota becomes one of only twelve states with no ballot-qualified third parties.

The lawsuit had been filed by officers of the Minnesota Democratic Party.  The basis for the decision is that the Legal Marijuana Now Party’s internal structure does not meet the requirements of state law.

Continue reading →

Second Circuit Upholds Discriminatory Campaign Finance Laws

Posted on by July 5, 2024
2

On July 3, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in Upstate Jobs Party v Kosinski, 21-2518.  It upholds New York campaign finance laws that allow qualified parties to make unlimited contributions to their own nominees in the general election, but does not permit unqualified parties to do the same.  The decision also upholds New York laws that allow individuals to contribute twice as much money to the nominee of a qualified party as to the nominee of an unqualified party.

Here is the opinion.  It is authored by Judge Debra Ann Livingston, a Bush Jr. appointee.  It is also signed by Judge Reena Raggi, a Bush Jr. appointee; and William J. Nardini, a Trump appointee.

The case had been filed in 2018 by the Upstate Jobs Party, which has never been a qualified party.  It can’t ever be a qualified party because its policy is not to run for statewide office.  Because New York law defines a party as a group that polled a certain share of the vote for President or Governor, it can never qualify.  When the lawsuit was filed, the definition of a party was substantially easier than it is now, but the panel did not mention that point.