See this interesting interview with Ralph Nader, in which the 2016 presidential election is discussed. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
Reply
New Jersey is one of the 31 states that asks voters on the voter registration form to choose a party, or independent status. However, New Jersey has a very strange policy to determine which parties voters can join, on voter registration forms. For the last 93 years, the only qualified parties in New Jersey have been the Democratic and Republican Parties. Until 2001, no one could register in New Jersey except as a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent. In 2001 the New Jersey State Appeals Court ruled that voters must be allowed to register into parties that are not qualified, but which regularly place nominees on the ballot. Unqualified parties do that by submitting petitions for their nominees; the ballots contain the names of those unqualified parties, next to the names of their nominees.
The 2001 court decision was won by five parties: Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and Reform. The state then started letting voters register into those parties, but never set out any regulations, or any updated laws, giving general guidance as to which unqualified parties could qualify for voter registration rights. Later the Conservative Party won a similar lawsuit, so voters could register into that party also. So, New Jersey, in practice, requires parties to sue, before they can enjoy voter registration rights.
On June 24, the Socialist Party of New Jersey sued for the same registration rights. Here is the complaint. When the Conservative Party had sued New Jersey, the state didn’t contest the lawsuit. It will be interesting to see how the state responds to the Socialist Party’s lawsuit. The party already asked for voter registration rights and the state refused.
Suffolk University Polls has released results for the special Massachusetts U.S. Senate election set for June 25. Suffolk University Polls, unlike other pollsters, included all three ballot-listed candidates. See the results here. The poll also shows that 74% of the voters have never heard of the Twelve Visions Party candidate, Richard Heos. Thanks to Michael for this news.
Immediately after the November 2012 election, this blog and the written newsletter both said that the Wisconsin Libertarian Party had re-gained qualified party status in Wisconsin. In the November 2012 election, the Libertarian Party polled 2.07% for U.S. Senator. Generally, in Wisconsin, whenever a group polls 1% for any statewide race, it retains or gains qualified status.
Unfortunately for the Libertarian Party, the law is worded in such a way as to exclude U.S. Senate for the vote test, if the U.S. Senate election was in a presidential election year. Whereas U.S. Senate, and all statewide posts, count in midterm years, in presidential years only the presidential vote counts.
Because the Constitution Party polled 1.08% for U.S. Senate in 2010, it was on the ballot automatically in 2012 and it continues to be on in 2014. Yet, although the Libertarian Party polled double that percentage for the same office, but in a more recent year (2012), it is not ballot-qualified. The law, section 5.62(b), says, “Every recognized political party listed on the official ballot at the last gubernatorial election whose candidate for any statewide office received at least 1% of the total votes cast for that office, and, if the last general election was also a presidential election, every recognized political party listed on the ballot at that election whose candidate for president received at least 1% of the total vote cast for that office” is recognized. The law also says that newly-qualifying parties can qualify the same way.
The Wisconsin Libertarian Party can recover its qualified status in 2014 if it runs a candidate for statewide office who polls 1%. The party would use the independent candidate procedure for such candidates, but they would have the “Libertarian” label on the ballot if the candidates desire that label.
On June 18, Fairvote issued this analysis of California’s top-two system. The analysis says, “In the vast majority of cases (from 2012 in California), Top Two fails to have any meaningful impact on the race, retaining uncompetitive races dominated by incumbents and major party insiders – yet it comes at the expense of near complete elimination of minor parties and independents from a general election voice.”
The analysis recommends these changes: (1) let the top four vote-getters advance; (2) use ranked-choice voting in the general election; (3) restore write-in space to the November ballot; (4) when candidates have been endorsed by a qualified party, the ballot should mention the endorsement; (5) the time between the primary and the general election should be shortened.
The report finds that in the June 2012 primary, the median second-ranked candidate received 25.1% of the vote, and the median fourth-ranked candidate (in elections that had at least five candidates in the primary) received 5.8%. Consequently, letting the top four candidates advance to the general election would make it considerably easier for candidates to advance.
One problem with this approach is that there are invariably far more candidates when there is no incumbent running. In practice, letting four candidates advance would make it possible for candidates with little voter support to advance in races against incumbents, but in races without incumbents, even some candidates with substantial support would likely fail to advance. Also, there are always considerably more candidates in statewide races than in legislative races. So, again, there would be disparity, in which candidates with substantial support would be more likely to be excluded in statewide races than in legislative races. U.S. House races fall in-between. Using a candidate’s rank to decide whether that candidate advances is inherently arbitrary, compared to a system in which a candidate who polls a specified percentage of the vote advances, regardless of rank.