THe blog Flopping Aces has this attack on the recent decision of the Nevada Tea Party to get itself on the ballot and run a candidate for U.S. Senate. The logic of Flopping Aces is familiar; the same argument has been repeated in other publications for decades. The writer assumes that all voters already have a pre-determined ideology, and he also assumes that campaigns do not change the minds of any voter.

Therefore, this line of thinking says that it is always a mistake for two parties that both represent the same ideology to ever be on the ballot, because they will split the vote of that ideological bloc.

In reality, social science research shows that only a minority of voters have a pre-determined ideology that determines their votes. Furthermore, such research shows that having a third choice can sometimes help one of the other two choices that is most similar to the third choice.

“Predictably Irrational”, a recent best-seller by Dan Ariely, features research in which someone is confronted with three choices, and must choose only one. If two of the choices are quite similar to each other, but one of those two is obviously superior to the other similar one, then that superior choice gains an advantage, in its competition with the choice that is different from the other two.

The Nevada Tea Party campaign for U.S. Senate may have the opposite effect of what Flopping Aces predicts. The Nevada Tea Party candidate might make some persuasive points about public policy, which would influence the thinking of some voters who didn’t have any particular ideological disposition. Then, in the voting booth, that voter might be moved to vote for the Republican nominee, because he or she perceives an agreement with both the Republican and the Tea Party candidate, and feels the Republican nominee is the superior choice between those two. Yet without the Tea Party campaign, the voter have missed the exposure to those ideas, and might have voted for the Democrat.

On February 11, the Board of the ACLU of Northern California resolved to oppose Proposition 14, the “top-two open primary” that is on the ballot in June 2010. The ACLU had also opposed a similar measure in California in 2004, Prop. 62, and Prop. 62 was far kinder to minor parties than 2010’s version.

Prop. 62 in 2004 cut the number of registrants needed for a party to attain, or keep, party status to one-third of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. Also, Prop. 62 permitted write-ins in November, even for candidates who had run in the primary and not placed first or second.

By contrast, Prop. 14 in June 2010 leaves the registration requirement at 1%, and does not permit write-ins to be counted in November for Congress or state office. Because Prop. 14 abolishes the 2% vote test for a party to remain on, all parties would need to keep their registration above 1%.

On February 17, the U.S. Supreme Court asked Florida to file a response brief in Citizens for Police Accountability Political Committee v Browning, 09-861. The issue is whether Florida is violating the Constitution by permitting exit pollsters to work within 25 feet of the polling place, and yet not letting petitioners work within 100 feet.

Both exit pollsters, and petitioners, only want to talk to voters on their way out of the polling place. The 11th circuit had upheld the discriminatory treatment. The 11th circuit opinion is reported at 572 F.3d 1213 (June 25, 2009). The petitioners in this case wanted to collect signatures on a local initiative petition.

When the U.S. Supreme Court is asked to hear an appeal, and the Court responds by asking the other side to file a brief, this shows that the Court is interested in the case, and it generally means there is a 50-50 chance that the Court will hear the case. The Court will consider this case at its February 26 conference.