Tennessee State Senator Tim Burchett (R-Knoxville) has asked the legislative counsel’s office to draft a bill, setting up a two-tier system for qualified parties in Tennessee. A two-tier system means that the state recognizes two types of qualified parties. Large qualified parties nominate by primary; small qualified parties nominate by convention. Similar systems are already in place in 18 other states.
The Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, Lawrence Denny, is in the process of introducing a bill to convert Idaho from an open primary state, to a closed primary state. On February 5, the House State Affairs Committee voted 9-8 not to introduce such a bill. However, afterwards, two members of the Committee who had voted “no” said they will change their vote when the proposal is brought before them again. No bill on this subject has actually been introduced yet.
New York holds a special election on February 6 to fill the vacant 7th State Senate seat. Only two candidates are on the ballot, although all 5 ballot-qualified parties are in the race. The Democratic and Working Families Parties nominated Craig Johnson. The Republican, Independence and Conservative Parties nominated Maureen O’Connell. The seat is vacant because the incumbent, a Republican, was chosen by the Democratic Governor for a state executive position.
The June 2006 Journal of Politics carries a political science article titled, “The Decline of Third Party Voting in the United States.” The authors are Professor Shigeo Hirano of Columbia, and Professor James M. Snyder of MIT. The article can be read here.
The article covers the period 1890 to the present. The title is misleading. The article says that third parties polled high shares of the vote between 1890 and 1920, and then low shares 1940-1970, and since 1970 it has risen again. The article seems not to discuss the period 1920-1940. The article is somewhat confusing because the authors never say whether they are including independent candidates in their study. They use the terms “two party system” and “third party” but don’t define either one.
The article introduces the idea that ballot access barriers may be responsible for the decline between 1920 and the period 1940-1970, but then they shy away from trying to determine if ballot access barriers are responsible for the decline. They say, “Ballot access restrictions varied across states over time. The information on specific ballot access restrictions is not readily available and consequently is not used in our analysis.” Of course, it is readily available, and was published in Richard Winger’s article in the Election Law Journal, vol. 5, no. 2. Appendix “F” gives the number of signatures needed for new party or independent candidate ballot access, for each state, for the entire period starting in 1892. But Professors Hirano and Snyder were apparently unaware of that resource.
UPDATE: the authors advise that they did include independent candidates in their compilation.
The June 2006 Journal of Politics carries a political science article titled, “The Decline of Third Party Voting in the United States.” The authors are Professor Shigeo Hirano of Columbia, and Professor James M. Snyder of MIT. The article can be read here.
The article covers the period 1890 to the present. The title is misleading. The article says that third parties polled high shares of the vote between 1890 and 1920, and then low shares 1940-1970, and since 1970 it has risen again. The article seems not to discuss the period 1920-1940. The article is somewhat confusing because the authors never say whether they are including independent candidates in their study. They use the terms “two party system” and “third party” but don’t define either one.
The article introduces the idea that ballot access barriers may be responsible for the decline between 1920 and the period 1940-1970, but then they shy away from trying to determine if ballot access barriers are responsible for the decline. They say, “Ballot access restrictions varied across states over time. The information on specific ballot access restrictions is not readily available and consequently is not used in our analysis.” Of course, it is readily available, and was published in Richard Winger’s article in the Election Law Journal, vol. 5, no. 2. Appendix “F” gives the number of signatures needed for new party or independent candidate ballot access, for each state, for the entire period starting in 1892. But Professors Hirano and Snyder were apparently unaware of that resource.
UPDATE: the authors advise that they did include independent candidates in their compilation.
