another ill planned move by the GOP

DKSuddeth said:
Independent candidates are required to collect at least 64,076 signatures by May 10 from registered voters who did not vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries. That equals 1 percent of all votes cast for president in the last election in Texas.

In contrast, third-party candidates needed to collect only 45,540 signatures by May 24


I would assume this is a 'bow' to the Libertarians and Communists, no?
 
Kathianne said:
Didn't mean you, meant TX.

Its specific sanctioning of party politics, by my guess. It seems designed to make things more difficult for someone to run as an independent over a party affilliated candidate.
 
DKSuddeth said:
Its specific sanctioning of party politics, by my guess. It seems designed to make things more difficult for someone to run as an independent over a party affilliated candidate.

Maybe I'm being dense here, won't be the first time, what is required for GOP and DNC?
 
Kathianne said:
Maybe I'm being dense here, won't be the first time, what is required for GOP and DNC?

closest I could find.

Ballot Access Laws Governing the Democratic and Republican Presidential Primaries
To be included on all state primary ballots, presidential candidates must pay total filing fees of $8,100. In addition, candidates must submit petition signatures from registered voters, but the number of signatures required depends upon whether the candidate is "important" or "unimportant ."

An "important" candidate running in the Democratic primary must submit 26,000 signatures nationwide; an "important" Republican must submit 54,750.

However, if the candidate is "unimportant," he or she needs 112,251 petition signatures to qualify for access to the Democratic primary ballot or 141,001 signatures for the Republican.

"Important" candidates need fewer signatures than "unimportant" candidates because many states waive signature requirements for "important" candidates. But no state uses the term "important candidates" or "unimportant candidates." Instead, their laws refer to "candidates recognized in the news media" and "other candidates." In other words, if a candidate is acknowledged by television newsmen and major newspaper reporters as someone worth covering, then that candidate has a much easier time getting on the ballot.

Even in states which make no distinction between "candidates recognized by the media" and "other candidates," the former have an advantage getting on the ballot. For example, in 1988 Republican presidential candidates needed 5,000 signatures to get on the Texas primary ballot. Most of the Republican contenders, including Senator Robert Dole, failed to get these signatures. It turned out that many of the Republican candidates had hired the same petition-gathering firm to obtain the needed signatures. In turn, this particular petition-gathering firm hired unscrupulous petitioners who forged names on the petitions. When the forgeries were discovered and invalidated, the state Republican Party and the Texas Secretary of State quickly announced that all the candidates would be placed on the ballot anyway, even though most of them did not have enough valid signatures. "Unimportant" candidates never get such royal treatment when they fail to get enough signatures.
 
Kathianne said:
I think there must be some 'rules', these seem fair.

Sure there should be some rules. My point is the rules should treat all political parties equally. As it stands now, the bigger parties (which includes the LP in WA state) get their candidates on the ballot easier than smaller parties. that is unfair. If you want to create barriers to getting on the ballot so that tthere is not a million candidates on the ballot for every office, fine. But ALL parties should have the same requirements to get on the ballot.

travis
 
DKSuddeth said:
closest I could find.

Ballot Access Laws Governing the Democratic and Republican Presidential Primaries
To be included on all state primary ballots, presidential candidates must pay total filing fees of $8,100. In addition, candidates must submit petition signatures from registered voters, but the number of signatures required depends upon whether the candidate is "important" or "unimportant ."

An "important" candidate running in the Democratic primary must submit 26,000 signatures nationwide; an "important" Republican must submit 54,750.

However, if the candidate is "unimportant," he or she needs 112,251 petition signatures to qualify for access to the Democratic primary ballot or 141,001 signatures for the Republican.

"Important" candidates need fewer signatures than "unimportant" candidates because many states waive signature requirements for "important" candidates. But no state uses the term "important candidates" or "unimportant candidates." Instead, their laws refer to "candidates recognized in the news media" and "other candidates." In other words, if a candidate is acknowledged by television newsmen and major newspaper reporters as someone worth covering, then that candidate has a much easier time getting on the ballot.

Even in states which make no distinction between "candidates recognized by the media" and "other candidates," the former have an advantage getting on the ballot. For example, in 1988 Republican presidential candidates needed 5,000 signatures to get on the Texas primary ballot. Most of the Republican contenders, including Senator Robert Dole, failed to get these signatures. It turned out that many of the Republican candidates had hired the same petition-gathering firm to obtain the needed signatures. In turn, this particular petition-gathering firm hired unscrupulous petitioners who forged names on the petitions. When the forgeries were discovered and invalidated, the state Republican Party and the Texas Secretary of State quickly announced that all the candidates would be placed on the ballot anyway, even though most of them did not have enough valid signatures. "Unimportant" candidates never get such royal treatment when they fail to get enough signatures.

I agree, that is unfair!
 
Kathianne said:
that may be, what's the date and % of pop. they are asking for?


That does not really tell you how fair it is. What tells you how fair it is, is whether the requirements are the same for ALL political parties or if they have two difference classes of political parties.

Travis
 
tpahl said:
That does not really tell you how fair it is. What tells you how fair it is, is whether the requirements are the same for ALL political parties or if they have two difference classes of political parties.

Travis
Yeah, it was. Asked and answered on both parts.
 
Kathianne said:
I agree, that is unfair!

it is an issue that libertarians 9and other third parties deal with every year. Often times they end up spending the majority of their funds just to get on the ballot through court battles and signature gathering, while the major party candidates spend can often times spend a fraction of that ammount and actual purchase ballot access straight from the government.

Travis
 
tpahl said:
it is an issue that libertarians 9and other third parties deal with every year. Often times they end up spending the majority of their funds just to get on the ballot through court battles and signature gathering, while the major party candidates spend can often times spend a fraction of that ammount and actual purchase ballot access straight from the government.

Travis

On this we agree! Had to happen sometime! :beer:
 
The only thing I would say regarding major/minor parties is this: me and my two buddies Joe and Schmoe could form the Grand Old Jeff Party, register it, and then run all three of us as candidates for some office. So could hundreds of other people. Now you are stuck with dozens of "parties" on a ballot, hundreds of candidates, creating a larger ballot, taking more time/money to print them, explain them in voter's guides, count them, etc. Having some kind of guidelines as to what constitutes a major party (i.e. an established party) vs. a minor party are necessary, IMO. However, I disagree with the current standards. I would say that if a candidate for statewide office can pull 1%, they could then qualify as a "major party." That would allow truly widespread popular movements to qualify for ballot positions while keeping me and Joe Schmoe from wasting government dollars.
 
gop_jeff said:
The only thing I would say regarding major/minor parties is this: me and my two buddies Joe and Schmoe could form the Grand Old Jeff Party, register it, and then run all three of us as candidates for some office. So could hundreds of other people. Now you are stuck with dozens of "parties" on a ballot, hundreds of candidates, creating a larger ballot, taking more time/money to print them, explain them in voter's guides, count them, etc. Having some kind of guidelines as to what constitutes a major party (i.e. an established party) vs. a minor party are necessary, IMO. However, I disagree with the current standards. I would say that if a candidate for statewide office can pull 1%, they could then qualify as a "major party." That would allow truly widespread popular movements to qualify for ballot positions while keeping me and Joe Schmoe from wasting government dollars.

This seems reasonable to me. The Grand Old Jeff Party would probably have trouble getting 1%. If not, it should be set at a reasonable standard. :usa:
 
Kathianne said:
This seems reasonable to me. The Grand Old Jeff Party would probably have trouble getting 1%. If not, it should be set at a reasonable standard. :usa:

Wow... thanks for that vote of confidence! :p:
 
gop_jeff said:
The only thing I would say regarding major/minor parties is this: me and my two buddies Joe and Schmoe could form the Grand Old Jeff Party, register it, and then run all three of us as candidates for some office. So could hundreds of other people. Now you are stuck with dozens of "parties" on a ballot, hundreds of candidates, creating a larger ballot, taking more time/money to print them, explain them in voter's guides, count them, etc. Having some kind of guidelines as to what constitutes a major party (i.e. an established party) vs. a minor party are necessary, IMO. However, I disagree with the current standards. I would say that if a candidate for statewide office can pull 1%, they could then qualify as a "major party." That would allow truly widespread popular movements to qualify for ballot positions while keeping me and Joe Schmoe from wasting government dollars.

I am not saying that there should not be some requirements for getting a candidate on the ballot. I am just saying that the requirements should be the same for both the republican party and the Grand old Jeff party. As it stands now you as a member of the Grand ol Jeff party would have to collect more signatures than the GOP or Democrats in many/most states. And on top of that in some states the GOP and democrats could skip the whole signature process and instead just pay a larger filing fee and be done with the whole process whereas you as a member of the GOJ do not even have that option.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top