The September 23 New York Times has this story about Switzerland’s political party system. The article emphasizes how easy it is for parties to be formed and get on the ballot. Thanks to Independent Political Report for the link. It might be added that several U.S. Supreme Court opinions say the purpose of restrictive ballot access laws is to promote “stability”. In 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Hawaii’s ban on write-in votes on the grounds that the ban promotes “stability.” Yet Switzerland, with very lenient ballot access laws, and which permits write-ins, is one of the most stable nations in the world.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
What happens to the zillion used ballot lists ???
Feed them to the local cows or termites ???
One more MOCKERY of REAL Democracy ???
——-
Equal X percent in nominating petitions.
Solve for X to avoid the MOB scene ballots.
How many parties are *enough* ???
MORE / LESS / SAME govt x left/right = Z
Solve for Z.
Sorry – Switzerland has its stability problems — up in the mountains — between Germany, France and Italy.
Back in the 1200s-1500s it became an early refuge for Democracy folks fighting against the many then EVIL monarchs and oligarchs in Europe — struggle carried to England in the 1600s — then to the Brit-American colonies – VA, MA, etc.
See the book — Outline of History by H.G. Wells – the Switzerland parts.
ANOTHER New York Times piece talking about the “surprising” success of third parties in a foreign country that FAILS to mention that the country uses proportional representation?
No offense to the important work of Ballot Access News, but ballot access isn’t the driving force behind these parties. In fact, I would submit that the lax ballot access rules are a RESULT of an effective system of proportional representation. With the significantly-reduced occurrence and effect of spoilers, there is no incentive by incumbent government to protect itself with ballot access hurdles.
#2, minor parties do very well in Great Britain and Canada, and those two countries don’t have proportional representation. They have fair and equal ballot access, and reasonably fair rules for debates.
Also, minor parties did very well in the United States in the 19th century, and the 1910’s decade of the 20th century, and the U.S. didn’t have proportional representation.
Fair examples. Perhaps I somewhat over-stated my point. There are many things that can help third parties. Most of them don’t apply to the US though, or apply much less strongly.
For instance, regional, cultural, and linguistic division are a huge help; Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish parties have seen success in the UK, and in Canada there’s the Quebecois. And historically, much of the success of third parties in the US was also strongly regionally based, in the mid-west (until those groups were mostly united with the Democrats.)
Parliamentarianism also helps, which is something Canada and the UK share. (And is currently my only explanation for the LibDems, and my money is on one of the current big 3 to drop down to minor party status (less than 3%, i.e. <20 seats) again w/i the next two elections.)
For an extreme interpretation of these factors, look at India! 34 parties (+9 independents) in four major alliances, all elected by FPTP. Almost all of them small religious, linguistic, regional parties.
But I don't see any of those factors becoming /more/ significant in the US. We're not replacing the President with a Prime Minister anytime soon. The US is more culturally homogeneous than any of these countries.
What do we have left? Ballot access, and election method. I think election method would be the bigger effect, but it's hard to think of a country which scores well on one of those points but not the other; they tend to go hand-in-hand. Which is why I follow your work so closely 🙂
ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders in all the gerrymander/plurality regimes — U.K. (start of the EVIL in the 1200s), U.S.A., Canada, India (all ex-Brit regimes), etc.
Democracy NOW via 100 percent P.R. — Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner – via pre-election candidate rank order lists – excess votes down, loser votes up.
Attention NY Times (and a whole lot of other folks) —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
Political STONE AGE in the U.K., U.S.A., Canada, India, etc. etc.
Sorry – political *science* has advanced since the 1200s.
Burdick v Takushi doesn’t use the word “stability” directly, but rather in a quote from Storer. And stability does not refer to the state of the country, but rather of the electoral process.
Given the ease of ballot access for the offices at issue in Hawaii, the Supreme Court ruled that the ability to cast write-in votes and have them tabulated was little more than an effort by protestors to see “Donald Duck” appear in the result list.
In Justice Kennedy’s dissent regarding Burdick v Takushi, he pointed out that ballot access is easy in the primary but considerably more difficult for the general election, and that ease of ballot access is not a sufficient condition to ban write-ins. He also argued that the state of Hawaii did nothing to demonstrate the necessity of the ban:
“I do not think it necessary here to specify the level of scrutiny that should then be applied because, in my view, the State has failed to justify the write in ban under any level of scrutiny. The interests proffered by the State, some of which are puzzling, are not advanced to any significant degree by the write in prohibition.”
If Hawaii could have demonstrated that other states’ political systems spun wildly out of control because of write-in voting, I would agree with the Court’s ruling, but it didn’t even try, so I have to agree with Kennedy.
In 2010, some of Alaska’s voters probably wrote in Donald Duck, but quite a few more voted for someone without feathers. That’s SENATOR Murkowski to you, Joe Miller!
#8 Justice Kennedy’s concerns would be addressed by a Top 2 Open Primary system. Even he admitted that there was no reason to provide for Donald Duck votes.
Why should Hawaii have to demonstrate the necessity of not providing for write-in candidacies?
And Alaska’s practice of allowing write-in declarations of candidacy while voting was going on risked chaos as the State had to keep sending updated candidate lists.
If a voter wrote in the name of a person who was not a candidate at the time, was it a lawful vote? Putting time stamps on ballots would risk ballot secrecy.
If people want to vote for Donald Duck they should have that right.
Donald Duck, if elected, probably would be better than 99% of those that win.
#4
You’d think people would remember the odd salience of ethnic identity among the indigenous peoples of the British Isles and the obvious implications that has for electoral politics. I guess that long-running ethnic civil war in Northern Ireland (which often spilled over to the mainland) just became low-level background noise!
#9 Because it’s an infringement on the franchise. How much of the franchise can the state strip from the people based on bare assertion of interest? Your home state of Texas allows write-ins, as does mine. Neither of our states has turned into a political madhouse as a result. In New Jersey, several write-in candidates were recently elected to school boards, and the republic survived.
Alaska was an unusual situation, which was caused to a considerable extent by the low cunning of Joe Miller supporters who were imitating the ethics of their candidate of choice. They were trying to manufacture chaos that was not the result of genuine write-in candidates seeking election:
“KFQD 750 AM radio host Dan Fagan, a Miller backer, urged voters to sign up in an act of “civil disobedience” — defying what he calls an illegal effort by the state.
“Rush on over there before 5 o’clock and register as a write-in candidate. Especially if your last name is Murkowski. That would really help the cause,” Fagan told listeners Thursday afternoon.”
@12 But what else would you expect from a candidate who expressed public admiration for East German border control? LOL
#13 I’d forgotten about that. He’s quite a character!
#12 In Texas, a write-in candidate is a candidate who filed after the original deadline, such that they are not printed on the ballot. Candidates must qualify with a petition, and sore losers need not apply.
If there is only one candidate (on-ballot or write-in, it doesn’t matter) certain elections may be cancelled. If there are no write-in candidates for an office, there is no write-in space on the ballot.
Writing in the name of a candidate is equivalent to making a X next to the name of a candidate’s name on the ballot. The list of write-in candidates is posted in each voting booth.
Texas does not permit write-ins in primaries or runoff elections.
So in reality, practice in Texas is quite similar to Hawaii.
If Donald Duck is a write-in candidate, he still needs to get his Huey, Dewey, and Louis on his petition, and he better not have quacked in the primary.
I found where to get free android apps and wanted to share with you guys