Talk:Ballot access
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page seems rather US-centric, and biased against the current US ballot access laws. Also, what survey (A survey of election history suggests that easy access to the ballot simply does not lead to a confusing glut of candidates.)? I'd fix it... but I'm too ignorant in this subject... and lazy. One-dimensional Tangent 01:40, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Removed falseness
I thought that the following section sounded fishy, so I investigated:
An even more extreme example (Title 26, sections 5-112 and 6-106) may be found in Oklahoma where candidates may appear on the ballot by paying a filing fee -- except for voters who are registered Libertarian or Reform, who must collect a minimum of 51,781 valid signatures.
The cited section of law can be found at: [1] and [2]. Examination reveals that the allegations are false. I have therefore removed the offending section.
One-dimensional Tangent 01:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Let's not lie so foolishly)
[edit] More Edits
Ok, rewriting... mostly just trying to reword what's already there so that it'll be more NPOV. When I've changed 'factual' info, I've noted it below:
I'm removing "A survey of election history suggests that easy access to the ballot simply does not lead to a confusing glut of candidates.". Normally I wouldn't, but the person who wrote it also wrote some horribly biased stuff -- in short I don't trust this person to have used a real survey. If someone finds a citation for the survey, I'll gladly replace the text.
Another section removed for being badly non-objective and carrying too little actual info to justify rewriting: "The actual effect (and typically the actual intent) of setting ballot access criteria unequally, or of imposing burdensome restrictions on ballot access for alternative candidates, has almost always been to protect major party candidates from competition."
Also removed paragraph "...Democrats and Republicans collude to impose extremely restrictive ballot access laws, ... in order to keep all other parties and candidates off the ballot." as unsalvagable.
Next para removed too, because it's biased, makes unsupported claims, and seems to be written by the same troublemaker. Again, if there's any supporting evidence, I'll be happy to reinstitate a gentler version.
It would be nice to see some corraborating evidence on the 'write-in-ballot' section. It's relatively balanced, though.
It still needs work. Do jump in and fix things.
One-dimensional Tangent 03:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Let's not let our politics cloud our impartiality)
[edit] Aiming for accuracy versus horribly biased
Some of the most recent edits have been improvements, but other edits are perhaps not improvements.
I intend to ask Richard Winger (editor and publisher of Ballot Access News) to provide us with a report on his extensive surveys and analyses of various jurisdictions (in America and worldwide) having various degrees of ballot access restriction, including those having relatively easy ballot access. Richard Winger is widely regarded as the leading expert on ballot access; he is generous about sharing information and is good about documenting his sources of information.
I did not write the sentence about Oklahoma's ballot access law, but what I take to be the essential point of what was written but recently deleted (about discriminatory ballot access laws in Oklahoma) is actually not untrue. I do agree with the deletion of that sentence, at least for now and in that form, because it is not true that two particular political parties were singled out by name in the Oklahoma statute for discriminatory treatment (so the sentence as written was misleading). But Oklahoma's ballot access law is discriminatory and very bad indeed. Likewise, I did not write the sentence that quoted a Pennsylvania legislator and I do not object to its deletion. The quotation itself expressed a view that seems not untrue, but I couldn't understand the relevance of quoting this particular individual.
Some of the parts I did edit struck someone as "horribly biased" (and led to the deletion of parts of my own contribution). I think some of my perceived bias might have been in part due to the fact that I was trying to leave the language of the existing article intact, to the extent I could. I do want to make it clear that it was not at all my intention to be a "troublemaker" or to abuse Wikipedia principles. I am enjoying learning more about this wonderful project.
I will be happy to continue contributing to this article on ballot access, and I will sign in, in the future, so I don't appear to be an unaccountable anonymous troublemaker.
If anyone needs any corroboration or support for statements I have written, please post your doubts or concerns here so that I will know what you need to see from me, by way of documentation.
Thanks!
I should not have called anyone a troublemaker. The one person I called that was merely being biased (in my opinion), and I have no reason to believe that he/she was intending trouble. However, I still believe that the article was very biased (no claims on whether it is now; I'm no longer a disinterested party). I'm happy that the edits since mine have been reasonable. Plus, if the aforementioned expert (or some other) decides to contribute, hopefully the article can be rounded out with a world-wide perspective.
Now, regarding the Oklahoma law: I don't see a bias built into the law. That doesn't mean that it's not there, but it does suggest that the alleged bias is non-obvious. With that in mind, I propose that anyone who perceives such a bias please explain his/her interpretation of that law in more detail (preferably presented as an interpretation, rather than as unequivocable fact). And maybe at some point a legislator from Oklahoma will stop by and give the counter-interpretation.
One-dimensional Tangent 19:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (It begins)
[edit] International human rights law and ballot access
Here are some notes on international human rights law pertaining to ballot access (let's supplement this with the OCSC Election Observers' Manual and other more recent standards: Election Observation Handbook published by the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE, addressing registration of candidates and political parties in accordance with the provisions of the Copenhagen Document, 29 June 1990, 29 I.L.M. 1305, Annex I of the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 190, 220-222):
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948 < http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/UNGARES217A.txt>
Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS No. 14668, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 6 I.L.M. 368 (1976), entered into force for the United States 8 September 1992, 32 I.L.M. 274 (1993)/
The States Parties to the present Covenant * * * Agree upon the following articles:
Article 25: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
COPENHAGEN DOCUMENT
Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 29 June 1990, 29 I.L.M. 1305, Annex I incorporated into the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 190, 220-222, ΒΆΒΆ6-8.
[edit] Possible edits
In the overview section, it might help if someone would provide an engaging, easily grasped, and succinct statement of why burdensome ballot access restrictions can be a problem for democracy. Richard Winger has written some excellent and clear paragraphs (some of which are available at www.ballot-access.org) introducing the problem of ballot access to the general public. I'm looking forward to his contributions to this article.
The initial "defining" sentence speaks only of candidates and political parties, and doesn't specifically mention ballot access for issues, initiatives, or referenda. Maybe this should be mentioned briefly, with a link to a separate article explaining how "questions" get on the ballot.
Because so many state ballot access laws require signature-bearing petitions, it would probably be a good idea to say a little something about the special problems facing petition drives, the costs of petitioning, etc.
The section outlining ballot access laws from various states could either simply give a few examples, or else it might aim to be more comprehensive, but presenting something approaching comprehensive information would be a big undertaking, as this can become complex: for example, there are often different ballot access laws regarding different offices even within the same state; so, it would be unwieldy to try to include too much. Even trying to make a "table" could be difficult, as the differences are not always commensurable. In any case, it might be reasonable for a discussion of specific state ballot access laws to become one or more separate pages.
Even if the article mentions only a few states in any detail (maybe North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, Indiana, Texas, or some other states), this would still be a lot of work, but examples would probably help the reader get a better picture of what is involved.
Obstacles facing efforts to improve ballot access laws by legislation should also be spelled out, even if they are obvious to people who have thought about this.
[edit] Open letter from Mike Venne of Ohio (moved from article)
Hello, My name is Mike Venne, I was gathering signatures in order to run in November as an Independent candidate in the twelfth district in the state of Ohio for the US House of Representatives. I gathered only 921 signatures and fell short of the 1137 needed to get on the ballot. I noticed, however, an inconsistency on the ballot requirements for the candidates in the state of Ohio. Where the Major party members are required to secure only a small number to be in their may primary for some offices. However, an actual percentage of the voter population is required for anyone who is not in one of the only two political parties in the state of Ohio (Democrat or Republican.) For instance the signatures the candidates need for Governor, US Senator, Ohio Supreme Court Justice are: for 1) Major parties 1,000, 2) for Minor parties (which there are none) need 500, 3) and for a Independent candidate 5,000. This make the requirement about five times the amount needed for a Party member. For such office of Court of Common Pleas Judge, Court of Appeals Judge, Commissioner, Auditor, State Representatives, State Senators, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Auditor of State, Treasure of State, and US Representative candidates are required to have 1) for Major parties 50, 2) for Minor parties 25, 3) and independent candidate must secure a number of signatures based upon 1% of the number of votes cast in the last election. The actual number of signatures that I needed was 1137 and I only received 921, but 921 is over eighteen times the amount so needed for a Democrat or Republican candidate, accordingly I am ineligible to be on the upcoming ballot. The way the percentages are written into election law is made so the Democrats and Republicans can maintain their dominance of public office. There is no end to what might happen. For instances if all 630,730 people in a district voted under current Ohio election law an independent running for the US House of Representatives would need 6307 signatures to get on the ballot, more than any other candidate in the Ohio going for any office by 1307 signatures, and more than 120 times the amount the a major party candidate would need for the same office (a Republican or a Democrat running for the same office would still only need to get 50. ) May 10 2006
-
- To Mike Venne: if you are interested in learning more about ballot access and challenges to restrictive ballot laws, you should visit the Ballot Access News website, which is linked-to from the main article. You should also feel free to post your e-mail address, so that discussions can continue offline.~~
