Thirteen presidential candidates on ballot in Florida

Florida’s Herald Tribune writes, “Getting on the ballot in Florida is a breeze for minor-party candidates. They just have to show their party held a national convention, reported the name of their nominee to the state by Sept. 1, and have at least 27 members.” While candidates like independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr “will be somewhat familiar,” there are also “candidates like Thomas Robert Stevens of the nine-month-old Objectivist Party and Charles Jay of the 500-member strong Boston Tea Party, made up of former Libertarians. Even the Prohibition Party is out to make a comeback with Washington state landscape painter Gene Amondson running for president.” WINKNews.com also reports on the 14 presidential candidates on the ballot in the state.

EDITORS NOTE: There are actually 13 candidates officially on the ballot for President in Florida, as noted by Richard Winger, editor of the always-excellent Ballot Access News.

0 thoughts on “Thirteen presidential candidates on ballot in Florida

  1. JimDavidson

    Hey! We don’t have 500 members in the Boston Tea Party, yet. (Unless that’s how many are registered in Florida, in which case, good work John Wayne Smith and the team in Florida!)

  2. richardwinger

    There are 13 on in Florida. The Secretary of State’s webpage includes one write-in candidate, so people count names and they come up with 14, but it’s really 13.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    Actually, parties in Florida don’t have to “have at least 27 members.” They have to designate 27 electors.

    Presumably not all members are interested in being, or even necessarily qualified to serve as, presidential electors.

    That said, the quote seems to imply that easy ballot access is a bad thing, and I disagree. It shouldn’t be government’s job to limit availability to the voters of qualified candidates from whom to choose.

    When some “third parties should STFU” type complains that there are too many choices, he’s revealing his implicit opinion that the voters are too stupid to distinguish between candidates — in which case I’d say that he’s really saying the voters are too stupid to vote, period.

  4. JimDavidson

    Many voters are stupid, Ross.

    So are many non-voters.

    Given the proportions of registered and not voting, unregistered (and prevented from voting if they get a mood to vote) and registered to voting, there are probably more stupid people not voting than voting every year. And rather many stupid people counting, or pretending to count, the votes.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    Ross,

    For the sake of argument, and only for that sake, I’ll stipulate to the possibility of rampant voter stupidity.

    Even stupid voters probably aren’t so stupid that they’re not going to be offended when someone gets up in their grills and tells them “you’re stupid” — in the context of asking them for their votes, or opining as to whether or not they’re intelligent enough to — by analogy — look at a menu and choose an entree.

    And, of course, if the voters are stupid … well, who was it that chose the “major party” candidates in the primary process? If they were stupid, then they made stupid choices … so why constrain them to those particular stupid choices on the next go-round? Even if they’re stupid, they might randomly make better choices if they have the opportunity to do so, right?

  6. Ross Levin

    I don’t think the general public is stupid. I think a lot more of them are apathetic than stupid. I support the national initiative, after all, which requires a lot of faith in the people.

  7. Michael Gilson-De Lemos

    Let’s remember that, far from a breeze, Florida once had the toughest ballot requirements in the country and now has some of the most sensible, thanks to a 3 decade fight by the Libertarians.

    It also has an initiative process and a bias for appointive, not elected officials , again, thanks in good part to the efforts of the Libertarians there.

  8. paulie cannoli

    It requires that you have faith in the people to make intelligent decisions as a whole.

    No. You can be for it if you think people are generally dumb, venal and corrupt. Just as long as you think politicians and lobbyists are even more so.

    On the other hand, as a decentralist, I would rather work for I & R in more states and/or towns rather than at the federal or international level.

  9. paulie cannoli

    Oops, blew a tag.

    It requires that you have faith in the people to make intelligent decisions as a whole.

    No. You can be for it if you think people are generally dumb, venal and corrupt. Just as long as you think politicians and lobbyists are even more so.

    On the other hand, as a decentralist, I would rather work for I & R in more states and/or towns rather than at the federal or international level.

  10. Ross Levin

    The actual Ni4D law would establish direct democracy at all levels of government except the international level. The Ni4D doesn’t advocate for a more centralized or decentralized government or anything like that – just that people are more involved in the government.

  11. paulie cannoli

    The actual Ni4D law would establish direct democracy at all levels of government except the international level.

    Why not the international level?

    The Ni4D doesn’t advocate for a more centralized or decentralized government or anything like that – just that people are more involved in the government.

    Instead of creating another branch of the federal government, we should be working to take power away from it and move it down to as local a level as possible, and ultimately to individuals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *