Ballot Access News: 82% of Voters Will See at least One Libertarian on their Ballots

Ballot Access News:

There is at least one Libertarian on the ballot across the U.S, in areas containing 81.9% of the voters, for the November 2010 election. The Libertarian Party, as is usual in midterm years, is on the ballot in more places than any other minor party.

For 2010, the equivalent percentages for other leading minor parties are: Green, 54.6%; Constitution, 39.0%; Working Families, 8.8%. Of course, most of the Working Families Party nominees are also Democratic Party nominees.

Also, 7.3% of the voters will see a candidate on the ballot with the Tea Party label, but there is no nationally-organized political party with that name. Voters will see the Tea Party label in Florida, Nevada, and in a single U.S. House district in New Jersey. And, 9.5% of voters will see an Independence Party nominee on their ballots, but there is no national political party with that name, just three particular state parties in Minnesota, New York, and South Carolina.

22 thoughts on “Ballot Access News: 82% of Voters Will See at least One Libertarian on their Ballots

  1. tiradefaction

    I saw a Libertarian in all but two congressional elections of mine (which lacked any third parties for some reason). I voted for one as well (Christina Tobin)

  2. James O. Ogle

    I see little reason for any Libertarians to boast, considering at current rate of progress on moving past two-party plurality elections, the LPs won’t be properly represented (22% to 33% range) for 150,000 years in the future.

    The LP currently dominated by these braggarts, single winner district power grabbers, and they’re propped up by control freak party bosses and censor’s rags, who care nothing about securing a voting system for the good of the all.

    –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Join the Frees!
    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”
    http://www.usparliament.org
    OPPOSITE GENDER #1

  3. Starchild

    James @2, I believe most Libertarians favor voting reforms such as proportional representation and ranked choice voting to move away from a “winner-take-all” system.

    When it comes to power grabbers and control freaks, the LP has nothing on the Republicans and Democrats. In fact, Libertarians are probably the *least* power-oriented party in the U.S. that is nationally organized.

  4. tiradefaction

    @3

    Yes I did. There were two federal congressional elections on my ballot this year, both only had a Rep and a Dem. Unsure if there were any valid write in candidates though, I didn’t check. I take that back though, there was a third federal congressional election that had many third parties, the senate race between Boxer vs. Fiorina, but both house rep ones were just Dem Vs. Rep. There was also the gubernatorial election, state secretary, Lt Gov, various initiatives, etc. Most had Greens, Peace & Freedom, Libertarian, Constitution Party (or American Independent, whatever they are called). I mostly voted green, some Peace & Freedom, a few Dems, and one Libertarian.

  5. paulie Post author

    There were two federal congressional elections on my ballot this year,

    How? I thought all states used single-representative districts for congress?

  6. tiradefaction

    @6

    They do. In fact it’s illegal to use multi member districts on the federal level (am I wrong?) There was a senate election, and a house of representative election. (Senate after all, is part of congress. My apologies for not clarifying) Also a state assembly election as well, which strangely only had both the Dems and Reps running as well, guess no one else bothered to run…

  7. tiradefaction

    So I should have said, one federal congressional, and one state congressional. My English can be shit at times, so my apologies again.

  8. paulie Post author

    In fact it’s illegal to use multi member districts on the federal level (am I wrong?)

    Actually, I recall reading recently that multi member districts are allowed, but no state is choosing to use them.

  9. paulie Post author

    My English can be shit at times, so my apologies again.

    Not a problem at all. I wasn’t originally an English speaker, but I came over at a young age (7).

  10. tiradefaction

    @9

    Really? I thought they were outlawed in the 70s? At least federally. I know state legislatures and municipal legislatures are allowed to use them. I think NH uses multi member seats for their House?

    @10

    I came at a later age (14), so I still can make some pretty egregious errors.

  11. paulie Post author

    Really? I thought they were outlawed in the 70s? At least federally.

    Not as far as I know, but there may have been something I missed or forgot.

    I think NH uses multi member seats for their House?

    Yes.

  12. James O. Ogle

    http://www.usparliament.org/drafts/electionAD.html

    http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=74&p=78#p78
    “Coalition of Seven”, eight with Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] for US Senate,
    candidates for state office in California on November 2nd, 2010

    Chelene Nightingale [Constitution Independent] for Governor
    http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com

    Karen Martinez [Peace and Freedom] for Controller
    http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/2010/karen-martinez

    Diane Templin [American Independent] for Attorney General
    http://www.templin4attorneygeneral.blogspot.com/

    Debra Reiger [Peace and Freedom] for Treasurer
    http://www.reigerfortreasurer.com/

    Pamela Brown [Libertarian] for Lt. Governor
    http://www.cawantsfreedom.com/

    Dina Padilla [Peace and Freedom] for Insurance Commissioner
    http://www.padilla4insurancecommissioner.com/

    Tie:
    Merton Short [American Independent] for Secretary of State

    Marylou Cabral [Peace and Freedom] for Secretary of State
    http://peaceandfreedom.org/2010/statewide-offices/marylou-cabral

    Plus Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] for US Senate;
    http://www.gailklightfoot.com/

    YES on Proposition 19
    http://www.yeson19.com

    See cast “tie breaker #2” eballots in posts, here in the US Parliament’s forum.
    http://www.usparliament.org/forum/

    Ad by http://www.GoNott.com, the USA Parliament, Inc. Search Engine
    “GoNott Search”
    (Currently undergoing beta tests)

  13. James O. Ogle

    Starchild @ #4

    MSP Starchild [Libertarian]
    (MSP=member of super-state parliament)

    Starchild, you were elected vice president, initial contact for the ruling coalition. I have been trying to contact you. Where are you?

    You may vote for the three Prime Ministers, two secretaries and the rules of the California Parliament if you wish.

    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11.htm

  14. tiradefaction

    @13

    Portuguese. Lived most of my earlier life in São Paulo. What about you?

    @14

    It seems it is illegal for federal house elections. It is however, not unconstitutional. ” Historical note on US laws concerning districting vis-a-vis PR: In 1996, congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (who later ran as the Green Party candidate for US President) wrote, but failed to pass, bill HR 2545, which would have overridden previous US law that had outlawed multi-member districts, i.e. had made PR illegal. She re-introduced a similar bill, HR 1189, in 2001. It failed again. Then she tried again with HR 2690 in 2005. It failed yet again. According to McKinney’s bills, it is the 1967 law discussed below which mandates single-winner districts. Chronological list of laws:

    1842 Apportionment act:
    Representatives “should be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory equal in number to the number of Representatives to which each said state shall be entitled, no one district electing more than one Representative.” (5 Stat. 491.)
    1872 Apportionment act:
    Districts should contain “as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.” (17 Stat. 492.)
    1901 Apportionment act:
    Districts must be made up of “contiguous and compact territory and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.” (26 Stat. 736.) [None of the preceding standards were ever enforced. This one was largely and often dramatically ignored.]
    1929 Permanent Apportionment act:
    No districting standards. (46 Stat. 21.)
    1967 “An Act for the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting,” approved 14 December 1967 as Public Law 90-196:
    Congress reimposed the requirement that Representatives must run from single-member districts, and forbade “at large” (i.e. statewide) representatives. (81 Stat. 581.) Various states at various times in US history had elected congressmen at large (e.g. CA in 1861) or via multimember districts (examples), which indicates they, while illegal, are constitutional. This 1967 law remains in effect as of 2009. (A quote from it.) It was codified as Title 2, U.S.C.§2c. It arose in a peculiar way as a Senate amendment to a House-passed private immigration act – H.R. 2275, 90th Congress, “an act for the relief of Dr. Ricardo Vallejo Samala, and provide for congressional redistricting.” No hearings were held or reports issued. “

Leave a Reply

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