West Virginia Governor Signs Bill that Abolishes Straight-Ticket Device

1. paulie March 28, 2015

   Sounds like Mass is about tied with Alabama this time on those percentages. Any other states that high or higher in percent uncontested?

   I know Alabama was by far the worst for statewide races with the only uncontested US Senate race in the country in 2014 and 4 uncontested statewide offices.

   In fact I can’t think one single federal, statewide or legislative races that was really competitive in Alabama in 2014. If there were any at all there could not have been very many. And that is in the primary as well as the general.
2. Richard Winger March 28, 2015

   Massachusetts had 200 legislative races in November 2014, and 121 of them did not have a Republican versus Democrat contest. For US House, Massachusetts had 9 races, and six of them only had a Democrat on the ballot. The Massachusetts primary ballot access laws are to blame for this situation. Oddly, no newspaper in Massachusetts ever mentions this problem. No organization in Massachusetts ever discusses it. There is a complete lack of awareness within Massachusetts that the state has a larger proportional of one-candidate elections for important office than any state outside the south, if not in the entire nation. Massachusetts residents have a high opinion of their own state relative to other states, yet seem oblivious to their problem. Neither the Massachusetts Green Party nor the Massachusetts Libertarian Party carries on any publicity or agitation to change this system.
3. paulie March 27, 2015

   I think we still have it in PA too.

   Correct…see the IRT post quoted above…it lists the ten states lagging behind in their development on this matter.
4. paulie March 27, 2015

   In 2010, 56 of our 105 state house members ran unopposed (53%) and 13 of our 35 state senators ran unopposed (37%). I don’t have exact statistics for 2014, but suspect it was even less competitive – in fact, I don’t know of a single statewide, legislative, or Congressional race that was close during the 2014 general election, and if there were any, they were very few.

   So now I have those 2014 numbers…and as I guessed, yes, we did get even worse this time.
5. paulie March 27, 2015

   From my letter to the members of the Alabama Senate constitution, campaign finance, ethics and rules committee:

   Alabama has the highest retention percentage required by any state to keep a party on the ballot at 20% (the next highest state is 10%, the national average is 2%, and some states including our neighbors in Mississippi and Florida do not require a ballot retention percentage at all). Any party that does not meet this burden currently needs signatures equal to 3% of the last vote for Governor, putting Alabama at the second most difficult ballot access percentage in the country behind only Oklahoma – and Oklahoma is also considering passage of legislation to ease its ballot access burdens. It is almost impossible for independents or parties to qualify under this standard unless they have a massive infusion of money from very wealthy donors as Americans Elect did in 2012, which is not normally the case with grassroots third party and independent campaigns.

   From 1893 to 1971, a party could be on the ballot with no petition at all. In 1971 the legislature started requiring 5,000 signatures for new parties, but parties already in existence could stay on with no petition. It was not until 1982 that became 1% of the statewide vote for Governor and a retention requirement was introduced at all. Alabama tripled petition signature requirements in 1995, reportedly in anger over the Patriot Party’s nomination of a candidate for county office who had earlier lost in the Democratic primary. The current bill SB221 does not change ballot access requirements for county office, and if sore losers were the real problem, that could have been addressed with separate legislation that did not impose draconian burdens on all candidates and their supporters running outside the two biggest parties.

   In 2010, 56 of our 105 state house members ran unopposed (53%) and 13 of our 35 state senators ran unopposed (37%). I don’t have exact statistics for 2014, but suspect it was even less competitive – in fact, I don’t know of a single statewide, legislative, or Congressional race that was close during the 2014 general election, and if there were any, they were very few.

   This is probably a major reason why, in a year when voter turnout nationwide was the lowest since 1942, Alabama’s turnout was less than 33% of the eligible electorate, again among the the very lowest in the country. http://www.electproject.org/2014g is the link for 2014 turnout data.

   In 2014 Alabama was the ONLY state with a US Senate race and 4 statewide races that had only one candidate on the ballot, and one of only a very few states (you can count them on the fingers of one hand) to have no statewide third party or independent candidates.

   In 2004, 2008, and 2012, Alabama was part of a small minority of states where the national minor party presidential campaigns, including the Libertarians and Greens, could only appear on the ballot as Independents (again, you can count them on one hand). Alabama has had no Statewide (and hardly any congressional) independent or minor party candidates on the ballot since 2002.

   30 states have made ballot access for third party and independent candidates easier since the 1970s.
6. Jed Ziggler March 27, 2015

   “It’s becoming too blatantly arcane and embarrassing even for most of them. Of course, it would figure Alabama is among the last ten to still have this unsightly blemish.”

   I think we still have it in PA too.
7. paulie March 27, 2015

   How many states have 60% or more of legislators run unopposed?

   Well Alabama is at 59.285% but that’s close enough to 60% to be damn embarrassing.
8. Matt Cholko March 27, 2015

   Democracy holds a minority stake in lots of governments.
9. paulie March 27, 2015

   It’s becoming too blatantly arcane and embarrassing even for most of them. Of course, it would figure Alabama is among the last ten to still have this unsightly blemish.

   And in more Alabama news:

   http://irregulartimes.com/2015/03/27/in-alabama-u-beats-o-in-a-landslide/

   If you look at the results of the 2014 elections for the Alabama State House of Representatives and Senate, you might get the idea that the major divide is between Democrats and Republicans, with 98 Republicans, 41 Democrats and 1 Independent elected to the two chambers of the Alabama State Legislature. But there is a hidden divide that cuts across party lines. Of the 140 seats in the House and Senate, a full 83 seats had no contest, giving voters no choice. 25 Democrats and 58 Republicans ran unopposed. Democracy holds a minority stake in Alabama state government.
10. Thane "Goldie" Eichenauer March 27, 2015

    I am intrigued about this action. I would think that D and R elected officials would prefer to retain such tools like straight party voting.
11. Matt Cholko March 27, 2015

    More correctly, running as an R or D provides those benefits to enemies of freedom. Its really just an all around terrible idea.
12. Matt Cholko March 27, 2015

    Yes, that’s definitely a shortcoming of running independents.

    I run into that one a lot with Libertarians. They figure, probably correctly, in many cases, that they’ll get more votes running as an independent. But, unless its going to be enough votes to win the election, which it almost never is, running as an independent is of little value to the goal of increasing freedom. It does nothing to build the brand, and very little to build the party. So, once election day comes around, there’s nothing left behind.

    Running as a Libertarian, even when losing badly, accomplishes many things. It spreads the message of freedom, associates that message with a group (the LP) that will be there for the long haul, builds awareness of the party, “breaks the ice” by getting some people to vote L for the first time, hopefully finds some new members and activists and integrates them into the party, builds our database of known volunteers, donors, and other types of supporters, provides experience for activists to use in subsequent campaigns, and helps the candidate to grow into a better candidate for his next campaign, and probably some other good stuff that I’m not thinking of. More than half of those things don’t happen when running as an independent.

    And, while we’re kinda on the subject, libertarians running as Rs or Ds does the opposite of most of those things. In many ways, it is destructive to freedom.
13. paulie March 27, 2015

    Just running independents only does not help build the continuity of the brand identity, or the resources of a party organization with a platform. Political machines would still exist, just in a less above board manner. If we could go a step further though, and just get rid of government printed ballots and go back to the 19th century system of privately printed ballots, with zero ballot access barriers in any state, that could be a positive change.
14. paulie March 27, 2015

    For local office, yes, you do have a point.
15. Matt Cholko March 27, 2015

    I don’t see those points as mutually exclusive, Richard and Pablo. In lower-cost, lower-attention campaigns, the Rs and Ds resources can be more closely matched by the Ls and Gs, and maybe other parties in some circumstances. In federal level and statewide races, the resource disparity if much larger. In those races, where its $2MM, or $20MM vs. $20k, the smaller parties simply cannot effectively publicize the name.
16. Richard Winger March 27, 2015

    Actually, removing party labels from the ballot would help minor party candidates, at least for local office. Libertarians, Greens, and American Independent Party members have been elected county supervisor in California, or other countywide non-partisan positions, in San Francisco, Mendocino, Placer, and El Dorado Counties. Maybe I am forgetting some others. Greens and Libertarians have been elected to city councils in many California cities, including some with a population of over 100,000. Milwaukee repeatedly elected Frank Zeidler Mayor in non-partisan elections, and he was known to be a member of the Socialist Party.
17. paulie March 27, 2015

    No, that one would actually help the establishment parties, since they have plenty of money (and incumbency) to advertise their candidates, unlike smaller parties trying to build up such as LP and Greens. But as for the straight ticket, that one is good to get rid of.
18. Guess what March 27, 2015

    Great news! The next step to encourage more independent voting should be the elimination of all party labels from the ballot.

Comments are closed.