This is what Ballot Standards are for...
By Byron LaMasters
Great editorial in the Austin American Statesman today on why we have ballot standards, and why Ralph Nader won't be on our Texas ballot this fall:
Pity poor Ralph Nader. The consumer advocate hasn't been able to drum enough support for his independent candidacy for president to get on the November ballot the two times he's tried.
Nader failed in April to add his name to the presidential ballot in Oregon when he couldn't get enough supporters in the state's one-day convention for independents. Nader only needed 1,000 people, but fewer than 750 showed up for him. That's in Oregon, which should be prime Nader territory.
This week, Nader failed to obtain the 64,000 signatures he needed to get on the Texas General Election ballot. Of course, he sued, arguing that the rules for independent candidates in Texas are unconstitutionally onerous. He badly wants to be on the ballot here, though President Bush should have this state's electoral votes locked up.
Nader, 70, said the requirement to have the support of 1 percent of those voting in the previous presidential election is too high a hurdle and the 60-day window to get those signatures is too short. But they haven't been too difficult for candidates who have statewide support, as Ross Perot had twice in the 1990s.
The qualifying conditions are there for a reason: to ensure that independent candidates have a modicum of support before being added to the presidential ballot. Without that provision, the November election would be cluttered with frivolous candidates happy to turn it into a joke.
Third-party candidates also have some hurdles to clear, though they are somewhat lower than for independents. But third-party candidates, like the Democratic and Republican party nominees, have proven support from an official political organization.
[...]
Still, there must be a threshold for any independent to be added to the presidential ballot in Texas. Nader has not succeeded where others have, and his lawsuit should be dismissed as an egotistical attempt to skirt his obvious lack of support.
Agreed. Now Nader can claim a success today with his endorsement by the Reform Party giving him ballot access in seven states. Then, again, I don't think that a leftist anti-war candidate gains much creditability running on the same ballot line occupied by Pat Buchanan in 2000.
Posted by Byron LaMasters at May 12, 2004 10:48 PM
| TrackBack
I'm reading "Alice Through the Looking Glass" to my daughter right now; when we come across Ross and the rest of the "Vaw-LUHN-teers!" in the middle of the Red Queen's race, we'll ask for you.
The Reform Party has become the comic relief of American Politics. Kinda nice to have it around, you know, like MAD Magazine and The Onion.
The Reform party is lame comic relief.
For non lame comic relief, try the Monster Raving Looney Party of the US at http://usloonyparty.tripod.com/ .
There is also the Canadian Absolutely Absurd Party.
Unfortunately, the Canadian Rhinoceros Party, which claimed to be the spiritual descendants of a Brazilian Rhinoceros once elected Mayor of Sao Paulo. Their most notable party platform called for a gradual phase of driving on the left hand side of the road, starting with large trucks, and finishing with small cars 5 years later, disbanded when party registration requirements changed in 1993.
Oh, I'll galdly give you all of the above as better comic relief. What makes the Reform party so funny is that a significant number of Americans either once or still take it seriously.
Well, in the realm of "so serious it is funny" still have the Natural Law Party.
We should take the Natural Law party seriously.
It looks like they'll nominate ex-judge Roy "ten Commandments" Moore.
Hopefully, he'll get 2-3% of the bush voters in swing states.
