Should minor parties/independent candidates be banned from the ballot?

Ken,

You have a very vaild poll here, and although everyone has voted that third party candidates should be on the ballot, the majority of these users will NOT give a third party a chance.

They have and will continue to come up with every excuse as to why it won't work, which is part of the problem. Too little vision on some people's part if you ask me.

They would rather have a 2 party system and continue to fuss about how politics are all wrong....

Instead of continuing to debate them, I would ask. What have they done to get us out of the two party rut we are in. Who have they supported outside of the two main parties?

It's sad to see so many people see the problem, be smart enough to know how to fix it and yet not budge.

It's like alot of people and the Christian walk.. They know God exsist.. they know they need to change, and yet they never take that step and fully embrace being a Christian.

These same people that are argueing with you, if they saw a person struggling like that with their Christian walk they would do whatever it took to help bring them around, and yet they do nothing to change our current corrupt system.

Jamie

 

Good point JamieinNH, I think the timing for the viable third party has arrived. People have absolutely had enough of the routines the Democrats and Republicans continue with. It is time to take a stand and make real changes in Washington D.C.

 

As seems to be the usual case, there are not enough choices in the poll.

There is an in-between position, here, and one that I hold. "Independent" candidates (not "minor Party") should be banned from the ballots (and they are) in a "closed primary" states, such as KY, where one can only vote in the primary election for their Party, including "minor" Parties, according to his or her Registration, preventing crossover voting for a different party. However, any party should and can have as many candidates on the ballot for any office it can field candidates for. If there is no primary contest for an office, that party should not be allowed to have it's sole candidate on the ballot for that office, in the primary election. This is a matter of law, in KY, and I agree with this, as the Legislature of the Commonwealth of KY can enact whatever laws she sees fit.

Other states choose to allow "open primaries", and have enacted such laws, as they have seen fit. Again, no problem. It's called federalism, and is entirely proper.

For the general election, absolutely not. Were this to be the case, such individuals as former NY Mayor John Lindsay (L-NY), Governor Jesse Ventura (Ref/IPM-MN), Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT); Bernie Sanders [Ind.(Soc.)-VT]; former Senators James Buckley (C-NY), and Harry F. Byrd, Jr. (I-VA) would have never been allowed to be in office, as they could not have been elected, with the exception(s) of Senators Lieberman (and Byrd), and they would not have been allowed to hold the office, subsequently.

Nor could such individuals as Henry Wallace (Prog.); Strom Thurmond (SR); George Wallace (Amer. Ind.), John Anderson (I); Ross Perot (Ref.), or Ralph Nader (Green), among some of the better known third party candidates even been allowed to seek the Presidency, just in my lifetime, not to mention several even lesser known candidates.

One more thing, both today's Democratic and Republican parties were "third" or minor Parties, at one time. The two "major" parties at the establishing of this nation, under the Constitution, were the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Parties.

Ed

 

Let me add this. The Liberal Party of NY has now gone dormant, due to a number of votes qualification in NY election laws, for number of votes needed to stay "active", and the 2002 election results did not give that number. That day will return to haunt "WE, the People", IMO, and I cannot think of many, if any candidates of that party I would ever have supported. But I don't like the idea of no longer having that option.

Ed

 

Yes, it is sad that people do not take the time to figure out what someone else is actually saying. It doesn't make for good conversation. But I am hardly the bad guy for pointing it out. Me defending my position against those who wrongly understand it is not wrong.

Yes I know. And that is the way it grows.

 

Let the lemmings worship at the democratic and republican pig trough. It is time to get some backbone and vote these two parties out of existence.

Lets bring back the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties that were founded when we became a nation.

 

I am aware of the existence of "The Working Families Party" of NY. And I know a little bit (granted, not a whole lot) about its basic stances. Nevertheless, this is still not the same party as is/was The Liberal Party, any more than the Republican Party was not the same as the Whig Party in the US in the 1850s.

Ed

 

Nope...they need to be on the ballot, because depending on who is nominated by the D and R, i may need that 3rd option.

 

Because we all know "its time" isn't remotely contingent upon precedent of past votes actually cast, right?

 

Depends on what you mean by that. The Reform Party is evidence of something before its time. It was a flower that quickly sprung up and then has essentially died out for lack of good grass roots support.

A major party or a legitimate alternative is not built up over night. That's simply the reality of it, as much as we (me included) might wish it were different. The past votes of the independents have not made much difference. Some of these parties have been around for a long time and have never gotten much support. Perhaps we should be looking at why they are not getting support rather than voting for someone who is a pipe dream.

 

This whole problem could be solved simply by changing the process to ensure that the winner, whatever party s/he may represent, be elected by a MAJORITY vote, NOT PLURALITY!!

This way you can vote 3rd party, and if there are enough votes to keep either R or D from gaining a majority, there would have to be a runoff between the two highest contenders. Then the 3rd party voters could decide which candidate to pick as second choice.

As it is now, 3rd party voters, (clear conscience & all) either vote their second choice (not 3rd party) or, by default give the vote to their third choice if their second choice fails to win.

If either of the leading candidates (not 3rd party) get a majority vote 1st ballot, the issue is settled. 3rd party voters have neither gotten their choice, but neither did they contribute to their third choice winning over their second choice

 

Bolded mine

In this case, I would say that you had just abdicated your responsibility as a citizen.

You can either vote for the BEST of the pick (your criteria), and do the best you can for a "good" USA, OR you decide that since neither fits your criteria, you let others pick for you!

Personally , I think this attitude is why the liberals have made such headway in our country; they didn't have to have "all of it" at one time! They were content to get little bits & pieces and did it so slowly & quietly that we've almost (?) lost this country with nary a whimper from the conservatives!

But, to each his own!

 

Perhaps the reason is because the third or fourth parties are not doing enough to communicate their message. IOW, they have not done the spadework but want to have the garden growing. That's exactly my point ... You must first do the spadework, and have ideas that people believe in, and get people to follow you in them.

 

Since you give no consideration to any third party, which message have you bought into of the two major parties, republican or democrat?

 

This is why I say the approach is wrong headed. You don't gain access to the ballot first and then try to get your message out. When you get your message out and people believe in it, access to the ballot will follow.

You have me confused with someone else. I have long said I would love to have a third party to vote for. So I would give consideration to a third party who fielded a viable candidate.

My life's goal is not to bring anything to the two major parties. I have a higher calling than mere politics. I am consciously not involved in politics aside from my appearance at the voting booth.