Wikipedia

Talk:Ballot access/Archive 1

< Talk:Ballot access
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Removed falseness

I thought that the following section sounded fishy, so I investigated:

An even more extreme example (Title 26, sections 5-112 and 6-106) may be found in Oklahoma where candidates may appear on the ballot by paying a filing fee -- except for voters who are registered Libertarian or Reform, who must collect a minimum of 51,781 valid signatures.

The cited section of law can be found at: [1] and [2]. Examination reveals that the allegations are false. I have therefore removed the offending section.

One-dimensional Tangent 01:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Let's not lie so foolishly)

More Edits

Ok, rewriting... mostly just trying to reword what's already there so that it'll be more NPOV. When I've changed 'factual' info, I've noted it below:

I'm removing "A survey of election history suggests that easy access to the ballot simply does not lead to a confusing glut of candidates.". Normally I wouldn't, but the person who wrote it also wrote some horribly biased stuff -- in short I don't trust this person to have used a real survey. If someone finds a citation for the survey, I'll gladly replace the text.

Another section removed for being badly non-objective and carrying too little actual info to justify rewriting: "The actual effect (and typically the actual intent) of setting ballot access criteria unequally, or of imposing burdensome restrictions on ballot access for alternative candidates, has almost always been to protect major party candidates from competition."

Also removed paragraph "...Democrats and Republicans collude to impose extremely restrictive ballot access laws, ... in order to keep all other parties and candidates off the ballot." as unsalvagable.

Next para removed too, because it's biased, makes unsupported claims, and seems to be written by the same troublemaker. Again, if there's any supporting evidence, I'll be happy to reinstitate a gentler version.

It would be nice to see some corraborating evidence on the 'write-in-ballot' section. It's relatively balanced, though.

It still needs work. Do jump in and fix things.

One-dimensional Tangent 03:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Let's not let our politics cloud our impartiality)

Aiming for accuracy versus horribly biased

Some of the most recent edits have been improvements, but other edits are perhaps not improvements.

I intend to ask Richard Winger (editor and publisher of Ballot Access News) to provide us with a report on his extensive surveys and analyses of various jurisdictions (in America and worldwide) having various degrees of ballot access restriction, including those having relatively easy ballot access. Richard Winger is widely regarded as the leading expert on ballot access; he is generous about sharing information and is good about documenting his sources of information.

I did not write the sentence about Oklahoma's ballot access law, but what I take to be the essential point of what was written but recently deleted (about discriminatory ballot access laws in Oklahoma) is actually not untrue. I do agree with the deletion of that sentence, at least for now and in that form, because it is not true that two particular political parties were singled out by name in the Oklahoma statute for discriminatory treatment (so the sentence as written was misleading). But Oklahoma's ballot access law is discriminatory and very bad indeed. Likewise, I did not write the sentence that quoted a Pennsylvania legislator and I do not object to its deletion. The quotation itself expressed a view that seems not untrue, but I couldn't understand the relevance of quoting this particular individual.

Some of the parts I did edit struck someone as "horribly biased" (and led to the deletion of parts of my own contribution). I think some of my perceived bias might have been in part due to the fact that I was trying to leave the language of the existing article intact, to the extent I could. I do want to make it clear that it was not at all my intention to be a "troublemaker" or to abuse Wikipedia principles. I am enjoying learning more about this wonderful project.

I will be happy to continue contributing to this article on ballot access, and I will sign in, in the future, so I don't appear to be an unaccountable anonymous troublemaker.

If anyone needs any corroboration or support for statements I have written, please post your doubts or concerns here so that I will know what you need to see from me, by way of documentation.

Thanks!

I should not have called anyone a troublemaker. The one person I called that was merely being biased (in my opinion), and I have no reason to believe that he/she was intending trouble. However, I still believe that the article was very biased (no claims on whether it is now; I'm no longer a disinterested party). I'm happy that the edits since mine have been reasonable. Plus, if the aforementioned expert (or some other) decides to contribute, hopefully the article can be rounded out with a world-wide perspective.

Now, regarding the Oklahoma law: I don't see a bias built into the law. That doesn't mean that it's not there, but it does suggest that the alleged bias is non-obvious. With that in mind, I propose that anyone who perceives such a bias please explain his/her interpretation of that law in more detail (preferably presented as an interpretation, rather than as unequivocable fact). And maybe at some point a legislator from Oklahoma will stop by and give the counter-interpretation.

One-dimensional Tangent 19:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (It begins)

International human rights law and ballot access

Here are some notes on international human rights law pertaining to ballot access (let's supplement this with the OCSC Election Observers' Manual and other more recent standards: Election Observation Handbook published by the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE, addressing registration of candidates and political parties in accordance with the provisions of the Copenhagen Document, 29 June 1990, 29 I.L.M. 1305, Annex I of the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 190, 220-222):

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948 < http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/UNGARES217A.txt>

Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS No. 14668, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 6 I.L.M. 368 (1976), entered into force for the United States 8 September 1992, 32 I.L.M. 274 (1993)/

The States Parties to the present Covenant * * * Agree upon the following articles:

Article 25: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

COPENHAGEN DOCUMENT

Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 29 June 1990, 29 I.L.M. 1305, Annex I incorporated into the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 190, 220-222, ¶¶6-8.

Possible edits

In the overview section, it might help if someone would provide an engaging, easily grasped, and succinct statement of why burdensome ballot access restrictions can be a problem for democracy. Richard Winger has written some excellent and clear paragraphs (some of which are available at www.ballot-access.org) introducing the problem of ballot access to the general public. I'm looking forward to his contributions to this article.

The initial "defining" sentence speaks only of candidates and political parties, and doesn't specifically mention ballot access for issues, initiatives, or referenda. Maybe this should be mentioned briefly, with a link to a separate article explaining how "questions" get on the ballot.

Because so many state ballot access laws require signature-bearing petitions, it would probably be a good idea to say a little something about the special problems facing petition drives, the costs of petitioning, etc.

The section outlining ballot access laws from various states could either simply give a few examples, or else it might aim to be more comprehensive, but presenting something approaching comprehensive information would be a big undertaking, as this can become complex: for example, there are often different ballot access laws regarding different offices even within the same state; so, it would be unwieldy to try to include too much. Even trying to make a "table" could be difficult, as the differences are not always commensurable. In any case, it might be reasonable for a discussion of specific state ballot access laws to become one or more separate pages.

Even if the article mentions only a few states in any detail (maybe North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, Indiana, Texas, or some other states), this would still be a lot of work, but examples would probably help the reader get a better picture of what is involved.

Obstacles facing efforts to improve ballot access laws by legislation should also be spelled out, even if they are obvious to people who have thought about this.


< http://ballot-access.org > ballot_access Ralph_Nader

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • < http://ballot-access.org >.
  • (1415)79-4-9779
  • Contact Richard Winger:
  • P.O. Box 470296,
  • San Francisco, CA 94147
  • < richardwinger@yahoo.com >.
  • (415) 922-9779

I am adding this in order to clarify one of the listings that I found here. Further, I wish that someone would answer the telephone.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Old talk

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page seems rather US-centric, and biased against the current US ballot access laws. Also, what survey (A survey of election history suggests that easy access to the ballot simply does not lead to a confusing glut of candidates.)? I'd fix it... but I'm too ignorant in this subject... and lazy. One-dimensional Tangent 01:40, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's US-centric because it appears the US is one of the few countries where this is an actual issue. Also the very concept of "access to the ballot paper" is an extremely US centric one - in most other countries the concepts of registering to stand and having one's name on the ballot paper are one and the same, without restrictive hurdles or write-in options provided as a sop. The only other country I can think of where I've even heard of would-be candidates experiencing difficulty getting nominated is France where National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has often had difficulty getting nominated for the Presidency and didn't make it in the 1981 election - see also his comments from 2007 (BBC News) and French presidential election, 2007#Did not get enough endorsements. But that's just the Presidency. Otherwise I can't think of any country where nomination rules serve any greater purpose than requiring a candidate to show a token effort in standing and/or make a little contribution to the cost of running the election (most deposits are minor). Other countries with corrupt political systems use either voting system fixes like gerrymandering, malapportionment, electoral roll purging and intimidation to keep down rival parties or just ban them altogether. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

US section

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since this section is so long, would it be a good idea to put it in a separate article (like the Australian section)? I know there is not much else in the article for now, but hopefully that will change at some point... Also, I am not sure whether it makes sense to list every single US state regardless of whether there is actually any information on them (OK, the list might act as a catalyst for more info to be added, but for now it looks ugly). Bistromathic 18:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a couple of extra sections (on Canada and EU), and removed the names of US states for which there is no description of laws. I also removed this sentence from the intro, which doesn't seem very relevant:
The U.S. Supreme Court has observed that the rights of candidates and voters are closely intertwined. Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972)
Somebody may want to work this into the US section. Bistromathic 11:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The opening section of the United States states "According to Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections is up to each State, unless Congress legislates otherwise." This quite correct, but incomplete because Article I of Section 5 Clause 1 states that it is solely for the Congress, not a state, to determine who is qualified to serve in Congress.

The word "sole" means entirely and exclusively. If a state uses ballot access laws to pre-disqualify certain persons from seeking election to the U.S. House or Senate or the office of Elector (Presidential), then that state is preempting the power which is vested in the Congress. It seems quite plausible to interpret this provision of the Constitution as barring all state petitioning requirements and filing fees for candidates to national office which act to disqualify persons seeking election before the Congress has the opportunity to judge their qualification and therefore after such persons have been elected.

The details of a recent 2008 decision in Federal Court in New York and some discussion of its implications can be found at the Ballot Access News site. The case is New York State Republican Committee v New York State Board of Elections.

Somesooner (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)somesooner

State-by-state ballot access - convert into a table?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As the section on state-by-state ballot access becomes more comprehensive, perhaps we should consider a tabular format. I was thinking that we could have columns for standard seats such as state house; state senate; governor; U.S. House; U.S. Senate; U.S. President; etc., listing the number of signatures required for each. There could also be a column describing the requirements for obtaining major party status. What do you think? We might even break the U.S. section off into a separate article at some point, to avoid causing the article to become overly U.S.-focused. Lightning Thundercat (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename or Split?

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Should the article be moved to nomination rules as that is what predominately used outside the US (as noted in the lead) or split the article with hat notes linking them? Right now it seems odd to have an article as a US specific name. --Nate1481 11:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well do the phrases refer to the same thing? Can a candidate run for office without their name on the ballot paper? In most countries the answer is no but if it's yes in the US then "nomination rules" are strictly the equivalent of filing to run and we'd need two separate articles. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd go for the split as the US section is large and it's the common name, the intricacies are not something i could comment on without lots of back ground reading --Nate1481 17:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay I've been bold and created a split by putting the non-US stuff in a new article at Nomination rules. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Table of Filing Fees by State and Office?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A story in TIME magazine http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1996193,00.html mentions that the filing fee to run for U.S. Senator in South Carolina is $10,400. I read elsewhere that the filing fee to run for Governor of California is $3,500. I realize it would take a lot of work to compile a list of filing fees for major U.S. and state offices, but it might be very interesting and helpful information. Tetsuo (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"President George H.W. Bush signed the Copenhagen Document of the Helsinki Accords that states in part" He signed so there we are done? The United States is then obligated to uphold the Helsinki accord? No. That would be a Sole executive agreement. Without Ratification the Helsinki accord is non-binding. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of The US constitution: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" If this is important to mention then surely it would be important to mention if it was ratified or not.184.21.236.207 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've readded the previously existing NPOV tag because, in its current state, this article mainly argues that ballot access is too restricted in the United States and denies access to third parties. That may well be so, but A) the actual policy must be separated and discussed neutrally before a discussion of its effects is appropriate and B) if there is criticism of the policy, we should cite specific critics and not make an original argument. Knight of Truth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ballot access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ballot access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ballot access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Other obstacles facing third parties?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is the section "Other obstacles facing third parties" a part of this article? This is an article about ballot access, not a guide to succeeding as a third party. I am of the opinion that the section should be removed, and perhaps made into it's own article. Sage (Buzz me) 13:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

New Section Idea: US Table of Candidate Historical Ballot Access

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was hoping to find historical US information on this page so I could quickly look up the last time a 3rd party candidate had ballot access in 50 states. If this already exists somewhere, a suggested redirect option would be phenomenal! Thanks! Kitty4777 (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ballot access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ballot_access/Archive_1&oldid=1162706653"