Undemocratic Democrats

[Hawkeye]

To begin, this is going to be a long read. If you aren’t interested in U.S. politics, specifically 3rd party politics in Illinois, you might as well stop reading now.

Well then, thanks for caring. For the past 3 months I have volunteered a good deal of my free time towards helping the Green Party get on the ballot in Illinois. For the first time in history, the party has a full slate of candidates running for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller. Unfortunately, 3rd parties in Illinois face very restrictive ballot access laws which are designed to keep them off the ballot. We are required to collect 25,000 signatures of registered Illinois voters within a 90 day period. (As a point of reference, “established” parties need only 5,000)

Let me pause briefly to stop and stress just how much work this really is. It’s no easy task to get 25,000 people to sign a petition for anything, let alone a political petition for a left wing 3rd party. Many republicans won’t sign because we're too liberal. Many democrats agree with our policies, but refuse to sign anyway because they feel we “steal votes” and help get republicans into office. Personally I was able to collect around 500 signatures. That may not sound like much, but I swear to you it was not easy. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been completely ignored, lectured to, or yelled at by downright rude people.

Anyways, for the past three months volunteers from all over Illinois spent countless unpaid hours collecting the required signatures. We hit the streets, knocked on doors, got chased out of parking lots and kicked out libraries, and worked the crowds at parades and fairs. On June 26 we submitted the fruit of our labor to the Illinois State Board of Elections. I can’t tell you the exact number, but it was something near 40,000 signatures. (Over 15,000 more than what was required) But don’t celebrate just yet. On July 3rd, the Illinois Democratic Party filed an objection to the board, seeking to invalidate enough of our petitions to knock us off the ballot. They are currently using taxpayer money to go through all forty thousand signatures - line by line - and throw out those which they decide are invalid.

In fact, the Democrats challenged 20 out of the 30 signatures we collected on our first 3 sheets. But wait! A quick check with our own voter verification records shows that 10 out of the 20 challenged signatures are actually valid. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Half of their objections simply don't hold up with proper verification. The Democrats challenge is essentially bullsh*t, but they're banking on the fact that there's no way we can conduct a massive data entry and verification operation. Currently I am helping to prove them wrong. Volunteers such as myself are entering all 40,000 signatures into computers to verify that they are indeed registered voters.

Thank you for reading. I hope you are as infuriated as I am. The Democrats apparently don't want to risk letting the voters have a chance to vote Green. They care about one thing and one thing only, and that is getting reelected. The objections to our petitions are an orchestrated attack against our fundamental right to appear on the ballot. The Democratic Party’s challenge shows disdain for the voters of Illinois and for the entire democratic process.

Hawkeye

 

[Donks]

What would take for the Green party to become "established" and thus apply for the lower 5k signature requirement?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think this kind of thing is inevitable without preferential voting (which you USians seem to know as instant runoff voting).

It will always be in the Democrats' interests to squash minor left-wing parties, and in the Republicans' interests to squash minor right-wing -parties.

Have you tried asking the Republican party for help? They would probably love to see you split the Democrat vote.

 

[a_unique_person]

That is amazing. Democracies everywhere have big problems, Australia no less than anywhere else in the world (I can go through a few of our own, if you want). But that is a bad law. In Australia, the Greens can get seats in the Senate relatively easy. If they get five seats, they become an official Party, and get paid something like $3 for every vote they get. It's a huge help to get small groups up and running.

Ballot access laws, are, purely and simply, anti-democratic, and any party that supports them is by definition.

As Kevin says, 'instant runoff' removes the temptation to make such laws in the first place.

 

[empeake]

Unfortunately, 3rd parties in Illinois face very restrictive ballot access laws which are designed to keep them off the ballot. We are required to collect 25,000 signatures of registered Illinois voters within a 90 day period. (As a point of reference, “established” parties need only 5,000)

25,000 signatures in 90 days for one state? It certainly seems a process designed to thwart democracy, instead of promoting it.

For comparison purposes, in Mexico (with a total population approximately 1/3 that of the USA), you need 30,000 card-carrying members nationwide (actually a minimum of 3,000 in 10 or more of the 32 states) to qualify as a national political party and receive special tax breaks and public funds. To retain the status of registered national political party, you must get at least 2% of the votes.

There are also national political groups, that may participate in federal elections in association with a registered political party. The requirements for this status are 7,000 members nationwide and offices in at least 10 states. This favors regional organizations.

In both cases, as far as I know, there are no time constraints on building of the membership, as long as the members are active, registered voters.

Here in Mexico we have voting cards. When a new political party presents its membership list to the Federal Electoral Institute, the list has the name, signature and voting card number for each member. Checking this list against the national voters registry is quite simple. Do you have similar voting cards and registries?

 

[Hawkeye]

What would take for the Green party to become "established" and thus apply for the lower 5k signature requirement?

You have to win some arbitrary percentage of the votes from the last election. It’s somewhere in between 5 and 10% iirc. Of course, we have to get on the ballot in the first to have any slim hope of being established.

Have you tried asking the Republican party for help? They would probably love to see you split the Democrat vote.

Funny that you mention recruiting Republicans. I know there was at least one case where a local Republican politician did actually volunteer to help us. (We respectfully declined.)
Although I'm sure there were a few signatures collected from republicans with, shall we say, ulterior motives.
And IRV seems like a good idea to me. At the very least we could use some ballot access law reform.

That is amazing. Democracies everywhere have big problems, Australia no less than anywhere else in the world (I can go through a few of our own, if you want). But that is a bad law. In Australia, the Greens can get seats in the Senate relatively easy. If they get five seats, they become an official Party, and get paid something like $3 for every vote they get. It's a huge help to get small groups up and running.

Very Interesting. Good to hear Greens have a better deal in Australia. I know another big problem for the Green Party here is funding. We don't accept any corporate contributions, so we lack the huge campaign coffers republicans/democrats have at their disposal.

For comparison purposes, in Mexico (with a total population approximately 1/3 that of the USA), you need 30,000 card-carrying members nationwide (actually a minimum of 3,000 in 10 or more of the 32 states) to qualify as a national political party and receive special tax breaks and public funds. To retain the status of registered national political party, you must get at least 2% of the votes.
*snip*
Here in Mexico we have voting cards. When a new political party presents its membership list to the Federal Electoral Institute, the list has the name, signature and voting card number for each member. Checking this list against the national voters registry is quite simple. Do you have similar voting cards and registries?

Thanks for the post; I’m learning a lot about the way other countries elect their leaders! I’m not aware of anything like voting cards here in the U.S. Do you actually physically get a voter card with your voter card number that you get to keep? That would certainly make things easier for our petition gathering. A huge problem with our validation rate is that people (especially students) can’t remember where they lived the last time they registered to vote. So even if John Q. Public signs to show his support, it can get thrown out if the address doesn’t match.

Also, to become an official U.S. political party (and become eligible for federal funding) we need 5% of the national vote. So even in 2000, when nearly 3 million people voted for Nader, the Green Party fell short at 2.7%. There is no rule that I know of, such as in Mexico, where if you have X amount of members the party qualifies as official.

In any case, the 40,000 people who signed didn't join the Green Party. On the contrary, I had to reassure a lot people that they could still vote for whoever they wanted to. It was just a petition saying that they wanted us on the ballot. Which makes it all the more frustrating. If you don't want to vote Green that’s one thing, but how can you justify preventing me from voting for who I want to vote for?

 

[Zep]

Does the state law prevent write-in candidates on ballots? If not, what's the story there?

Also, why isn't this a blocking of candidates wishing to stand? If a lone candidate wants to run on a ballot standing on an issue or two, then surely they can apply? That's different from trying to be a recognised Party with comensurate priviledges, surely? Or running candidates on a Party platform?

If single candidates can stand without this sort of palaver, why not put them on the ballot that way? That they all have an identical platform happens to be...incidental?!

 

[empeake]

Thanks for the post; I’m learning a lot about the way other countries elect their leaders! I’m not aware of anything like voting cards here in the U.S. Do you actually physically get a voter card with your voter card number that you get to keep? That would certainly make things easier for our petition gathering. A huge problem with our validation rate is that people (especially students) can’t remember where they lived the last time they registered to vote. So even if John Q. Public signs to show his support, it can get thrown out if the address doesn’t match.

Here's an example of a Mexican voting card:

The samples are a bit small, but on the front you have the following information: full name, age, sex, address, folio, registration year, voter ID number, state code, district code, municipal code, city or town code, section code, and photograph. On the back side: magnetic strip with all the information, signature, right thumb fingerprint, and small boxes with the election years that are punched out after voting.

Not only do you get to keep the card, it's the preferred form of identification. (In most places in Mexico, you can't use a driver's license as ID.) Bear in mind that this voting card is NOT a national ID document, like the ones used in certain European countries.

Also, to become an official U.S. political party (and become eligible for federal funding) we need 5% of the national vote. So even in 2000, when nearly 3 million people voted for Nader, the Green Party fell short at 2.7%. There is no rule that I know of, such as in Mexico, where if you have X amount of members the party qualifies as official.

In any case, the 40,000 people who signed didn't join the Green Party. On the contrary, I had to reassure a lot people that they could still vote for whoever they wanted to. It was just a petition saying that they wanted us on the ballot. Which makes it all the more frustrating. If you don't want to vote Green that’s one thing, but how can you justify preventing me from voting for who I want to vote for?

In the end, each person will vote for whoever they prefer, regardless of their party affiliation. The idea is that, once your political movement is representative of a certain segment of the population, you'll get government support for your activities. Then, it is up to you to prove (by getting 2% of the vote) that this representation continues.

Two major players in the Mexican electoral process are the Federal Electoral Institute and the Federal Electoral Court. Both are independent entities, headed by officials approved unanimously by all political parties. The former handles everything related to elections, from party and voter registration to vount counts. The latter solves electoral disputes.

 

[Meadmaker]

I know there have been a few attempts at "instant runoff" balloting in the US at the municipal level. Does anyone have a good link to the status here in the US, or its application elsewhere. I really hate that American election law ends up creating situations where "A vote for A is a vote for B".

Good luck on the ballot access, by the way. Even though it probably will hurt the Democrats, it is so obviously right in principle that I still think you should go ahead.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Unfortunately, 3rd parties in Illinois face very restrictive ballot access laws which are designed to keep them off the ballot. We are required to collect 25,000 signatures of registered Illinois voters within a 90 day period. (As a point of reference, “established” parties need only 5,000)

"Very restrictive"? That's less than 0.2% of the population of Illinois.

Let me pause briefly to stop and stress just how much work this really is. It’s no easy task to get 25,000 people to sign a petition for anything, let alone a political petition for a left wing 3rd party.

It’s easy to get 25,000 signatures if people really care.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been completely ignored, lectured to, or yelled at by downright rude people.

If they ignored you, how can they be rude? Bugging people to sign a petition is itself rude, so it’s hypocritical to complain about other people’s rudeness.

The Democrats challenge is essentially bullsh*t, but they're banking on the fact that there's no way we can conduct a massive data entry and verification operation.

Have you challenged the Democrats’ 5000 signatures? Or are you not that vindictive?

The Democratic Party’s challenge shows disdain for the voters of Illinois and for the entire democratic process.

I’d have more sympathy if there were actually a chance that you could win, and if the platform of the Greens were not itself so anti-democratic, anti-capitalist, and just plain wacky (minimum wage of $23/hour, 100% tax on income above $187,500, unemployment compensation for anyone who decides not to work, outlawing corporations, allowing individual cities to outlaw any drug they want, prohibiting any company other than a co-op from having more than 10 employees, prohibiting companies from replacing employees that quit, and many, many other bizarre ideas).

Very Interesting. Good to hear Greens have a better deal in Australia. I know another big problem for the Green Party here is funding. We don't accept any corporate contributions, so we lack the huge campaign coffers republicans/democrats have at their disposal.

Isn’t the Green Party itself a corporation?

If you don't want to vote Green that’s one thing, but how can you justify preventing me from voting for who I want to vote for?

Wow, that’s quite a belligerent attitude. If less than 0.2% want you on the ballot, how can you possibly win? Why should we allow anyone who wants to be on the ballot, to be on the ballot? You can vote for the Green Party by signing the petition. If you lose that vote, then you don’t get to participate in the general election.

Also, why isn't this a blocking of candidates wishing to stand? If a lone candidate wants to run on a ballot standing on an issue or two, then surely they can apply? That's different from trying to be a recognised Party with [commensurate privileges], surely? Or running candidates on a Party platform.

I would imagine that it would require the same number of signatures. And you would have to have separate petitions for each candidate.

I know there have been a few attempts at "instant runoff" balloting in the US at the municipal level. Does anyone have a good link to the status here in the US, or its application elsewhere. I really hate that American election law ends up creating situations where "A vote for A is a vote for B".

Except it doesn't. At worst, a vote for A is no vote at all. Can you name any situation in the American system in which candidate B is better off for having a voter vote for A, rather than not vote for anyone at all? (And in fact, while this can't happen in a plurality situation, it can happen in an IRV situation. So if that's what you're concerned about, the American system is actually better than the Australian.)

 

[a_unique_person]

It’s easy to get 25,000 signatures if people really care.

I think he explained quite graphically why it's not "easy". It also doesn't address the issue of why a new party has to have five times as many signatures as an established party.

 

[geni]

I think I prefer the UK system. The requirment in order to run is £500 which you get back if you get 5% of the vote.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I think he explained quite graphically why it's not "easy".

Yes. Because people don't care.

It also doesn't address the issue of why a new party has to have five times as many signatures as an established party.

It doesn't. First of all, every established party was a new party once, and presumably needed to get 25000 signatures. Furthermore, an established party is one that got more than 25000 votes in the last election. So getting 25000 signatures would be rather superfluous.

 

[Bjorn]

I have a lot of sympathy with you and your work, but I got a bit worried:

In fact, the Democrats challenged 20 out of the 30 signatures we collected on our first 3 sheets. But wait! A quick check with our own voter verification records shows that 10 out of the 20 challenged signatures are actually valid.

Does it mean that the other 10 (out of 20) weren't valid?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It doesn't. First of all, every established party was a new party once, and presumably needed to get 25000 signatures.

I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. It's fairly likely the people writing those laws grandfathered themselves in.

 

[gumboot]

How strange...

The entire notion of having to "qualify" to be elected seems against the concept of democracy. I'm not even sure if there *are* any qualifications here...

We have individual people running for single seats, that do not belong to any political party whatsoever...

Also our Green Party is quite powerful here, and part of our elected government. We use an MMP system so the smaller parties tend to hold the balance of power - the larger Labour (left) an National (right) parties have to try convince enough smaller parties to form a coalition with them that they can achieve a majority.

The Green Party here has been the primary minor coalition partner in our government for the last... um... 12 years? Or something.

-Andrew

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The samples are a bit small, but on the front you have the following information: full name, age, sex, address, folio, registration year, voter ID number, state code, district code, municipal code, city or town code, section code, and photograph. On the back side: magnetic strip with all the information, signature, right thumb fingerprint, and small boxes with the election years that are punched out after voting.

Empeake,

Just curious, how does the use of the card actually work when you vote? Do they do simply do a visual check of the card, or do they run the magnetic strip through a reader that checks it against a database, or something of that nature? I would love to see something like that in the U.S. It would have to be implemented state by state, though, since there isn't truly a national election. Nothing is foolproof, but it seems like it would be a good way to help deal with a lot of the problems some states have had with voter lists and the like.

 

[empeake]

Just curious, how does the use of the card actually work when you vote? Do they do simply do a visual check of the card, or do they run the magnetic strip through a reader that checks it against a database, or something of that nature? I would love to see something like that in the U.S. It would have to be implemented state by state, though, since there isn't truly a national election. Nothing is foolproof, but it seems like it would be a good way to help deal with a lot of the problems some states have had with voter lists and the like.

Each voter must vote at a designated place, identified by the code numbers on the voting card. Each voting center has a printed list of the registered voters that are elegible to vote there. This list, which is updated for each election, contains all the information on the card, including the picture. When the voter arrives, the first step is to check the card against the list. The person may only vote if the card appears on the list and all the information matches.

As a registered voter, you must get a new card every time you change address. This way, your voting center is always the one nearest your home. If for some reason you are away from home, there are special voting centers where you may vote.

Although the basic voting process is manual, the cards are designed so they can be used with electronic voting systems whenever these are implemented in Mexico.

 

[Hawkeye]

I’m back.

Does the state law prevent write-in candidates on ballots? If not, what's the story there?

Here’s the story: The Democrats and Republicans have collaborated to give Illinois one of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation. (It’s one of the few things they can agree on). Yet the Green Party managed to meet and exceed those requirements. I posted here to spread the word about the OUTRAGE that is the Democrat's attempt to kick us of the ballot. Yes, I can technically still vote for write-in candidates, but that is not the point.

If a lone candidate wants to run on a ballot standing on an issue or two, then surely they can apply? That's different from trying to be a recognised Party with comensurate priviledges, surely? Or running candidates on a Party platform?

Art gets it right a few posts up. Anyone can apply, sure. But if you want to get on the ballot (and you aren’t an official Republican/Democratic candidate) then you need 25,000 signatures.
Separate candidates = separate signatures.

Good luck on the ballot access, by the way. Even though it probably will hurt the Democrats, it is so obviously right in principle that I still think you should go ahead.

Thanks for your support Meadmaker.

"Very restrictive"? That's less than 0.2% of the population of Illinois.

It’s easy to get 25,000 signatures if people really care.

Art, we meet again! I’ve felt your wrath on the windmill thread, but I must comment that your points are weaker here.

Yeah yeah yeah, I see what you’re getting at. You want me to admit that it’s not easy because there aren’t many people care about the Green Party. You win. I don’t like the ballot access laws, but they are not my biggest gripe. It’s the democrats who are really grinding my gears. (See title)

If they ignored you, how can they be rude? Bugging people to sign a petition is itself rude, so it’s hypocritical to complain about other people’s rudeness.

They are not even on the same order of magnitude of rudeness. Usually my line was somewhere along the lines of: “Hi, I’m collecting signatures today to help get the Green Party on the ballot. Would you like to sign?” As you can see, I was always polite and considerate when asking people for signatures. All I ask for in return is at least a simple “no thanks.” I don’t think it’s too much of me to ask for 2 seconds of your miserable life for you to acknowledge my existence. To be completely ignored by someone you’re trying to talk to, it’s like you’re not even human anymore. Not a good feeling, especially after the 2,000th time it happens.

Have you challenged the Democrats’ 5000 signatures? Or are you not that vindictive?

I think it would be a bit hypocritical to challenge their signatures when our biggest gripe is the injustice of them challenging ours. Besides, we don’t have the time or the money to waste on a challenge which would almost certainly fail.

I’d have more sympathy if there were actually a chance that you could win, and if the platform of the Greens were not itself so anti-democratic, anti-capitalist, and just plain wacky.

You obviously don’t know anything about the green party. I can see your mind is already made up on the matter, so I’m not going to waste my time. Besides, the title of this thread is “Undemocratic Democrats.” If you want to debate the finer points of Green Party politics, start a new thread and I’ll meet you there.

Wow, that’s quite a belligerent attitude. If less than 0.2% want you on the ballot, how can you possibly win?

Wow, that’s quite an ignorant opinion. First of all, it is not at all clear that less that .2% of the population want us on the ballot. We didn't ask even close to every person in Illinois about it. The majority of the work was done by about 20 volunteers, over the span of merely 90 days. Secondly, I never claimed that I thought we could win. In fact I’m quite sure we won’t win, even if we do get on the ballot in this election. However, the good news is that 3rd parties don’t have to win to cause change. Incumbent parties pay close attention to the issues raised by 3rd parties, because it is in their own best interest to assimilate as many voters as possible. The more votes a 3rd party receives, the more attention the other parties must pay to the issues advocated by the 3rd party. Americans owe many of the rights we take for granted today to the hard work of 3rd parties in the past. For example, the Populist and Socialist Parties fought for such things as women's right to vote, child labor laws, social security, and a progressive income tax.
All of this is besides the point. Ballot access for third parties is an interesting issue, but again my biggest gripe is not that we had to collect 25,000 signatures. It’s that we played by the rules, but are being denied our right to be on the ballot.

Why should we allow anyone who wants to be on the ballot, to be on the ballot?

Because this is a democracy. Show me where in the Constitution our forefathers decided we should have a two party state.

You can vote for the Green Party by signing the petition. If you lose that vote, then you don’t get to participate in the general election.

Did you read all of my post? We already won “that vote.” We collected 40,000 signatures when we only need 25,000. We should get to participate in the general election, but the democrats are trying to stop us. That is why I’m so pissed off.

I have a lot of sympathy with you and your work, but I got a bit worried. Does it mean that the other 10 (out of 20) weren't valid?

To be honest, yes. We have known all along that on average about 70% of all signatures we gather are valid. That’s why we didn’t stop when we hit 25,000 signatures. The extras are a buffer zone against invalid ones which could potentially be thrown out. Luckily, if you do the math, 70% of 40,000 is 28,000. This is still enough to keep us on the ballot with a few thousand to spare.

How strange...
The entire notion of having to "qualify" to be elected seems against the concept of democracy.

Yes! Exactly! Maybe I should just dump this whole charade and move to New Zealand.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes! Exactly! Maybe I should just dump this whole charade and move to New Zealand.

Say hi to the hobbits for me