zlacker

Why is having lots of names on the ballot a bad thing?

I'd rather have some system of arbitrarily limiting the number of names on the ballot than a system that privileges parties. For instance, for statewide elections you could choose the 5 (or 10!) names that had satisfied the ballot requirements in the most voting districts (so it doesn't matter that Uncle Larry likes to "run" for state senate in his home county, he doesn't kick someone with a better/actual shot at winning off).

>>maxeri+(OP)
There are 1,862 candidates for President right now [0]. The 5 or 10 candidates you will see on the ballot in your statewide election for President are those that have satisfied the ballot requirements in the state.

It turns out that satisfying the ballot requirements is already a challenge requiring organization, and that organization is called a political party.

[0] http://www.fec.gov/data/CandidateSummary.do

>>madgar+o8
Yes, but in many jurisdictions the rules are simpler for the parties than for some rando. That's my objection. The rando shouldn't have a higher bar than the established organization, they should have the same bar. Partly for the reason you highlight, backing of a party already makes it significantly more likely that someone will succeed in getting on many ballots.

>>maxeri+d9
What problem is lowering the barrier to entry for the balloting process solving? If someone has broad and genuine support, they will be able to either apply their own resources or raise funds to completing the paperwork necessary to get on the ballot. Party-supported or not, registration is a relatively small investment of time, compared to what it will take to mount a successful campaign.

The public has a vested interest in having a ballot present only those candidates who can demonstrate a minimum-level of popular support. Otherwise why have a qualification process at all -- we can give voters phonebooks to take with them into the booth, and they can find the name of whichever citizen they feel should be elected.

>>jessed+ua
It's the parties that have already have a lower barrier. My argument is that we should put them on equal footing with everyone else.

>>jessed+ua
Every carve-out or differential treatment for established political parties is a barrier to the establishment of new political parties.

So the political parties have become these weird, permanent, pseudo-governmental entities that no longer have consistent identities of their own, but are basically available for capture every 4 years.

That's how you get the "Republican Party platform" doing a full reversal on trade policy, international policy, health care, and a dozen other issues between 2012 and now.

The "Republican Party" today is just a shell--a collection of structural advantages that the Trump folks have won the the right to put on like a costume. Same with the Democratic party--Sanders just failed to win the costume.

What we need, is to regularly reset the requirements for political organizations, so that it's just as easy for new candidates to be supported by new organizations, as old parties.