I received my absentee ballot from Pittsburgh last week but it was not until this afternoon I was able to look over the papers. I opened up the list of candidates to see who was running… and I saw no Libertarians. I opened up the ballot itself, thinking there must be some mistake. Again, no Libertarians and not even a box for the party.
I am not one to give up easily. I did a quick search and found the LP of Pittsburgh web site. The first number I tried just rang. Then I decided to look over their blog and that was when I started to see the picture of what sorts of things are going on over there:
The challenge to Posipanka’s nomination papers, which had been accepted by the State Elections Bureau on August 1st, was filed on August 8th, and Posipanka was served with court papers the evening of August 10th by a local constable. Local Libertarian Party database manager and Posipanka campaign advisor, Harold Kyriazi, estimated from careful database work, that Posipanka would fall about 40 signatures shy if he sought to fight the court challenge, because about 110 of the signatures seemed to be from residents who aren’t registered to vote.
Not wishing to travel all the way to Harrisburg on a workday for what would almost certainly be a losing effort, Posipanka decided to submit to the request of Gergely’s lawyer friend, who brought a withdrawal form to Posipanka’s house the day after “informing him” about the possibility of punitive legal fees if the case went to court.
Gergely is the Democratic candidate in that district and appears to be a really nasty peice of work.
I found a contact number which answered and further discovered there are no Libertarians on the ballot this year. Some of the problem was also mentioned in the blog article:
Major party candidates need only collect 300 signatures during the weeks before the Spring Primary, whereas minor party candidates need to solicit either 300 or 2% of that district’s previous election’s highest winning vote total, whichever is higher. This means that in some cases, a minor party candidate needs to collect almost 600 signatures while major party candidates need only 300. For statewide offices the situation is infinitely worse: this year, any minor party candidate for Governor or U.S. Senate needed 67,000 valid signatures, while major party candidates needed only 2,000.
“These sorts of shenanigans are not only unfair, but a direct violation of the Pennsylvania constitution, which stipulates that ‘elections shall be free and equal,’ said local party chair Dave Powell, from Morningside. “In my book, 67,000 does not equal 2,000. And, if minor party candidates for the state house needed only the 300 signatures needed by major party candidates, David Posipanka would still be on this year’s ballot.”
So for any Democrats who drop by Samizdata, let it be known that instead of voting “none of the above” as I probably would have done, I instead voted straight Republican for just a tiny bit of revenge against this low life by the name of Gergely.
There is a more general issue here. The Pennsylvania laws have totally disenfranchised me. I have no way of being represented. I have no stake in the government or the way it is run because I have been declared outside of it just as surely as if there were men in white peaked hats and shotguns standing outside of the polling stations.
Free country? Democracy? Do not make me laugh.
There is a more general issue here. The Pennsylvania laws have totally disenfranchised me. I have no way of being represented. I have no stake in the government or the way it is run because I have been declared outside of it just as surely as if there were men in white peaked hats and shotguns standing outside of the polling stations.
This is not a dig at you. But what are you going to do about it? This is the kind of thing that people need to start taking action on. Discussions are all very well but at some point, somebody has to bell the cat.
Rich
Since I am some 6000 miles away, there is only so much that I can do, but this article is one of them. We have a reasonably good circulation, much more so than a wee local blog for the LP of Pittsburgh. It is my hopes that people will spread the word so that more people are aware of it.
When I was in the US I was a part of ballot access drives in Pittsburgh and worked with the Party there. (btw, just in case anyone from Pgh drops by… a big hello to Henry Haller).
The reason they get away with this year after year is that few people are aware of what is going on. So in this case, advertising these underhanded practices publicly is one of the best things we can do.
The other thing is to go after them in court, but that takes oodles of money and the chances that the ACLU would actually get off its useless fat butt and back civil liberties is somewhere between slim and none.
I wonder how the SCOTUS would rule on differing qualifications for candidates depending on who they choose to associate with.
I seem to recall something about freedom of association?
Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What greater petition is there than to run for office?
With this sort of gerrymandering, Dale is right, publicity is the oxygen of choice. Regrettably, the law in the US doesn’t penalize those who have poor cases by allowing judges generous powers to award costs against losers as in the UK. The gherkin (D) character rules the roost since he has no fear of any law suit putting his party nuts in the grinder.
The only other way would be to quietly picket the polling stations handing out a short note to each voter explaining the immorality of it all. Though the local boys in blue, likely as not to be on the donut gift list, would no doubt put a stop to this approach.
On reflection, the time to deal with this legally, is after the election. Given the snippet from the Pennsylvanian constitution, isn’t the whole shebang impeachable? Once in a while, the Libertarian Party should slug it out in court in one of the more choice jurisdictions. I imagine they have thought of it, or even attempted it; one of Samizdat’s readers out there probably knows the answer to that one.
Bluntly, there should be no qualifications other than good character and citizen ship for a candidate to run for office. Perhaps, and this is not serious, there should be a deposit charged based on the electoral vote at a dollar per vote, calculated from the returns from the last election, this would have the fat cat mainstream paying for the election as is only right and proper. The marginal parties would pay less, new parties and new independent candidates would enter the race free of charge.
Of course such a deposit system would concentrate minds on the accuracy of the vote. There should also be added a ten dollar surcharge for illegal votes cast just in the name of fairness and freedom from moral turpitude.
Midwesterner raises an interesting point. I guess a good argument in favor of having candidate qualifications would be not to clutter the ballots (which have to be printed at someone’s expense, after all) with the names of every joker who wanted to “petition.” However, that depends a great deal on how you implement the voting system. Here in Indiana, ballots are all electronic, so there’s absolutely no reason why there couldn’t be hundreds of people on it at no additional expense.
In any case, insofar as there are public expenses associated with a candidacy, then I think there is a principled reason to have (reasonable) entrance requirements. No one should be forced to help you pay for your petition, after all, however much of a right you may have to make it.
However, in this case the Libertarians clearly intend to serve if elected, so this is different from a one-off petition and is a clear abuse of influence on the part of the Dem. I’m not as pessimistic about the ACLU as Dale (though I do disagree with a lot of things they’ve defended over the years) – I think someone should give them a call. I’m 70% sure they would take the case.
By the way, I haven’t heard anything about this from the Indiana Party mailing list, and usually we get announcements about this kind of thing in other states (LPIN is guaranteed access here, so it’s never an issue for us – save some isolated instances in Bloomington – which is nice). Is there some reason the national party isn’t involved? Or did I just miss it (entirely possible)?
Dale, was Carl Romanelli on your ballot for Senate? He’s running as a Green.
His ballot petition case is now before the Pa Supreme Court.
http://santorumblog.com/index.php/category/aint-easy-being-green/
Yep, he’s there. The ballot by the way, is just a write in list. There is a seperate candidate list with the names of all the candidates for each office.
In the interest of open and fair elections, representation of the people – not the party power brokers, there should be (at least) three rights clarified.
Identical qualification and enforcement of qualification for all candidates. For the all too common situation that Dale describes, candidates from the two headed party should also be required to acquire and defend 67,000 signatures each.
All candidates should be permitted to identify with any party that will permit them to. If they make up a party identification i.e. ‘City Tax Reduction Party’, or ‘City Service Increase Party’ this should be permitted. After all, what legitimate reason is there for party identification on ballots except to indicate the intentions of the candidate? If these indentifications cannot be permitted, why should registered party affiliation be indentified? They serve the same purpose.
And, thirdly, the right of all candidates to specify an election judge(s).
A lot of this goes back to the Progressive movement. They not only wanted to tell political parties how to choose their candidates (which led, in some States, to compulsory primaries – and sometimes even primaries where non party members could vote, although in many States “registering” as a supporter of a party does not involve paying a sub, which it should)), but a broader view that the “mainstream” parties were a part of the State (or as the Progressives would say “part of the people”) – a way of “getting the people involved in the political process” rather than offering radically different points of view on how big government should be (much like the Progressive view of the press – “objective” and “scientific” [i.e. statist] rather than arguing for different politican positions).
Given the general statism of the Progressives I doubt that they would have been upset to learn that libertarians are not happy with the system they helped create.
As an British person looking at the United States from outside perhaps I should be wary of sticking my nose too far into American affairs (after all a British diplomat may have cost a good President reelection in 1888 by backing him), but I hope the Republicans (for all their many faults) hold the House of Representatives – the Democrat leadership really are a bunch of ultra statists.
and
Unless there’s a law against you printing “David Posipanka” on your ballot because he’s not on the candidate list, you haven’t been disenfranchised.
Wisconsin was one of the founders of the Populist movement. Our primary ballot is one big ballot with all party’s candidates on it, listed separately by party.
You are given this ballot with instructions to vote for only one party’s candidates. If you vote in more than one party’s primary, your entire ballot is disqualified.
It’s difficult to get any participation in small party primarys because they seldom have candidates for many offices.
Interesting, though, the Wisconsin PBS stations have started to include the Libertarian candidate in debates for state office, holding 3 party debates. They are no doubt doing this with the intent to split the ‘conservative’ vote, but it is helping in the effort to turn libertarianism into a legitimate political platform.
A write in accomplishes little unless there is at least an organized campaign behind it. That was one of the major reasons I made an international call to LP Pgh: to find out if such was being done. It isn’t.
Compare the Orwellian fantasy in your original post:
to the reality you acknowledge in the comment section:
Being able to vote for the candidate/party of your choice, but not doing so because you don’t think they’re going to win, isn’t being disenfranchised. It’s simply your decision to put practicality over principle and vote for the candidate you think has a chance of getting elected and whose policies you can tolerate.
Claiming that your situation is in any way analogous to that of people who were threatened with death and physically barred from voting at all by the KKK is just over-the-top crazy talk.
Umm, you did get to vote. You just voted against something rather than for something.
It’s not so much disenfranchisement as much as it is futility. With futility, your vote gets counted. With disenfranchisement, it doesn’t.
I think voting for one party or the other to protest the stupidity and cravenness of the US two-party political duopoly isn’t exactly going to change things. It’s just the kind of reaction they‘re looking forward to.
As a libertarian-leaning Democratic voter (I’m in Arizona, making that the best vote for political gridlock), I’ve been holding my nose as I fill in ballots for a long time now. It’s not fun to choose the less evil of two (or more) lessers, but it’s better than blindly expecting my vote to be noticed by a two-party mechanism.
Am I chastizing you for your reaction to your situation? Maybe. But do I have a better reaction to suggest? Absolutely not.
So it appears a few of you believe no one is disenfranchised so long as there is a way for a few hardy souls to jump through a sufficient number of hoops and cast a vote of your choice in spite of it?
By that logic many 3rd world dictatorships had a fair vote. The state selected the candidates; a hardy few could register a protest vote by scratching out the annointed names and writing in another.
No, I do not buy your analysis at all. I do not buy the special State ordained status of the two wings of Statism.
My vote for Republicans, by the way, had to do with the actions of a particular Democratic scumbag who ran one of our candidates off the ballot with threats. Otherwise I would have voted NOTA. This is a seperate issue from the State manipulating the rules to block my voice from being expressed at the polls.
Jumping through hoops? Get a grip, man! By your own comments you’ve admitted that all you have to do is write in the name of your preferred candidate the same way that every other voter does on this ballot.
You’re getting to vote in the election. You’re getting to freely choose who you want to vote for in the election. Your vote will count exactly the same as everyone else’s vote in the election. You will suffer no negative consequences for daring to exercise your right to vote, regardless of which candidate you choose in the election.
Claiming that you’ve been disenfranchised and fantasizing that your situation is comparable to being threatened with death or bodily harm by the KKK just makes you sound like an ignorant narcissist with a persecution complex.
Okay, I am an ignorant narcissit who has been disenfranchised. Now that we have that settled…
It is quite possible to tilt a playing field so far that no one but the wings of the State Party candidates has the slightest chance. That point has clearly been passed in Pennsylvania, a State which has in past years had one of the stronger state parties in the country, with a fair number of people elected to local office.
Are there people out there who believe that no matter how far the competition is distorted in favour of the state party, the election is still ‘open’ so long as some few crazies are thrown the bone of being allowed to add their write in candidates to the list which include Mickey Mouse?
If a Black Man in the south 50 years ago was allowed to vote if he passed a special test, paid a high poll tax, provided a wide assortment of documents and then managed to find a polling place, was he enfranchised or just merely someone with guts and perserverance?
If by spending half or more of our funds, applying a large fraction of our manpower to getting signatures (when said efforts are not the same as required of the State candidates) and can be faced with legal threats to withdraw or else… but are still allowed to write in a name, are they enfranchised?
Really depends on which side of the fence you are on I suppose.
Whilst I appreciate that you are a long distance away and that posting an article on a blog is “getting the message out there”, I’m suggesting we all (I’m as guilty as anyone) need to start considering that it’s probably time to start raising our game.
The circulation of this blog may be relatively large but how many people are really going to be reached? Yes indeed, it may be time to start picketing polling stations. It may be time to get carted away by the boys in blue. It may be time to start initiating lawsuits instead of waiting for someone else to start one and throwing in some contributions.
There are many things wrong with the political system at the moment and I would suggest that not a small part of it is down to Bystander apathy. Even as libertarians, there is an awful lot of “someone needs to do something about this” around. Even “What can I do about this” isn’t good enough. It has to be “I am going to do something about this and I am going to do it now.”.
Again, this isn’t directed at you, Dale (this message in itself is an example of what it is criticising) but I hope it provides a little food for thought for those reading.
Rich
I linked to this and started the post with “Don Quixote had windmills. I try to convince my libertarian buddies at Samizdata that support for the GOP in the US is truly in the best interest of liberty.”
I’m on your side, Dale, but have a tough time seeing the difference in enfranchisement or efficacy between writing in a LP candidate’s name and voting LP in western PA.
Electoral systems in the US are always tilted toward two party rule. Yup, the signature requirements should be even, but the major parties would not need to break a sweat getting 2% petitions.
That can be very frustrating to one who holds a minority view like libertarianism. A Pew poll classified 9% of US votes as such and I’d guess that is sadly right.
I just don’t see my interests’ being better served in a parliamentary system rather than lobbying for more libertarian thought in the GOP. There! A windmill!
JK:
I don’t know that you need a parliamentary system to increase third-party representation in legislatures; just an electoral system other than straight “first past the post”/”winner take all”.
I will admit, however, that Lousiana has a different system and there the two parties are still dominant. It is going to take time….
Richard,
Fortunately most states, including mine, have strict laws against interfering with voting in any way. If the law allowed it, we would have swarms of paid piranhas descending on those lined up vote who have no way to escape.
jk,
Really? Let’s try it and find out. I don’t believe the legally privileged opinions held by the big2 are all that popular. At least equal requirements would get the privileged party staff familiar with doors slammed in their faces. It would force big party machinery to pay a lot of staff to go out on the streets and compel individual voters to think about politics.
I bet a lot of non voters accosted this way will reply with some phrase including at least one ‘f’ word and go on their way newly aware of the big2’s vulnerability.
It’s time for SCOTUS to take another look at political privilege. Party members who have made it to office have passed laws blocking access at every level. Eligibility must be entirely blind to all of a candidate’s opinions and associations. Swearing the oath of office should be the only ideological test. It’s not that far of a stretch to think the ratifyers of the constitution would have included political tests in this part of the constitution–
had they realized the full extent of the powers that political parties would usurp.
Midwesterner: Ah, there’s laws. I guess that makes it all right to finagle things to prevent candidates running. I guess it’s a right good thing that the British didn’t have any laws against insurrection else the revolution would have been in trouble.
I’m not saying that it *is* time to break the law but laws have been broken for less. Where do we draw the line? I bet if you asked most of us ten years ago, we would have reckoned that it would have passed that point five years ago from now.
It’s time for SCOTUS to…
Yes, of course, someone else has to fix it. Check out that link to bystander apathy again.
Who’s government is it anyway?
Rich
Well, Dale, I’ve seen the light.
You’re exactly like a “Black Man in the south 50 years ago”.
Being asked to fill out your absentee ballot (provided to you by the state so your vote would count in the election, even though you’re in another country) in the same way as every other absentee voter is exactly like having to “pass[] a special test, pa[y] a high poll tax, provide[] a wide assortment of documents and then manage[] to find a polling place.”
I recommend that you run around shouting Help! Help! I’m being repressed! to alert everyone to the crushing of dissent you’re suffering. If anyone interferes with your martyrdom act by pointing out that reality doesn’t match your fantasy, then you should appeal for sympathy from bystanders with Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about! Did you see him repressin’ me? You saw it, didn’t you?
Because since you’ve turned yourself into a parody, you might as well go for the laughs.
So whatever it is your going to do, Rich. DO IT!
Be sure and tell us here so that any of us who may choose to join you, can. And those of us who choose not to can still help you get the most possible mileage out of it.
I happen to think Samizdata is a very effective forum or I wouldn’t read and comment here. I think what matters is not how many read our discussions, but who reads them.
I don’t do civil disobedience, but I will do what I can do.
One thing I have done and will do again, is talk to the editor of our local paper, and write to the other bigger MSM and request strongly that they report ALL votes. Even the Mickey Mouse votes. If someone went to the trouble to register, stand in line, and vote, they are making a statement. Mickey Mouse=None of the Above.
If you do nothing else, or even if you do, I encourage you to do the same with your media. If people begin to see more evidence of anger and rejection of the status quo, more people will join us. It IS that simple. This is why a I think equal ballot eligibility requirements are so important. Whether all parties have to get 67,000 signatures or 300, it’s a win for the little guys. Whatever stirs the pot will get the inanimate sludge scraped off of the sides and into the mix.
That’s what I’m doing. Commenting here and campaigning for full reporting in the media. Keep us informed of your efforts and, if I can, I’ll help.
Did anyone ever stop to think that there isn’t a “conspiracy” between the major parties to suppress the LP, because the LP is little more than an irritant — and that libertarianism remains a “splinter” philosophy because most people think it just plain sucks?
Yes. And ‘No.’
Be sure and tell us here so that any of us who may choose to join you, can.
And again we’re back to the waiting for someone else to do something.
I am not saying I’m some super-revolutionary, I’m not even saying that others need to get out there and do something. I am just saying that we need to start with the awareness that to effect change, we have to look to ourselves as individuals.
The realization of “If not me then who? If not now then when?” has to be the start of anything.
Rich
Politics is, like, so old school. When when the future be making an appearance on here?
“But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.” — Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Machine Ghost
No, Rich. We aren’t. You are. So shut your whiny face, get off of your lame butt, and quit squeeling “Lead me. Lead me.”
“We” do not need to do anything. Each of us does or does not do what we individually (hopefully) rationally decide to do.
Samizdata is “A blog for people with a critically rational individualist perspective.” Not a an instruction depot for collectivist assignments.
Compulsory group action for individualists? Tell me you don’t see the humor in that oxymoronic instruction.
Enough begging for group think. I’ve told you what I’m doing. Dale’s told you what he’s doing. You doing what exactly?
For more information on (primarily US) ballot-access issues and some history, see Ballot Access News.
BTW, the US Supreme Court, in their modern diarrhea, ruled that write-in votes do not have to be counted (if I recall, in Burdick v. Takushi). And newsbimboes even went so far, at one point, as to normalize the reporting of votes so as to treat pro-Bipartisan votes as totaling 100%. The Massachusetts Teachers Association argued orally that (initiative) petitions could be marked by a witch in such a way as to persuade voters to sign — and the MA SJC, which didn’t even giggle at that one, ruled in their favor in an opinion that lied (knowingly related falsehoods) about the origin and about the plain, intended, and understood meaning of the law, causing extreme damage to the initiative process (for which I’m sure they’re really, truly, um, sorry, ya know?).
Excellent link, tdh.
Here is an example of the kind of things the 2parties are perpetually trying to see if they can get away with.
It’s been sent to committee. Probably to lurk for an opportune moment to slink out and slip through while we’re all paying attention to ‘big’ news.
The Libertarians are not on the ballot the same reason that two people chanting to a tree are not on the ballot, they have not the numbers to earn the place.
The above is in general.
While you have been in Irland the Libertarian Party has fallen apart, some afilliates exist in name only.
The national Libertarian Party active membership had by the end of 2005 fell to 15,507 in the entire United States.
In an effort to boost the falling membership number the Libertarian National Committee reset the membership dues to zero. Membership in the US LP is for life, active membership is only for those that have paid dues. So by not paying dues all inactive members were listed as active so they could claim 98,000 active members.
The health of the Libertarian Party in the US can be read from their own income and expense reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission at http://www.fec.gov.
The Libertarian Party of the United States ended the month of September 2007 with a bank account balance of $591.11.
They also list $111,043.55 in unpaid, overdue bills.
If you want any chance for the LP to get onto the ballots then send them all your money. I think they will just mishandle it as they ahve in the past but you never know.
Midwesterner, your retreat to ad-hom attacks is duly noted.
Rich