sebster wrote:d-usa wrote:1) Signatures equal to 5% of the total votes cast for the top office during the last election (currently around 52,000, was closer to 74,000 signatures for 2009/2010).
2) If one signature is invalidated on the petition sheet, then the whole sheet is invalidated. Meaning that to get 52,000 signatures you should collect at least 65,000 just to be on the safe side.
3) You have 1 year to collect the signatures from the day you file your notice of indent. Currently that means 1,000 signatures a week not counting the spare ones to be safe from challenges.
4) During even years you are not allowed to collect signatures from May until November, even if your one year period falls during those months.
5) If you make it on the ballot, you have to receive at least 10% of the vote for the highest office, if you don't then your official party status is revoked and you have to start from scratch.
And of course, any party which was represented on the ballot during the election of 72 (I think that is the year) is exempt and is automatically included. You can guess who the two parties are....
If you aren't capable of collecting 50,000 signatures, or picking up more than 10% of the vote you aren't really much of a force in the first place.
I mean, the above is pretty obnoxious and I'd think pretty unnecessary, but it's really on stopping vanity runs from people that can't win.
So what is your answer, vote for the two parties you don't like, or don't vote at all?
The point is not that the rules are keeping third parties from winning, the rules are keeping people from being able to vote for a candidate that they want to vote for.
I would be happy if we had a third party that doesn't get a single vote, as long as they are allowed to run and people are allowed to decide not to vote for them. I don't like that we have two parties who get to make the rules that make it near impossible to get on the ballot.
D & R should have to earn their votes, not legislate the opposition away.
(edited to fix quote tags)
