Standing for office
Standing for office
In the UK, the rule for appearing on a ballot paper in order to stand for office as a Member of Parliament is simple.To stand as a candidate in a particular constituency, a British citizen needs the signatures of 10 people registered to vote there, and pay a deposit of £500 (which is returned if he/she gains more than 5% of the vote in that seat)How does this compare to US electoral practice?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Standing for office
I think it costs something like $10,000.00 to get into the primaries here. I hear the benefits are pretty good if you can get elected for two terms. Its not for me though.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Standing for office
Ahso!;1342120 wrote: I think it costs something like $10,000.00 to get into the primaries here. I hear the benefits are pretty good if you can get elected for two terms. Its not for me though.
Nonono - stand back a moment. Primaries are purely for Democrats and Republicans, it has nothing to do with getting your name on a ballot paper for Congressional office or the Presidency. Here in the UK that £500 and ten voters backing your application is the same whether you're an official party candidate or a private individual, it gets your name next to a crossable blank box on the constituency ballot paper.
So - no primaries, it's Election Day. If your name's in the same position, what did you have to do to get it there? Sleep with the State Governor?
Nonono - stand back a moment. Primaries are purely for Democrats and Republicans, it has nothing to do with getting your name on a ballot paper for Congressional office or the Presidency. Here in the UK that £500 and ten voters backing your application is the same whether you're an official party candidate or a private individual, it gets your name next to a crossable blank box on the constituency ballot paper.
So - no primaries, it's Election Day. If your name's in the same position, what did you have to do to get it there? Sleep with the State Governor?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Standing for office
I don't think it costs a thing to be a write in candidate. They're trying that up in Alaska.
Not as much fun as we had in previous presidential elections, when Snoopy and Alfred E. Newman were a popular write in choice.
Not as much fun as we had in previous presidential elections, when Snoopy and Alfred E. Newman were a popular write in choice.
Standing for office
chonsigirl;1342125 wrote: I don't think it costs a thing to be a write in candidate. They're trying that up in Alaska.
Not as much fun as we had in previous presidential elections, when Snoopy and Alfred E. Newman were a popular write in choice.
I'm quite sure you're right but a write-in candidate is at a considerable disadvantage compared to someone whose name appears on the ballot paper, wouldn't you agree? Why are "they" having to resort to being a write-in in Alaska instead of being on the ballot paper?
Come on, this is one of the fundamental definitive aspects of Democracy, that a citizen in good standing can campaign and stand on equal terms for national office. What does it take in the US?
This is Election Day, it's a timely thread.
Not as much fun as we had in previous presidential elections, when Snoopy and Alfred E. Newman were a popular write in choice.
I'm quite sure you're right but a write-in candidate is at a considerable disadvantage compared to someone whose name appears on the ballot paper, wouldn't you agree? Why are "they" having to resort to being a write-in in Alaska instead of being on the ballot paper?
Come on, this is one of the fundamental definitive aspects of Democracy, that a citizen in good standing can campaign and stand on equal terms for national office. What does it take in the US?
This is Election Day, it's a timely thread.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Standing for office
How to Run for Office of the President of the United States | eHow.com
Well, for PA governor, the cost is $200.
http://www.seventy.org/Downloads/How_to ... n_2008.pdf
I would guess it is a little less for a smaller state public office, more for a presidential one, times 50 for the states.
Well, for PA governor, the cost is $200.
http://www.seventy.org/Downloads/How_to ... n_2008.pdf
I would guess it is a little less for a smaller state public office, more for a presidential one, times 50 for the states.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Standing for office
Should have asked a friend of mine, he is running for a state legislature position today. I don't think he paid much to file the papers.
Standing for office
Good question. I tried looking it up and couldn't find much. I remember asking my dad what it took when he was elected mayor of our small town and I believe it was just to add your name and supply last years income tax return. He is now a councilman and I am pretty sure you just have to fill out a form to have your name on the ballot.
Standing for office
chonsigirl;1342129 wrote: Should have asked a friend of mine, he is running for a state legislature position today. I don't think he paid much to file the papers.
Maybe not, but it's not one of the positions I'm asking about. I'm focused on national representation in Congress in Washington. And, I suppose, on the Presidency if anyone turns up the details for that.
The Group of Seventy site's guide you linked to is wonderful but, guess what, the bits they leave unmentioned are how to get onto the ballot for the Senate and the House of Representatives. And the Presidency. All the offices discussed are local.
I've found a page relating to Texas and it's starting to look as though all the rules are specific to a given State.
New Party Nominees or Parties Without Ballot Access says that to register a new political party in Texas "needs the support of 43,992 qualified voters". That compares to 10 in England. To stand as an Independent candidate with no party structure as United States Representative or United States Senator requires the support of a mere 500 qualified voters which is, presumably, a somewhat simpler process to organize. That's at Independent Candidates
Why are the hurdles to starting a new national political party set so high? Does it bother you?
Maybe not, but it's not one of the positions I'm asking about. I'm focused on national representation in Congress in Washington. And, I suppose, on the Presidency if anyone turns up the details for that.
The Group of Seventy site's guide you linked to is wonderful but, guess what, the bits they leave unmentioned are how to get onto the ballot for the Senate and the House of Representatives. And the Presidency. All the offices discussed are local.
I've found a page relating to Texas and it's starting to look as though all the rules are specific to a given State.
New Party Nominees or Parties Without Ballot Access says that to register a new political party in Texas "needs the support of 43,992 qualified voters". That compares to 10 in England. To stand as an Independent candidate with no party structure as United States Representative or United States Senator requires the support of a mere 500 qualified voters which is, presumably, a somewhat simpler process to organize. That's at Independent Candidates
Why are the hurdles to starting a new national political party set so high? Does it bother you?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Standing for office
The U.S. usually does not have a third party system, they do not last long against the two larger parties.
Does it bother me? I think as a historian it is interesting, but not much the average person can do about it. If I had lots of moola, maybe I would run for something in my free time. But as an average wage earner, I do not have time to run for an office. I wouldn't put up with alot of their malarky.
A new party, not connected to the two in power-it would be hard to do. In some ways, I think that is why the Tea Party became a name during this election year-trying to work within the one party after awhile.
Does it bother me? I think as a historian it is interesting, but not much the average person can do about it. If I had lots of moola, maybe I would run for something in my free time. But as an average wage earner, I do not have time to run for an office. I wouldn't put up with alot of their malarky.
A new party, not connected to the two in power-it would be hard to do. In some ways, I think that is why the Tea Party became a name during this election year-trying to work within the one party after awhile.
Standing for office
chonsigirl;1342150 wrote: The U.S. usually does not have a third party system, they do not last long against the two larger parties.
Does it bother me? I think as a historian it is interesting, but not much the average person can do about it. If I had lots of moola, maybe I would run for something in my free time. But as an average wage earner, I do not have time to run for an office. I wouldn't put up with alot of their malarky.
A new party, not connected to the two in power-it would be hard to do. In some ways, I think that is why the Tea Party became a name during this election year-trying to work within the one party after awhile.
So the fact that those who control the two parties control your country is nothing more than "interesting"?
Sorry, to me it would be terrifying and unacceptable.
Does it bother me? I think as a historian it is interesting, but not much the average person can do about it. If I had lots of moola, maybe I would run for something in my free time. But as an average wage earner, I do not have time to run for an office. I wouldn't put up with alot of their malarky.
A new party, not connected to the two in power-it would be hard to do. In some ways, I think that is why the Tea Party became a name during this election year-trying to work within the one party after awhile.
So the fact that those who control the two parties control your country is nothing more than "interesting"?
Sorry, to me it would be terrifying and unacceptable.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Standing for office
You have to have money to be in politics, and lots of time. I don't have either of those things. You use the power of the vote you have, and vote what you think is best.
You also have to have a mindset-unless you want an entirely different system. It is not my vocation, or one of my gifts to be a leader in that manner. To chose a lifestyle you are not suited for, is unacceptable.
How active are you in local politics, Bryn?
You also have to have a mindset-unless you want an entirely different system. It is not my vocation, or one of my gifts to be a leader in that manner. To chose a lifestyle you are not suited for, is unacceptable.
How active are you in local politics, Bryn?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Standing for office
spot;1342139 wrote: Maybe not, but it's not one of the positions I'm asking about. I'm focused on national representation in Congress in Washington. And, I suppose, on the Presidency if anyone turns up the details for that.
The Group of Seventy site's guide you linked to is wonderful but, guess what, the bits they leave unmentioned are how to get onto the ballot for the Senate and the House of Representatives. And the Presidency. All the offices discussed are local.
I've found a page relating to Texas and it's starting to look as though all the rules are specific to a given State.
New Party Nominees or Parties Without Ballot Access says that to register a new political party in Texas "needs the support of 43,992 qualified voters". That compares to 10 in England. To stand as an Independent candidate with no party structure as United States Representative or United States Senator requires the support of a mere 500 qualified voters which is, presumably, a somewhat simpler process to organize. That's at Independent Candidates
Why are the hurdles to starting a new national political party set so high? Does it bother you?
It bothers me a lot, and points to my assertion that dems and repubs have worked in unison to block any serious competition from any other political party. They are a single de facto political party, a monopolistic corporation in fact and name. Political parties are poison to liberty and our democratic republic process. They should be outlawed. All "entities" other than individual citizens should be banned from our political processes.
The Group of Seventy site's guide you linked to is wonderful but, guess what, the bits they leave unmentioned are how to get onto the ballot for the Senate and the House of Representatives. And the Presidency. All the offices discussed are local.
I've found a page relating to Texas and it's starting to look as though all the rules are specific to a given State.
New Party Nominees or Parties Without Ballot Access says that to register a new political party in Texas "needs the support of 43,992 qualified voters". That compares to 10 in England. To stand as an Independent candidate with no party structure as United States Representative or United States Senator requires the support of a mere 500 qualified voters which is, presumably, a somewhat simpler process to organize. That's at Independent Candidates
Why are the hurdles to starting a new national political party set so high? Does it bother you?
It bothers me a lot, and points to my assertion that dems and repubs have worked in unison to block any serious competition from any other political party. They are a single de facto political party, a monopolistic corporation in fact and name. Political parties are poison to liberty and our democratic republic process. They should be outlawed. All "entities" other than individual citizens should be banned from our political processes.
Standing for office
It's why I say political parties are like gangs.
Standing for office
I'm slightly confused about terminology, Acc. There are two ways of looking at "Party". Let's say there's a House comprised entirely of independent members, each of whom gained a seat by personally convincing a constituency of personal merit. One of them puts forward a motion which all debate and vote on. Those for the motion are, for that moment, of the party which agrees with the motion and those against are of the party which disagrees with it. Over time, and many motions, a tendency will form in which the same names are seen to vote for the same motions and a similar group of names against those and for other motions. That, it strikes me, is a fair definition of party. Perhaps your disapproval of party only takes the form of whipping? Because I can't see how an unwhipped group of like-minded members can be prevented, it's a natural consequence of voting. A group who voluntarily accept the discipline of a whip, on the other hand, may perhaps be one step too far toward Party politics. Are you against whipping?
The question then is whether that group of like-minded members can then legitimately endorse candidates in future elections, which would be a feasible way for them to increase the likelihood of their individual policies being enacted. Are you against endorsement?
Where's your line in the sand when it comes to suppressing parties?
Even on ForumGarden there's a hint of all these behaviors. We've seen groups who generally tend to agree against groups which tend to put the other side of an argument and we can pretty well guess beforehand who those parties might consist of. We've heard tell of "if you're my friend you'll post in that thread supporting what I've said" which has aspects of the whip. If membership were by election I bet we'd have had endorsement of applicants too. Are there parties here?
The question then is whether that group of like-minded members can then legitimately endorse candidates in future elections, which would be a feasible way for them to increase the likelihood of their individual policies being enacted. Are you against endorsement?
Where's your line in the sand when it comes to suppressing parties?
Even on ForumGarden there's a hint of all these behaviors. We've seen groups who generally tend to agree against groups which tend to put the other side of an argument and we can pretty well guess beforehand who those parties might consist of. We've heard tell of "if you're my friend you'll post in that thread supporting what I've said" which has aspects of the whip. If membership were by election I bet we'd have had endorsement of applicants too. Are there parties here?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Standing for office
The Republicrat Party has been given privileges other parties do not have. Party primaries are held in the same venues as general elections, using the same voting machines. Other parties do not have such "officiality". It gives them a status they do not deserve.
National parties give huge funds to local campaigns to help get their guy elected. This gives me in Texas a voice in Florida politics - a voice I do not deserve - and makes the local playing field uneven. Corporations, parties, anonymous donors, foreign entities ... all should be banned from the political process because our nation is, as Lincoln put it, "of The People, by The People, and for The People. The People, the citizens, should be the only ones with a voice in running our government.
The natural give & take of politics can take place without an official party whip. I'll vote for your bill but you have to vote for mine. You've got my vote if I can put in this amendment. That sort of thing.
National parties give huge funds to local campaigns to help get their guy elected. This gives me in Texas a voice in Florida politics - a voice I do not deserve - and makes the local playing field uneven. Corporations, parties, anonymous donors, foreign entities ... all should be banned from the political process because our nation is, as Lincoln put it, "of The People, by The People, and for The People. The People, the citizens, should be the only ones with a voice in running our government.
The natural give & take of politics can take place without an official party whip. I'll vote for your bill but you have to vote for mine. You've got my vote if I can put in this amendment. That sort of thing.
Standing for office
It's pleasing that there are some areas where we can agree despite the fact that we want entirely different outcomes. You've still not touched on endorsement at elections though. Either all these independent candidates have to be churned by the electorate and the right one selected, or a third party assessment provides endorsement of one above the others.
It matters because if you have, say, ten candidates, all of whom have this or that in their favor, the electorate will dilute their vote by supporting all of them to some extent or other. If you don't have some sort of Party endorsement you'll end up with the Fox List candidate winning. I take it you're not prepared to ban political discussion on the Fox channel in the run-up to an election. And if Fox can endorse a list, why would you disapprove of the existing representatives doing the same thing?
It matters because if you have, say, ten candidates, all of whom have this or that in their favor, the electorate will dilute their vote by supporting all of them to some extent or other. If you don't have some sort of Party endorsement you'll end up with the Fox List candidate winning. I take it you're not prepared to ban political discussion on the Fox channel in the run-up to an election. And if Fox can endorse a list, why would you disapprove of the existing representatives doing the same thing?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Standing for office
chonsigirl;1342162 wrote: You have to have money to be in politics, and lots of time. I don't have either of those things. You use the power of the vote you have, and vote what you think is best.
You also have to have a mindset-unless you want an entirely different system. It is not my vocation, or one of my gifts to be a leader in that manner. To chose a lifestyle you are not suited for, is unacceptable.
How active are you in local politics, Bryn?
I'm not - but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about how my country is run.
Anything that restricts voter choice and concentrates power into the hands of the few is to be abhorred and it strikes me that a system where power is restricted to those who control the only two parties that exist and are ever likely to exist is to be avoided like the plague.
It is OK to say "use the power of your vote" but if that vote carries no weight because neither of the parties represents your views and there is no alternative then democracy is not being served.
If and when it gets to the point where a majority of the population says vote for the least bad then democracy is dead and many of the members here have expressed just that view.
You also have to have a mindset-unless you want an entirely different system. It is not my vocation, or one of my gifts to be a leader in that manner. To chose a lifestyle you are not suited for, is unacceptable.
How active are you in local politics, Bryn?
I'm not - but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about how my country is run.
Anything that restricts voter choice and concentrates power into the hands of the few is to be abhorred and it strikes me that a system where power is restricted to those who control the only two parties that exist and are ever likely to exist is to be avoided like the plague.
It is OK to say "use the power of your vote" but if that vote carries no weight because neither of the parties represents your views and there is no alternative then democracy is not being served.
If and when it gets to the point where a majority of the population says vote for the least bad then democracy is dead and many of the members here have expressed just that view.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Standing for office
Ah, you have a point, Bryn. But it is a republic, not a democracy. Never has been, and sadly, probably never will be one.
Having a concern, and participating in the voting, is one way to do it. Others are led to be active in a political role, or a direct support of a cause.
Having a concern, and participating in the voting, is one way to do it. Others are led to be active in a political role, or a direct support of a cause.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Standing for office
spot;1342203 wrote: It's pleasing that there are some areas where we can agree despite the fact that we want entirely different outcomes. You've still not touched on endorsement at elections though. Either all these independent candidates have to be churned by the electorate and the right one selected, or a third party assessment provides endorsement of one above the others.
It matters because if you have, say, ten candidates, all of whom have this or that in their favor, the electorate will dilute their vote by supporting all of them to some extent or other. If you don't have some sort of Party endorsement you'll end up with the Fox List candidate winning. I take it you're not prepared to ban political discussion on the Fox channel in the run-up to an election. And if Fox can endorse a list, why would you disapprove of the existing representatives doing the same thing?I don't understand your "Fox list" but I don't have anything against endorsements. I don't get why you think it necessarily has to come from a political party. The danger is in campaign contributions and, once elected, lobbyist swag. These are ways the politician directly personally benefits, which might incentivize him to vote in ways detrimental to his constituents.
It matters because if you have, say, ten candidates, all of whom have this or that in their favor, the electorate will dilute their vote by supporting all of them to some extent or other. If you don't have some sort of Party endorsement you'll end up with the Fox List candidate winning. I take it you're not prepared to ban political discussion on the Fox channel in the run-up to an election. And if Fox can endorse a list, why would you disapprove of the existing representatives doing the same thing?I don't understand your "Fox list" but I don't have anything against endorsements. I don't get why you think it necessarily has to come from a political party. The danger is in campaign contributions and, once elected, lobbyist swag. These are ways the politician directly personally benefits, which might incentivize him to vote in ways detrimental to his constituents.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Standing for office
Bryn Mawr;1342221 wrote: I'm not - but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about how my country is run.
Anything that restricts voter choice and concentrates power into the hands of the few is to be abhorred and it strikes me that a system where power is restricted to those who control the only two parties that exist and are ever likely to exist is to be avoided like the plague.
It is OK to say "use the power of your vote" but if that vote carries no weight because neither of the parties represents your views and there is no alternative then democracy is not being served.
If and when it gets to the point where a majority of the population says vote for the least bad then democracy is dead and many of the members here have expressed just that view.Well said!
chonsigirl;1342240 wrote: Ah, you have a point, Bryn. But it is a republic, not a democracy. Never has been, and sadly, probably never will be one.I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a fully direct democracy. Besides, being a republic is not what is limiting us to two inadequate choices. Other republics have far more serious competition than two. Our problem is the republicrat monopoly.
Anything that restricts voter choice and concentrates power into the hands of the few is to be abhorred and it strikes me that a system where power is restricted to those who control the only two parties that exist and are ever likely to exist is to be avoided like the plague.
It is OK to say "use the power of your vote" but if that vote carries no weight because neither of the parties represents your views and there is no alternative then democracy is not being served.
If and when it gets to the point where a majority of the population says vote for the least bad then democracy is dead and many of the members here have expressed just that view.Well said!
chonsigirl;1342240 wrote: Ah, you have a point, Bryn. But it is a republic, not a democracy. Never has been, and sadly, probably never will be one.I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a fully direct democracy. Besides, being a republic is not what is limiting us to two inadequate choices. Other republics have far more serious competition than two. Our problem is the republicrat monopoly.