Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Karlito]

It can be tricky in places, but usually that's more about being frozen out of debates and things like that. Usually you need to either pay a fee or gather a given number of signatures to run for office. Even most joke candidates can pull that off.

It's worth noting that every state writes it's own ballot access laws, so some places it's very easy to get on the ballot and other places it can be more difficult. There's also often different requirements depending on whether you're representing a Major Party, a Minor Party, or no Party at all. I actually found it pretty hard to get a well-cited state-by-state comparison of these laws, which is pretty indicative of just how damn complicated it is.

[Sheb]

Is there any state with a legal difference between Major and Minor parties?

[Owlbread]

They still have two very clearly dominant parties. Simply put, the US just doesn't have splintered party allegiances. The Democrats encompass the entire Left, and the Republicans encompass the entire Right.

In Scotland we have roughly 4.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They still have two very clearly dominant parties. Simply put, the US just doesn't have splintered party allegiances. The Democrats encompass the entire Left, and the Republicans encompass the entire Right.

In Scotland we have roughly 4.

You have roughly two that matter. SNP and Labor make up the vast majority, Liberal Democrats only have 5 seats.

[Karlito]

Is there any state with a legal difference between Major and Minor parties?

Besides potentially getting listed on a different section of the ballot or differing amounts of paperwork? I'm not really sure yet; this is quickly turning into some kind of research project.

[Jervill]

Is there any state with a legal difference between Major and Minor parties?

Minnesota has one.  Major parties are allowed into debates and have automatic access to statewide elections (governor, attorney general, et al); while Minor parties, although getting official recognition, receive none of those bonuses.

To become a Major Party a candidate has to breach the 5% vote threshold in at least one statewide elected race.  Currently there are three: The obvious two and the Independence Party which tries to thread the needle between the parties, getting 11% in the last governor's race.

To be recognized as a Minor Party, the candidate has to breach 2% in at least one statewide elected race.  The Greens and the Grassroots (single-issue legalize marijuana party) are the two that are in.

All others are simply other parties and have no special recognition.

I have no idea how other state's do it, but IIRC New York has a weird nomination system where candidates can receive nominations from different parties.  So, say a candidate can run on the Democratic and Working Families line and that would be legal.

[Dutchling]

Minnesota wants independence o.O?

[Jervill]

Not really; they're more referring to an "Independent" candidate/party is neither Democratic or Republican, so they just chose that name for themselves as a party.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The only real separatist party in the United States is the Alaska Independence Party, and they only want to get a formal vote on the matter because Alaska never got one as a territory. Remaining in the Union would win easily.

[Dutchling]

Doesn't Texas also have one?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No. Texas just has a strong cultural attitude of "we joined because we wanted to, and we can leave if we want to (but we don't want to)". They also have a clause in their state constitution allowing them to split up into five smaller states without the approval of Congress.

[penguinofhonor]

I'm now imagining Texas as a sort of reverse Voltron deal.

[GlyphGryph]

I have no idea how other state's do it, but IIRC New York has a weird nomination system where candidates can receive nominations from different parties.  So, say a candidate can run on the Democratic and Working Families line and that would be legal.

Is it weird that this doesn't seem weird to me at all, and I sort of assumed it would work this way everywhere?

Why wouldn't it work this way? I've always seen the party nomination as essentially an endorsement more than anything else, and it would seem weird to limit a good candidate to one endorsement...

[Owlbread]

You have roughly two that matter. SNP and Labor make up the vast majority, Liberal Democrats only have 5 seats.

Though in 2008 the Liberal Democrats were still somewhat viable compared to now. The Conservatives are also a dead brand but they're still very active. The Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives are basically all the same thing though.

But, yes, 'merican politics. Cough. *straightens kilt*

The issue is when two parties become so influential that everyone thinks the best route to power is through influencing one of the parties e.g. the liberal movement within the Democrats. If the Liberals were committed to forming a multi party system, I would advocate breaking away and establishing your own party - same for all the other sects of the Democrat party. We had the same issue in the UK when Trotskyists infiltrated the Labour party as the "Militant Tendency" group, leading to Margaret Thatcher's rise. They didn't have much luck.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

FDA approves over-the-counter Plan B for women aged 15 and older.