• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Fix this

A commentary in the Indiana Daily Student makes a good point about this state's deplorable ballot access procedures, making Indiana one of the five most difficult for indpendent and third-party candidates (along with Texas, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Georgia):

He or she must collect signatures from 2 percent of the total votes cast in the most recent secretary of state election. This means a candidate is required to obtain about 34,000 signatures (depending on the voter turnout for the secretary of state that year) to appear on the ballot.

This exorbitant number is absurd when compared to other states' laws, such as the 5,000 signatures required by Ohio. The requirement of the 34,000+ signatures is only for an individual election. Perhaps these numbers don't mean much out of context, so consider the number of signatures Republicans and Democrats are required to submit to appear on state or federal ballots: 4,500.

The requirements are so tough that so far only Libertarians seem to be able to manage them. Even Ralph Nader didn't even make it on our ballot in 2008. Why are the Republicans and Democrats so afraid of a little competition? Oops, silly question.

Comments

Phil Marx
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:39pm

This is just one of the reasons that 1/2 the population has bowed out of the electoral process. It's not that they don't care about what's going on, but they're convinced that the system is so rigged against them.

I would not want the chaos of having dozens of candidates for each office on the fall ballot, but there has to be something better than just the standard two choices. Especially when you consider that so often one of the major parties sets out the race, it really is not even fair to call ours a two party system anymore.

Leo Morris
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:25pm

Maybe we need something Like Ohio, where, I think ALL candidates have to get just 5,000 signatures. That would encourage enough candidates to give us reach choices without creating the kind of chaos California had with the scores of candidates permitted by the successful gubernatorial recall process.

littlejohn
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:41pm

And yet you seem to favor ID requirements that you know perfectly well would depress Democratic turnout.

Leo Morris
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 4:08pm

That can be debated, and has been here, come to think of it. But there is a difference between requirements for candidates and requirements for voters, yes?

Christopher Swing
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 4:49pm

Most anything can be debated. That doesn't mean there's a point to debating, or that it's worthwhile.

It's still the two parties gaming the system for their own benefit to the detriment of voters, so no practical difference, no.

Tim Zank
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:56pm

"littlejohn Says:

November 14th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
And yet you seem to favor ID requirements that you know perfectly well would depress Democratic turnout."

Apples, I'd like you to meet oranges. Discuss similarities.

Phil Marx
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 1:43am

I would prefer the "Louisiana Primary."

Phil Marx
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 1:51am

Although I suspect that the number of voters disenfranchised due to I.D. laws and the cases of fraudulant voting from not requiring it are both extremely small, both problems are bad and should be given due consideration.

The whole problem would be a non-issue, though, if the government would absorb the (total) cost for those who can't afford it. The cost to society at large for this would be extremely small, and it would guarantee integrity both ways.

Harl Delos
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 3:24am

The recall of Walker up in Wisconsin is going to take 540,000 signatures to get on the ballot, but the Democrats seem to think they can do it. That seems to make 34,000 sound pretty small, by comparison.

Seems fair to me that everyone should follow the same procedure, though. You present 5,000 signatures on petitions before the primary, and you declare the party you want to run on. If nobody else declares that they're running on "the rent is too damned high" party ticket, you automatically win your primary, and end up on the fall ballot.

If you run on the D or R ticket in the spring, you'd face competition - but presumably, the winner of the primary would get votes in the fall from party members who voted for someone else in the spring.

Quantcast