A Report on the Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries

A political party is free to change the rules for nominating candidates however and whenever it chooses. It is free to nullify the decision of those voting in a particular primary. A political party is free to nominate whomever it chooses [and almost certainly multiple candidates for the same office it wishes should it choose].

Ultimately the party, not a judge, chooses whose vote matters and whose doesn't. Placing the imprimatur of the state upon a political party's process doesn't change that or make the process of candidate nomination little 'd' democratic. The people within a political party charged with making the rules for candidate selection are not elected or selected little 'd' democratically. The process of nominating candidates is not little 'd' democratic in any meaningful sense.

This is something we should take away from them. The outcomes of private party activities shouldn't have any impact on the names that appear on ballots. They can maybe mark the names they choose to endorse as an organization, but we should throw away the system where the parties are directly involved in putting names on the ballot (of course they'd be indirectly involved, as an organized group is, uh, organized and thus more ready to act together, so would have an easy time dealing with ballot petitions).

I think the barriers to entry should likely remain high, but we need an overhaul of the voting system itself to break the two-party system, which itself is just a side-effect of the mechanics of our voting process, not anything mandated.

If I remember correctly, early on in the country's history the founders noticed that the mechanics of voting were trending towards a limited two-party system, and that consternated them. Most every (if not actually every) democracy established after the USA has a voting style and representative bodies that allows more parties to coexist, or creative destruction within the set of active parties to thrive.

I'd rather have some system of arbitrarily limiting the number of names on the ballot than a system that privileges parties. For instance, for statewide elections you could choose the 5 (or 10!) names that had satisfied the ballot requirements in the most voting districts (so it doesn't matter that Uncle Larry likes to "run" for state senate in his home county, he doesn't kick someone with a better/actual shot at winning off).

It turns out that satisfying the ballot requirements is already a challenge requiring organization, and that organization is called a political party.

[0] http://www.fec.gov/data/CandidateSummary.do

I also don't like that a party could literally pick a name out of hat to designate their presidential candidate. Of course it would be terrible for a party itself to do that, but the system is setup so that name would end up on an awful lot of ballots.

Whenever people talk about alternative voting systems, the consensus seems to be that it would be impossible to implement in the US. But why? What drives this obsession with choosing between two evils rather than choosing among several, where one's own views might stand a better chance?

The public has a vested interest in having a ballot present only those candidates who can demonstrate a minimum-level of popular support. Otherwise why have a qualification process at all -- we can give voters phonebooks to take with them into the booth, and they can find the name of whichever citizen they feel should be elected.

But with regard to your question, the obvious explanation is that the voting method itself acts as a game theory attractor for a certain number of "viable" candidates, until a Nash equilibrium is reached. First-past-the-post thus eventually results in an entrenched two-party system.

This alone is ample reason for those two parties to resist any change to the voting method. Anything else might undermine their duopoly.

Indeed, and I like this set of visualizations to demonstrate that: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim

This alone is ample reason for those two parties to resist any change to the voting method. Anything else might undermine their duopoly.

So we know why the major parties would oppose voting system change. Is there something beyond the parties' word that keeps non-partisan members of the public from wanting to change voting systems?

So the political parties have become these weird, permanent, pseudo-governmental entities that no longer have consistent identities of their own, but are basically available for capture every 4 years.

That's how you get the "Republican Party platform" doing a full reversal on trade policy, international policy, health care, and a dozen other issues between 2012 and now.

The "Republican Party" today is just a shell--a collection of structural advantages that the Trump folks have won the the right to put on like a costume. Same with the Democratic party--Sanders just failed to win the costume.

What we need, is to regularly reset the requirements for political organizations, so that it's just as easy for new candidates to be supported by new organizations, as old parties.

In some states (like California) write-in candidates also have to register and qualify, and writing in a non-qualified write-in candidate is for all purposes (except the workload for vote counters) identical to blank ballot -- even if through some fluke of coordinate protest they received a majority of cast ballots, it would just show up in the counts as a very low number of valid ballots cast.

Members of the public who want voting system change end up with members of the parties proposing superficial changes to relieve that demand that pose no or minimal challenge to the partisan duopoly, like nonpartisan redistricting (adopted in several states), California's top-two primary system, term limits (adopted in lots of states), tweaks to election scheduling, ballot access rules, etc.

You cannot get elected here as a third-party or independent. Period. If you had a notion to buy your way in, it would be cheaper to pay off the second-place major party to run you as their candidate than to run in your own right. The only place you will ever see a third party on the ballots here is the line for presidential electors.

And for a variety of reasons, in a manner similar to Comcast and Time Warner, the two major parties often choose to not compete in certain areas, to the ultimate detriment of the residents. I write in because when I see only one name on the ballot, that is a mockery of democracy.

If the vote counters hate me, that is exactly what I want. I hate how they support a system that pretends to be democratic.

What is your evidence that they choose not to compete? Competing costs almost nothing if someone wants the job and enough people fill out single party ballots that they'd have a good chance.

I'm disappointed that you choose your protest method to be inconveniencing local volunteers in a manner that is even less likely to achieve results than something you compare to holding back the tide.

Theoretically third-party candidates could gain exposure through the General Election debate however, the Commission on Presidential Debates which organize the debate makes it very difficult for a third-party candidate to be eligible to the debate. Indeed candidates need "a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations" as defined by the CPD.

You may then wonder who is the CPD? The CPD is a PRIVATE organization financed with PRIVATE money. They claim to be nonpartisan even though it is governed by former chairmen of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. No wonder why they don't want to open the door to third-party candidates...

Now a party may still decide to run its internal elections like a banana republic but in that case, this party should certainly not be named the Democratic party...

To run for a county office, such as Sheriff, Coroner, Treasurer, Commissioner/Constable, or School Board, as an independent, I would need 5000 verified signatures. To list a party affiliation, I would need about 36000. Based on the experience of the Libertarian Party in 2015, I might face a 60% rejection rate for signatures, meaning I would need to collect 12500, costing roughly $25000.

To keep my party listed as a "qualified party" for the next election, it would need 20% (!) of the votes cast in a statewide race.

The major parties do not need to collect that many signatures, which gives an innate funding advantage for campaigning.

And you might expect that the other major party might not run an opposition candidate for Sheriff in a county where the incumbents are heavily favored every election, but how about allowing the candidate for U.S. Senate to run unopposed? [0] What about three of the seven districts for House of Representatives? [1]

I don't tilt at windmills.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_... : "An independent candidate would have been able to challenge Sessions if at least 44,828 signatures had been submitted by June 3, 2014."

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representativ... : Districts 4 and 7 were completely unopposed; district 5 had only an independent challenger.