A brief item in this Herald article reminds me that I was derelict in posting about the Green-Rainbow Party‘s slate of candidates for statewide office, announced earlier this week. They are:
for Governor: Grace Ross
for Lt. Governor: Wendy Van Horne
for Secretary of State: Jill Stein
for Treasurer: James O’Keefe
for Auditor: Nat Fortune
There’s a bit more information on these candidates in the GRP’s press release announcing the candidates. Hopefully, the party’s website will have more information in the future, but there’s not much up there right now.
Jill Stein, as you may recall, picked up a respectable 76,000 votes when she ran for Governor in 2002 – Romney won by about 106,000 votes, so Stein’s tally was significant if not determinative. But I don’t see how she can be a big factor in the Secretary of State race, since as of now there’s no Republican candidate for that office, and lefties unhappy with Bill Galvin can vote for John Bonifaz in the Dem primary. At this point, it seems to me, parties like the GRP can make their mark when (1) they have a credible candidate for an office, and (2) the major parties are in a close race for that office so that the votes the minor party picks up are potentially outcome-determinative. Stein’s 2002 race for Governor met both of those criteria (as did Ralph Nader’s 2000 run for President, to tragic effect). Hard to see how they’ll manage it this year, but maybe they’ll prove me wrong.
Please explain – I thought that both the Green and Libertarian Parties failed to capture the percentage of the vote (was it 3%?) that entitled them to be on the Mass. ballot. So where is this coming from? Will we have Libertarians, too?
Here’s a wiki posted by a libertarian who knows a lot more about ballot access in MA than I do. It sounds as though a candidate can gain access to the ballot by obtaining the required # of signatures for the office sought, and may be identified with any party eligible to have a “party designation” listed. Interestingly, the author of the wiki notes that it’s actually harder to get on the ballot as a “major party” than as a “party designation,” and opines that “some Massachusetts Libertarians have spent vast funds procuring major party status for their party, and as a result have done incredible damage to the effort to building a Libertarian Party in Massachusetts.”
I don’t think the GRP ever really died… hibernation perhaps, but never dead.
What happens if Bonifaz isn’t nominated by his own party? Why nominate someone else besides the incumbant? This may be solely Stein vs. Galvin, depending on what the GOP does.
David, what do you mean by ‘make their mark?’ If you mean that they play spoiler in those close races, then I’d agree, but I’d say that this just makes people who would normally be inclined to agree with you angry, and is not good for long-term party building (if that is your goal).
<
p>
Candidates are so often unopposed here in Massachusetts, it seems to me that the GRP might be better served trying to make their mark by focusing their efforts there.
what I mean is “cause people to pay attention to you.” I think it’s really, really hard for minor party candidates to get on anyone’s radar screen if there’s, well, no chance of them either winning or affecting the race in some other way. And since winning is generally out of the question these days, that leaves only the possibility of swinging the race in some other fashion.
<
p>
It’s an interesting problem, really, as to how an outfit like the GRP ought to spend its limited resources. On statewide resources that it has absolutely no chance of winning, but in which it might garner some attention – by, for example, being included in at least some widely-watched debates, and possibly by being a spoiler? Or on down-ballot races that it also has no realistic chance of winning, but as to which there’s at least some possibility of meeting a large percentage of the voters who will participate and try to bring 10-15% of them on board?
<
p>
What do you think?
The Democratic Party has lost any right it may have had to criticize the Green Party for spoiling elections. There is a bill that has been languishing in the legislature for years now that would enact Instant Runoff Voting for all state offices. This would do away with the potential for spoiling altogether, and in a far more democratic fashion than telling people not to run. The bill is still there, and if they truly cared about elections being spoiled, they would pass it immediately.
I’m glad to see the discussion generated by the GRP’s announcement of candidates for statewide office. Massachusetts has a great tradition of incredible grassroots activism — but in the electoral arena, it seems that too often we come up short.
<
p>
Our “winner take all” system makes it tough for minor parties to be successful, and pulls many promising candidates to only play the game in the primaries where far fewer voters participate.
<
p>
Hopefully people will support the passage of the Ballot Freedom initiative this fall, which would give minor parties (like the Greens) the option of “cross endorsing” in races where the party believes that a principled coalition can be built with another party’s candidate.
<
p>
It allows a party (like GRP) to build support for its platform, while not asking voters to either waste their vote on someone who has no chance of winning or worse, spoil the election for a good candidate who more closely supports our values. The best part of Ballot Freedom (if it passes) is it allows and an “inside-outside” strategy for minor parties to gradually build their electoral strength, without turning off pragmatic voters.
<
p>
Check out our campaign website at http://www.massballotfreedom.com
If you think that MA elections are non-competitive now, just wait until legislative candidates are on both the Democratic and Republican party lines.
You can examine thousands of past races in New York State – where fusion is legal – without finding a case of a candidate being endorsed by both major parties (yes, it has happened in some bizarre judgeship elections). Seems that political parties are actually not inclined to endorse candidates that have embraced ideologies that are antithetical to their own………..
Happens all the time downballot — not just in bizarre judgeship elections. Have you ever actually voted in NY? It happens with Judges, County legislature, town elections, etc.
<
p>
My father was elected on the Democratic and Republican ballot lines as a Town Assessor just this past election. Heck, I knew someone elected to either a town or county board who was on four ballot lines.
……are not partisan, making it unlikely that candidates names might appear on different parties’ ballot line.
I agree with the posting about the need for Instant-Runoff Voting, and fusion, in Massachusetts. Massachusetts also needs to drastically ease ballot access for candidates seeking a place on a primary ballot. Massachusetts has the most difficult rules of the 50 states for access to the primary ballot. That’s why Massachusetts typically has only one candidate on the November ballot for almost half the legislative races. There is nothing like it in any other state (except in the south). For instance, in Michigan, typically every single legislative district has both a Republican and a Democrat running. I am astonished that the Massachusetts reform groups don’t talk about this more than they do.
You need 150 signatures to run for state rep. 300 for state senate. 1000 is the number for most county offices.
<
p>
That’s not a high bar.
<
p>
First of all, having been Jill Stein’s running mate in 2002, our vote total would NOT have been enough to change the outcome of the election. Shanon O’Brien blew that election all on her own. Second, the “spoiler” argument assumes that votes “belong” to Democrats, when in reality votes belong to voters and to cast a vote for the candidate one thinks is the best candidate is the essence of democracy.
<
p>
Third, bills introducing Instant Run Off or rank choice voting, have been introduced in the last two legistlative sessions on Beacon Hill. If Democrats are AFRAID of real democracy, all they have to do is pass real election reform, ask John Bonifaz about it, he’s one of you (I don’t know why). You have over an 80% control of the legislature, we can have IRV next week and for the next election cylce (if not this one), so any fear of “spoilers” is your own fault. Fourth, in 2002 most of our (the Stein-Lorenzen ticket) supporters were not people who would have otherwise voted for O’Brien, they were people, who had we not been running, would have otherwise not voted, because there were no other candidates running to vote FOR.
<
p>
Fifth, please learn how your own system works. I’m reading comments on this blog from folks who think because the Green Rainbow Party didn’t get enough votes (3%) in the last statewide election, we are not allowed to be on the ballot. Well, anyone can run for office, and in MA party status comes with 1% of the registered voters registering in your party (and by the way membership in both the Democratic Party and Republican parties continues to shrink nationally and the Greens continue to grow) or by getting 3% of the vote in a statewide election. The 3% determines legal status as a political party, but anyone can run for office. Sixth, make sure your Democratic candidate has the guts to include our Green Rainbow candidate in all major televised debates and forums. Remeber Jill Stein was credited as the winner of the debates she participated in. There’s reason to want to lock us out, but democracy is about letting the people decide, not big money or those having the power of invitation, which are you about Democrats? Also, there will soon be a virtual debate among YOUR Lt. Gov. candidates on http://www.saintkermit.com. We recorded Sam Kelly this past Sunday.
<
p>
PEACE
Tony Lorenzen, GRP Lt. Gov. Candidate, 2002
The evidence that primary ballot access is too difficult in Massachusetts lies in the results. In November 2004, out of 200 legislative races, 93 of them (46.5%!) had either no Republican, or no Democrat.
<
p>
Also, for US House in Massachusetts, 5 of the 10 races had no Republican on the ballot. Massachusetts was the only state in the nation with as many as half the US House races not having a contest between Republicans and Democrats.
<
p>
In two-thirds of the states, no signatures are needed for a Republican or a Democrat to get on the primary ballot. In Great Britain, only 10 signatures are needed (along with a filing fee) for anyone to get on the ballot for House of Commons. Massachusetts requires 2,000 for U.S. House. This hurts voters. One-candidate elections are the hallmark of a system with contempt for voters.
I wouldn’t automatically conclude that the low percentage of uncontested races is due to restricted ballot access. Those signature numbers don’t look that big to me.
I worked on a state senatorial campaign. The signature gathering was tough, but not too hard by any means. I think it has to do more with voter apathy and GOP-Democratic homogeny.
Didn’t John Bonifaz support Jill Stein in 2002?