Miglietta: “Parties Demand Room on Ballot”
August 10, 2011 in Ballot Access
John Miglietta, co-chair of the Green Party of Middle Tennessee, Green Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives Fifth District seat in 2008 and 2010, and professor of political science at Tennessee State University has this piece in the Tennessean:
Third parties have played a significant role in American economic, social and political development. The Free Soil Party challenged slavery in the 1830s. Laws ending child labor, improving safety in the workplace, and giving workers living wages and benefits came about as a result from the reforms of the Progressive Party era.
Many of the New Deal reforms that saved American capitalism during the Great Depression originated with the Socialist Party. The current emphasis on limited government can be traced to the Libertarian Party ideology. Recent discussions of environmental, social justice and peace issues stem in part from the Green Party’s growth.
The two-party system developed during the early republic from coalitions within legislatures. As a result, the electoral system in the United States favors two large parties. These parties are more broad electoral coalitions than political parties with a distinct ideology and legislative agenda. The two-party system more often gives us gridlock than thoughtful, long-term public policy.
Election laws are written to maintain the position of the major parties. In many states, onerous restrictions are placed on third parties when they seek ballot access. Third-party candidates must spend the bulk of their resources just getting on the ballot, leaving no time or money to campaign.
The system in Tennessee creates a façade of choice but effectively prevents getting on the ballot as a third party in the state. Current state law mandates that signature petitions be filed within a specific time frame, and the parties would have to get more than 40,000 valid signatures.This places an undue organizational and financial hurdle that the Democrats and Republicans do not have to meet, as they are granted ballot access automatically. Third-party candidates can get on the ballot, but they are forced to do so as independents. This generic designation puts these candidates at a distinct disadvantage, as they get lost on the ballot and voters cannot distinguish between them.
Our political system rewards those who already have money and name recognition while relegating the rest to an inferior status. The Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties successfully sued the state last year in federal court. The state legislature reworked the law but left several legally problematic requirements intact. The Constitution and Green parties have recently refiled the lawsuit.
Having additional parties on the ballot will provide voters with greater choices. Alternative public policies will be proposed and discussed. This creates a heightened interest in elections and an increase in voter turnout.
Choice is seen as a good thing in consumer goods such as toothpaste and dog food; why should we settle for just two political parties that reflect similar policies? Greater electoral competition would be a win for voters in Tennessee, as we would get greater substantive discussion of the issues and more innovative public policy. The attempt by the state legislature to propagate the monopoly of the political system by Democrats and Republicans is contrary to democracy and wastes public resources in defense of the current system.
John P. Miglietta is professor of political science at Tennessee State University. He is also co-chair of the Green Party of Middle Tennessee and was the Green Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives Fifth District seat in 2008 and 2010.
eclecticvibe said on August 11, 2011
I agree that ballot access laws are severely overly restrictive and a waste of taxpayer money in pursuit of protecting the political status quo. However, as a Green Party member and supporter, I think alternative parties often put the cart before the horse with the reality of ballot access. Instead of starting by collecting signatures to get on the ballot, it would be more useful to begin with an active campaign. If a candidate has a message that resonates with voters, and is available for consumption by the public, it should be much easier for them when collecting signatures. When we collect signatures, we approach people and tell them how wonderful our candidate is, and then ask for their immediate support by endorsing our candidate for the ballot. Many people who would likely wish to add the candidate if they were better known to them, will refuse when asked in an impromptu encounter when the only information provided to them is that provided by the candidate or her representative. It’s no wonder that voters don’t trust politicias, and like it or not, we are politicians when we are asking to be placed on the ballot right along with the 2 old parties.
10 years ago it was much more difficult to get your message out if you weren’t on the ballot. It’s still no easier if you want to use mainstream media. Exclusion from debates is still the rule rather than the exception. And the only time the MSM can even mention an alternative party is when they’re badmouthing them, or casting them as nutcases. But new media has less control. Social media allows us to network in ways that were unthinkable a generation before, and still science fiction less than a decade ago. Twitter has catalyzed revolutions in developing countries, so imagine the effect it could have such a high percentage of the population has access to technology.
New technology allows us to create the networks that are necessary for achieving ballot access, but we’re still going at it the same way we did when I first joined the Green Party in the 2000 Nader petition drive. Candidates first need to create exciting campaign materials in several formats. Traditional advertising like signs and cards is still valid. But those cards and signs need to include web addresses and QR squares that lead to more substantive material, for those who take the time to check out new alternatives.
Picture this scenario: Campaign volunteer is going door to door collecting signatures for 3rd party candidate ballot access. Voter listens and is open to new parties, but is reluctant to sign, including listing address and birth date, for a stranger and a party they’ve never heard of. Volunteer leaves a card with contact info including web address. Provided the voter is engaged enough to follow up, this is the one chance to connect. If the voter visits a website that has just a picture of the candidate, and scant information about the candidate and party, they’re not likely to take the candidate seriously. If instead they find an active campaign, with campaign events, canvassing, volunteer opportunities, and other chances for interaction, the candidate and party are much more likely to be taken seriously.
The point of the above illustration is that we know the system is stacked against us, and it isn’t likely to change significantly in the near future. We’ve learned from experience that collecting ballot access signatures is difficult, costly, and distracting from a campaign. In order to counter that, we need to campaign first, and use that campaign to attract support to get on the ballot. Wouldn’t it be great if every person who signed a ballot access petition actually supported that candidate. We’d have a substantial list of campaign supporters the moment we completed our petitions. Campaigning and visibility has to come first. Ballot access should become easy to us, because our candidates have generated enough support to easily surpass the required number of signatures for ballot access.