130
edits
Document:Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Platform 2016: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Document:Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Platform 2016 (view source)
Revision as of 00:54, 9 May 2016
, 9 May 2016→18. Election Laws
| Line 460: | Line 460: | ||
Many state legislatures have established prohibitively restrictive laws which in effect exclude alternative candidates and parties from their rightful place on election ballots. Such laws wrongfully deny ballot access to political candidates and groups and further deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We hold that no state has a legitimate interest to protect in this area except for the fair and efficient conduct of elections. | Many state legislatures have established prohibitively restrictive laws which in effect exclude alternative candidates and parties from their rightful place on election ballots. Such laws wrongfully deny ballot access to political candidates and groups and further deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We hold that no state has a legitimate interest to protect in this area except for the fair and efficient conduct of elections. | ||
Electoral systems matter. The predominant use of "winner-take-all" elections in gerrymandered, single-member districts fosters political monopolies and creates a substantial government-imposed barrier to election of non-incumbent political parties and candidates. We call upon legislative bodies to adopt electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state, and local levels, such as proportional voting systems with multi-member districts for legislative elections and ranked choice approval voting for single winner elections. Further we oppose implementation of the electoral system known as Top Two. | Electoral systems matter. The predominant use of "winner-take-all" elections in gerrymandered, single-member districts fosters political monopolies and creates a substantial government-imposed barrier to election of non-incumbent political parties and candidates. We call upon legislative bodies to adopt electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state, and local levels, such as proportional voting systems with multi-member districts for legislative elections and ranked choice or approval voting for single winner elections. Further we oppose implementation of the electoral system known as Top Two. | ||
Competition in ideas and government policies is important to the electoral process and is a cornerstone of fundamental freedoms. At the national level, The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic national parties for the express purpose of keeping minor party and independent candidates out of debates, intentionally limits participation in the nationally-televised debates to the Democratic and Republican Party nominees. The presidential debates organized by the CPD exert a de facto influence on the outcome of presidential elections, because a presidential candidate who is excluded from presidential debates has virtually zero chance of winning the general presidential election. The right to form a party for the advancement of political goals means little if that party’s nominee can be arbitrarily excluded from debates and denied an equal opportunity to win votes. While we support the abolition of all intrusive election and other laws affecting the operation of private political parties, to the extent that these laws exist, they should not be manipulated to benefit the dominant parties to the exclusion of minority parties or independent candidates and to the ultimate detriment of the voters who are not presented with the range of potential choices. This effectively disenfranchises voters and violates First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, in accordance with current ballot access laws, we call upon all organizations that host debates to have fair and objective debate criteria that should: include all candidates who are legally qualified to serve and whose names appear on the ballot. Additionally for Presidential debates, candidates should also appear on enough ballots to potentially secure a majority in the Electoral College. | Competition in ideas and government policies is important to the electoral process and is a cornerstone of fundamental freedoms. At the national level, The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic national parties for the express purpose of keeping minor party and independent candidates out of debates, intentionally limits participation in the nationally-televised debates to the Democratic and Republican Party nominees. The presidential debates organized by the CPD exert a de facto influence on the outcome of presidential elections, because a presidential candidate who is excluded from presidential debates has virtually zero chance of winning the general presidential election. The right to form a party for the advancement of political goals means little if that party’s nominee can be arbitrarily excluded from debates and denied an equal opportunity to win votes. While we support the abolition of all intrusive election and other laws affecting the operation of private political parties, to the extent that these laws exist, they should not be manipulated to benefit the dominant parties to the exclusion of minority parties or independent candidates and to the ultimate detriment of the voters who are not presented with the range of potential choices. This effectively disenfranchises voters and violates First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, in accordance with current ballot access laws, we call upon all organizations that host debates to have fair and objective debate criteria that should: include all candidates who are legally qualified to serve and whose names appear on the ballot. Additionally for Presidential debates, candidates should also appear on enough ballots to potentially secure a majority in the Electoral College. | ||