56,003
edits
Document:LP News 1973 January-February Issue 12: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Document:LP News 1973 January-February Issue 12 (view source)
Revision as of 08:24, 18 March 2021
, 18 March 2021→ONE FOR THE BOOKS
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
All in all, [[Roger MacBride]]'s glorious gesture was a tremendous treat -- the fronting on the whole '72 campaign cake, as it were. Many thanks, Roger... and what are you doing in '76? | All in all, [[Roger MacBride]]'s glorious gesture was a tremendous treat -- the fronting on the whole '72 campaign cake, as it were. Many thanks, Roger... and what are you doing in '76? | ||
==ELECTORAL REFORM - AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PROGRESS== | |||
As a result of [[Roger MacBride]]'s history making action on December 18, there is once again a hue and cry throughout the land to abolish the Electoral College and have our Presidents elected by direct popular vote. | |||
Senator [[Birch Bayh]] (D-Ind) has announced that he will re-introduce into Congress a proposed Constitutional amendment to this effect· he tried this once before, in 1969, and was nearly successful in getting the two-thirds majority in both Houses that is necessary for a Constitutional amendment to be formally sent to the state legislatures for ratification. This time, it seems almost certain that the Bayh Amendment will get through Congress, and perhaps through the state legislatures as well. | |||
It is certainly debatable whether such a change would be a good thing; [[Roger MacBride]], for one, has assembled cogent arguments to the effect that it would not. Nonetheless, since it now appears that direct election of Presidents may well become a reality, we would be foolish not to try to take advantage of the current "reform" attempts, to advance one of our own goals -- namely, making it easier for minority parties to get on the ballot . | |||
The simplest way for us to achieve this goal, it seems to your editor, would be to persuade Senator Bayh to add to his proposed amendment an additional section or sections containing the following provisions: | |||
1) That all minority parties whose Presidential candidates received 1,000,000 votes or more in a given Presidential election shall automatically be entitled to have their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates listed on the ballots of all 50 States and the District of Columbia in the next election. | |||
2) That all other minority parties shall be entitled to have their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates listed on the ballots of all 50 States and the District of Columbia by filing one petition, containing 100 000 signatures, with the Federal Election Commission -- and that the FEC shall provide all interested parties with the necessary petition forms at least five months prior to Election Day, allowing at least two months for the collection of signatures. | |||
3) That only those Presidential candidates who are granted ballot listings under one of these two provisions shall be regarded as "real" Presidential candidates, in the senses of being eligible to receive media time under the "equal time" provision, and being required to file campaign expenditure reports with the various authorities. | |||
This arrangement would obviously be of great benefit to us, and to the other minority parties, in two respects. First, it would eliminate the tremendous hassle of having to get on each state's ballot separately. And second it would multiply our effective vote gettin potential by a factor of approximately ten; an analysis of the number of votes received by our candidates and those of the other minority parties last November reveals that being on the ballot increases a minority party candidate's vote total tenfold, compared to a write-in effort. | |||
Thus, we strongly urge each and very one of you to write to Senator Bayh (United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510), urging him to add these provisions, and stating that you will work actively on behalf of his amendment if and only if he does so. Copies should be sent to your own Senators and Congressman, and to your local newspapers. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY THIS YEAR. So even if you don't do a single other thing this year, take the time to make this one effort! | |||
Now, obviously, the fact that these provisions will help minority parties isn't going to cut much ice with Senator Bayh and his colleagues. However, there are a number of points which can be made that should have some effect on them. Some of these are given below, and you might wish to cite one or more of them (using your own words) in your letter -- along with any others you can think of. | |||
A) The present system discriminates against those Americans who do not favor either of the two major parties; in effect, it denies them of their right to vote for the candidates of their choice. And there are an increasing number of people who fall into this category; in the '72 Presidential election, a record breaking 44% of those eligible to vote did not do so. | |||
B) As the constantly inc.easing "no vote" figure indicates, people are becoming more and more frustrated with our system of government. And the more difficult it is for people to express their discontents through the peaceful means of voting, the more likely they are to turn to non-peaceful means. Thus, making it easier for minority parties to get on the ballot will help "cool things off." | |||
C) The present system in effect grants a monopoly to the two major parties. If there were an industry in which two companies had managed to place legal blocks to entry on the part of competitors, the government would never allow the situation to persist--so why should the two major parties be allowed to do it? | |||
D) As things currently stand, there is no uniformity in the various States' ballots; some list only the two major parties, others listed up to seven minor parties last time. This means that people in different States are in effect, voting on a different basis, even though they're voting on the same offices. We don't have different ballots in each county of a given State, for the State-wide races | |||
(e.g. Senator), so why should the requirements for listing for national office vary from State to State? | |||
==POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE== | ==POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE== | ||