"U.S. District Court Puts Maine Libertarian Party on the Ballot for 2022"

Richard Winger (Ballot Access News) reports on today's decision by Judge Lance E. Walker (D. Me.) in Baines v. Bellows:

The order puts the Libertarian Party on the ballot for the 2022 election. It allows Libertarians who want to get on the June Libertarian primary ballot to collect nomination signatures from independent voters as well as Libertarian registrants.

Primary petitions require 2,000 signatures for Governor, so it still won't be easy for Libertarians to get on the Libertarian primary ballot for Governor, because the only voters who can sign will be about one-third of the electorate. U.S. House candidates need 1,000 signatures. But it will be easy for Libertarians running for the legislature to get on the Libertarian primary ballot, because State Senate candidates need 100 signatures and State House candidates need 25.

Ballot access law is its own complicated corner of First Amendment law, and while I know some things about it, I can't claim to be a real expert; here is an excerpt, though, from the Nov. 11 summary judgment opinion (today's decision announces the remedy for the constitutional violation identified there):

This is a case about the legal-political infrastructure that an association of like-minded  citizens must navigate in Maine to qualify for ballot access as a minor political party and that party candidates must navigate to demonstrate local public support for their candidacies. At its root, the question to be answered is whether the legal edifice Maine has erected around ballot access for minor political parties is a reasonable safeguard or an impermissible rearguard depriving them of the freedom to associate for political ends and to equal protection under the law ….

And from today's decision:

In the [Summary Judgment] Order, I determined that the provision of Maine law forbidding candidates in ballot-qualified minor parties from demonstrating popular support based on nomination signatures collected from within-district, unenrolled voters deprives such candidates of their right of political association with like-minded voters who are not adherents of another party. I also determined that Defendant's "batch unenrollment" policy—under which the Secretary of State (the "Secretary") automatically unenrolls a party's members when the party loses ballot access for failure to enroll 10,000 voters—violated the associational rights of the Libertarian Party of Maine (the "Party") where it retained in excess of 5,000 voters at the time.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

Originally elections in America didn't HAVE ballot access rules, because the ballots weren't pre-printed. You voted by writing out the name of the candidate YOU wanted to vote for.

It wasn't long after pre-printed ballots showed up, that the incumbent government started using them to manipulate who could run against them. But it has gotten particularly bad in the last few decades.

[Cal Cetín]

Can't they do convention nominations?

[Cal Cetín]

Bear in mind, by the way, that the Libertarian Party is the *most successful* third party in the county when it comes to ballot access. If they're still struggling with this stuff, imagine what the other third parties are facing.

But the problem is that third parties just aren't popular, not that they have to exhaust themselves to get on the ballot in the first place!

I wonder if the authorities would freak out if the third parties printed up stickers for their voters to put in the write-in section of the ballot, indicating which candidates they support for which office?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not all states permit even write in votes, and some only kind of nominally permit them. (You can write them in, just don't count on them being counted.)

Understand, these obstacles are calibrated to leave third parties exhausted by the time they run in the general election. The aim is to leave them just enough viability to leave the illusion of choice, while keeping the obstacles high enough that it remains an illusion.

So, even where write ins are permitted, it's part of the double standard, because the major party candidates never have to be write in, and generally don't have to go through the same ballot access hassles the 3rd parties do.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, the government could give libertarians automatic ballot access and a million dollars for political advertising and libertarians still wouldn’t get more than a handful of votes because hardly anyone agrees with libertarian philosophy. To the contrary, European style health care enjoys popular support.

[Cal Cetín]

Which begs the question why third parties still face so many hurdles in most states.

See below for Florida, where third parties have equal ballot access but don't seem to endanger the duopolists.

On the surface there doesn't seem to be any danger to the establishment.

So what do the duopolists know that we don't? Why do they go to so much trouble in most states to put as many hurdles on third parties as possible?

I don't know, but it gives me some hope. If the duopoly is running scared, maybe they really have something to be scared *of,* and therefore maybe regular folks have some cause for hope.

[benji]

That's true but it's also true that many state's ballot access laws specifically favor the two parties. Which shouldn't be shocking considering who wrote them.

[Krychek_2]

Cal, and Benji, I support making ballot access easier for third parties. It's part of my support for democracy in general. Anyone should be able to run and anti-democratic institutions like the electoral college should be abolished. That said, there are some entirely legitimate practical reasons to make ballot access difficult for third parties, and while ultimately I think enlarging democracy is more important, here they are:

None of the third parties has any real popular support, and adding names to the ballot costs money. The notorious Florida butterfly ballot from the 2000 presidential election only happened because of all the third parties that had to be added in; had the two major parties been the only names on the ballot, it would have been a much shorter ballot with no need to butterfly it. And the resulting uproar would not have taken place. If you're going to cost the added resources to put your name on the ballot, maybe you should have to demonstrate you have some public support and you're not just wasting a bunch of taxpayer dollars to run what is essentially a vanity campaign.

Second, no third party has actually won the presidency since 1860 but a lot of them sure have gummed up the works on occasion. Had Ralph Nader not been on the ballot in 2000, the election would have been called for Gore probably on election night itself, rather than generating multiple lawsuits and only resolving in early January. The 1968 George Wallace candidacy gave us Nixon and Watergate. If you despise the Clintons, as I pretty much do, you can thank Ross Perot for his presidency. Again, if you're going to swing a national election, usually not in a good way, maybe you should demonstrate that you have some public support.

The Canadian system does things a bit differently. Anyone can run for any office, but you have to put down a deposit that consists of half the annual salary for the position you're running for. You only get your deposit back if you get at least 5% of the popular vote. Would you consider that a better system? The Libertarian Party (and the Green Party and the Socialist Workers Party and the Community Party) all get to run, but they all have to put up $200,000 (which is half the annual salary for president) which they're not going to get back unless they garner 5% of the vote?

[Cal Cetín]

"ultimately I think enlarging democracy is more important"

Curiously, I don't. I merely believe that a qualified voter has the right to vote for any qualified person for any elective office. This principle has always existed in America, diluted though it has been through various devices (extra-legal intimidation, refusing to count votes cast for qualified persons). Do you want to regress?

"adding names to the ballot costs money"

Seriously? If that's your concern, why not user fees for candidates and parties (including duopoly parties) to get their names on the ballots?

"in 2000"

Oh, here we go. I already anticipated this in my comment on Florida, below. Plus, I believe the butterfly ballot violated Florida law. But basically, state legislatures decide how Presidential electors are shown, they could cut the voters out of the loop altogether, I'm discussing voting for all other offices.

As for the horrible effects of 3rd party spoilers, I admit that Teddy Roosevelt's 3rd party candidacy may have taken the Presidency away from the semi-decent Taft and given it to the wicked Wilson. Though whether you see it the same way I'm not sure. Don't forget the defections of left-wing pinko Democrats and right-wing racist democrats in 1948, which may have actually *benefited* Truman by allowing him to clearly differentiate himself from the pinko and racist elements, thus making up for lost votes from the racist/pinko crowd. As for Perot, why do you think Clinton at least *pretended* to care about the national debt? No similar popular figure, worrying about the debt, has done a 3rd party campaign since then...and we've seen the results.

"The Canadian system does things a bit differently. Anyone can run for any office, but you have to put down a deposit that consists of half the annual salary for the position you're running for. You only get your deposit back if you get at least 5% of the popular vote."

I think there's a slight First Amendment problem with imposing fines on people or organizations because of their unpopularity. And petition requirements have some of the same practical effects.

The right to vote means the right to vote for anyone qualified for any given elected office. You could have a blank ballot where the voter writes in the candidates' names, but if the government undertakes to give advertising space to some candidates (along with information about any party endorsement they got), then I'd call that a limited public forum from which no candidate's "advertisement" can be arbitrarily excluded - provided that as with other advertisements the candidate pay a reasonable non-arbitrary fee (whether he's with a major or minor party or no party) for the placement of his "ad."

[Cal Cetín]

To be clear - setting aside the special rules for the Presidency which I'm not proposing to abolish - the state and federal constitutions set down the qualifications someone must have to get elected to particular offices (can't be 15 years old, can't be a foreigner, can't have been barred from office for misconduct, that sort of thing). If someone meets those qualifications, then the right to vote *means* that the voter can vote for that person. So at minimum allow a write-in. But if the government chooses to provide advertising space to candidates on the ballot, this must be done in a nondiscriminatory way, not giving favoritism to duopoly parties and candidates.

[Cal Cetín]

But my reasoning, again, applies to governors, Congresspeople, state legislators, mayors, etc., etc., not Presidents, since the state legislatures can go ahead and appoint electors and cut voters out of the loop. So if the legislature of Florida wants to appoint its own electors, or give voters a binary choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, so be it, that's the price we pay for not having a plebiscitary system for Presidential elections and preserving some vestiges of federalism.

[Cal Cetín]

In other words, I think the Supreme Court allows *too much democracy* when it overrules a state's *Presidential* ballot access decisions, unless ballot access restrictions are based on race (15th Amendment), sex (19th), tax payment (24th) or being 18+ (26th).

[Krychek_2]

Cal, a Canadian style deposit system would not be a fine based on unpopularity. Rather, it forces candidates to evaluate how much support they actually have and if it's worth it to them to take the risk. It's not that different, ultimately, from requiring a losing party in the trial court to put up an appeal bond to satisfy his opponent's costs on appeal if he chooses to take an appeal. You're not being fined for seeking access to the courts; you're being forced to objectively evaluate how good your case is before you decide to take up everybody else's time and money.

As for third parties, my point was not to argue that this result was good and that election result was bad. Rather, it's to point out that there is at least an argument that people whose support is in the single digits -- people whom the voters are not giving the time of day -- should have to do more than just walk on stage and gum up the works for everybody else. As I said earlier, I support democracy so I don't find that argument persuasive, but it's not a frivolous argument either. (I agree with you about Wilson, by the way.)

And in point of fact, anybody can vote for anybody else for president; you just have to write their name in if it's not on the ballot. The question is the entitlement to be on the ballot. Suppose all access restrictions were lifted and next election 500 people decide to run for president (which in a nation of 320 million is not that far fetched). You really would require the states to publish hundred page ballots, at huge expense, for all those vanity candidacies?

[Brett Bellmore]

"And in point of fact, anybody can vote for anybody else for president; you just have to write their name in if it's not on the ballot."

In point of fact, that's not true in at least 9 states.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, get back to us when that actually decides an election.

[kevrob]

You aren't voting for President. You are voting for electors pledged to vote for X for President. I'd have to take along a list of all those nominated to the LP's slate of candidates for elector and write those in.

[Davy C]

In my state, for the presidential election, "Write-in votes shall be listed as scattering unless the person whose name is written in has a list of presidential electors on file with the commission in accordance with this section or unless the person whose name is written in has received more than 10 percent of the total vote cast in the ward, or in the municipality if not divided into wards."

Since the 10% is by ward and not by state, this *could* result in a write-in campaign that fails because votes were listed as "scattered" instead of for the person they were actually for.

[Cal Cetín]

To repeat - subject to the exceptions I've mentioned (race discrimination, etc.), the state legislatures can decide for themselves how to run Presidential elections. This position actually makes me less "democratic" than the current Supreme Court and Congress - I'd rather have a system where duopolists in the state legislature can rig a Presidential election in that state than a system where there's a one-size-fits-all nationwide plebiscitary Presidency on the French model (which we're moving toward anyway).

It's not the Presidency I'm complaining about but *all the other offices.*

[Krychek_2]

I wouldn’t. I think that as rights go, the right to self governance is right up there with free speech and trial by jury. It’s one of the few available checks on power the people have.

[Cal Cetín]

Yes, for all the other offices there is no basis for (a) throwing away votes for qualified persons simply because they're the "wrong" party, or (b) discriminatory ballot-access rules which privilege the duopolists.

Since the Floridian people managed to establish equal access for all parties (outside of Presidential elections) without upsetting the duopoly's applecart, I'm not sure why the duopolists in the other states are still running scared. Again, I would assume they know something I don't about the potential threat of third parties, which cheers me up.

But where Presidential elections are concerned, self-government is supposed to be vindicated by having each state set its own rules on choosing electors. That's an exception to the general rule of *direct* self-government, and for those of us who aren't big fans of Gallican-style plebiscitary dictatorship, it's an exception worth having.

[Krychek_2]

Cal, I think you’re defining dictatorship to mean any time your side loses an election, so that there must be rules in place to limit how often that happens.

At this point in time, your political views are the minority opinion. There is no entitlement for your side to stay in power anyway. The current system, under which majority opinion is largely irrelevant, looks far more like a dictatorship than anything the French do.

[Cal Cetín]

"Cal, I think you’re defining dictatorship to mean any time your side loses an election"

This is not only wrong, it's incoherent.

Try to think it through.

Biden won the 2020 election (you agree, don't you?).

I don't think this is a good thing.

What partisan benefit would I gain by *praising* the state-centric system under which Biden got elected?

That's why this site can't have nice things.

[Krychek_2]

Because that state centric system produces results you like more often than not. It kept Al Gore and Hillary Clinton out of the White House, and you were happy with those results, no?

[Krychek_2]

Plus Joe Biden would have won under either system. The question is whether you would feel the same way if it awarded the White House to popular vote losing Democrats.

[Cal Cetín]

The answer is you don't know, so I'm not sure why you're speculating about some counterfactual.

Why would a plebiscitary system keep generating big-state Democratic candidates? If states were irrelevant, how could Hillary have leveraged her New York status, or Bill his Southern-bloc status, into an electoral advantage vis-a-vis some dude in Wyoming or Rhode Island?

As for Biden and Delaware, the latter may be a small state but it leveraged the federal system to become a corporate haven for the nation. So again I don't think it's a coincidence that a longstanding Senator from Delaware was able to use his state connections to get to the White House (unless you think his corporate connections are some irrelevant coincidence, in which case I have a bridge you might want to buy).

Could it be that your enthusiasm for having a French-style plebiscitary election with state boundaries erases has something to do with your support of a nationalist duopoly with little respect for local interests?

[Cal Cetín]

So assume a Gallic plebiscitary-election system in which politicians from uninfluential small states have the same shot at winning as politicians in big states or corporate-haven small states.

That's a big counterfactual, and there's no way of knowing what would happen, but I bet Hillary, Bill and Joe would be much less likely to win.

[Krychek_2]

Cal, you're refusing to look at the big picture. The Democrats have won the popular vote for 7 of the last 8 elections, but only got the actual presidency in five of them. Despite winning 7 of the last 8 elections in the popular vote, Republicans have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. On the other side of the ledger, there has never been a situation in which the Democrats lost the popular vote. So any claim other than that the current system favors one side, and gives it an unfair advantage, is just ludicrous.

As for a big state/small state advantage, the states that really count are New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina to determine the nominee, and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida to determine the November winner. No matter where you come from, you're not going to win either the nomination or the presidency without attracting a lot of votes from other states.

And here's what abolishing the EC would accomplish: Candidates would campaign in California and Texas, and Republican California votes would actually count for something. If you're a Texas Democrat or a California Republican, there's a question of why you should even bother to vote since your vote is meaningless. But if every vote counts because it's a national popular vote, then suddenly a Republican vote in Los Angeles is just as meaningful as a Republican vote in Alabama. What's not to like?

[Cal Cetín]

Why not take all your clever arguments and make them to a Republican. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

There is no "popular vote." In a French-style system, then the states would no longer set voter qualifications, and Congress (or a constitutional amendment) would set uniform standards for voting. Would the uniform standards allow more, or fewer, convicted felons to vote than under the current system, as opposed to the state-by-state decision of when and whether felons can vote? I don't know about *unconvicted* felons, but the convicted kind tend to vote Democrat. So cutting more convicted felons out of the electorate would boost the Republican share of the "popular vote." And adding more convicted felons would boost the Democratic share.

I presume you've factored all these things into your calculations in deciding who would win the popular vote under a French style system? Would you even *consent* to a uniform disenfranchisement of convicted felons, knowing the damage it would do to your party? Wouldn't you instead cling to the existing patchwork system where large numbers of states let you vote on completion of sentence?

[Cal Cetín]

Suppose you managed to submit a popular-vote amendment to the states, in which convicted felons uniformly were allowed to vote on completion of their sentences (or even earlier, as some advanced thinkers want).

Would you be able to get such an amendment through 3/4 of the states? Would you be able to overcome the resistance from the victims-rights groups? Would you even be able to get all *Democrats* on board with your idea?

But if the proposed amendment disenfranchised convicted felons after completion of sentence - or for a significant time afterward - wouldn't you yourself work against such an amendment (racist! pro-Republican!). Wouldn't you, in such a situation, *prefer* the existing system?

[Cal Cetín]

Have I posed a difficult dilemma for you?

Or do you prefer to speak in gauzy generalities, leaving the real world consequences of your ideas to be dealt with later?

[Krychek_2]

You've posed no dilemma whatever for me; you've simply changed the subject. Instead of being coy, maybe you could just admit that you think the rules should favor the candidates you like rather than the candidates a majority of the voters like. And yes, there is a popular vote; it just doesn't count for determining the results.

The bottom line is that you think self-governance is less important than stacking the deck against Democrats. Just be honest about it. You couldn't even answer my earlier question about whether you'd still support the current system if it ever favored a popular-vote-losing Democrat. Do you not even see the inherent danger of a major political party not having accountability at the national level?

As far as felons are concerned, I think that the presidency is a national office so there should be a national standard for who can and cannot vote. Assuming felons do vote Democrat (I've frequently seen that claim but I don't recall ever seeing any documentation to back it up), maybe that's because Republicans tend to do everything they can to turn felons into lepers. As for whether felons who have completed their sentence should be allowed to vote, what is the connection between a criminal conviction and the inability to cast an informed vote? Do you think that excluding felons from civil society makes it more likely or less likely that they will reoffend? Do you think giving them a stake in the community (including permitting them to vote) makes it more likely or less likely that they will reoffend? If you want to turn felons into productive members of society, giving them a stake in society seems far more likely to accomplish that than sticking a scarlet letter on their forehead.

[Cal Cetín]

Usually, when someone uses the phrase "just be honest," he is himself being dishonest, and so it is in your case.

You want "reforms" which will benefit the Democratic party, strengthen a duopoly which wants to trample down local distinctions, and in general promote a French system of "departments" deriving their sole authority from the grace of the central authorities.

You back the very duopolists who have brought this country to where it is. You're not even pro-American, you are basically a Francophile.

Now, let me tell you what I *really* think about you and your ilk.

You admit to me what I already revealed about you, that "there should be a national standard for who can and cannot vote." Run a Gallic steamroller over all local pecularities, just so your Democrat/duopoly comrades can pick up some extra votes from convicted rapists.

You're such a dim bulb you think our current set up with its various criteria of qualification allows such a myth as the popular vote to exist. You just believe in it like the Easter Bunny. Yours is a belief that fairy tales are true.

Keep this up and I may actually get mad.

[Cal Cetín]

"Assuming felons do vote Democrat"

We can safely assume convicted felons *do* vote Democratic, otherwise you'd be here cheering on felon disenfranchisement.

[Cal Cetín]

And you probably don't know the Electoral College was designed in two phases - first by the Framers before the Democratic Party existed, and then via the 12th Amendment which was *put into the Constitution by the votes of Democratic Congressmen and state legislators.*

You should probably take that into account in framing your conspiracy theory that that Constitution of your country was designed specifically to inconvenience your own political faction, and that this is a sufficient reason to change the Constitution. Put country ahead of party for once.

[Cal Cetín]

"You couldn't even answer my earlier question about whether you'd still support the current system if it ever favored a popular-vote-losing Democrat."

It *did* favor a popular-vote-losing Democrat - Woodrow Wilson in 1912, remember? So there's your question pre-answered, you ninny.

[Cal Cetín]

And you might have heard of a Democrat named John F. Kennedy

Educate yourself about the Alabama electors in the 1960 election and how that situation affected the popular vote vis-a-vis the electoral-vote-winning Kennedy.

[Krychek_2]

Since you don’t believe in democracy, who cares if the libertarian party is on the ballot or not? That issue only matters if, like me, you want every vote to count.

And your opposition to reforms because they would benefit the Democratic Party tells me that’s your real objection to them. You don’t care about fair elections; you just want Democrats to lose.

[Krychek_2]

If giving felons the vote guaranteed that the Republicans would always win every election I would still favor it because unlike you my position is principled. Every vote should count as much as every other vote, and the rules should not favor one party over another.

As for Wilson, he got more votes than any other candidate that year, and what happened in 1912 is far less relevant than what has happened over the past 25 years.

You got nothing except name calling. You haven't even bothered to show how the current system is fair; all you do is impugn my motives and attack the French. Get back to us when you have an actual argument.

[Cal Cetín]

"You got nothing except name calling."

No, you were the aggressor in that respect and, like most bullies, you were shocked to find that your intended victim actually replied to your falsehoods by dropping truth bombs.

You say you would support felon voting if it benefited Republicans but I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU. Unlike me, you have made abundantly clear that you oppose the constitution of your country (assuming the U. S. *is* your country) simply because it doesn't always benefit your specific political faction, or the duopoly of which it is is a part.

Contradicting your accusations, which are as insulting as they are false (they reflect nothing but your own guilty conscience projected onto others), that I would oppose the electoral college if it produced Democratic Presidents, I invoked two counterexamples which, if you were intelligent, you would already be cognizant of.

The only reason I told unpleasant truths about you was that you committed verbal aggression by telling falsehoods about me. Being a bully, you can't handle being resisted. Being a moron, you are incapable of grasping anything more complicated than that any constitutional provision which gets in the way of your party and the duopoly of which it is part must be abolished.

You are an idiot, but at least from the duopolist standpoint you are a useful idiot. And yes, apparently unbeknownst to you, there are Republican duopolists who benefit from the activities of people like you.

You do not even reach the level of a half-wit, your neurons are so fried by either self-lobotomization or by the effects of duopolist propaganda.

[Krychek_2]

I don't care what you believe since everything you said is pure projection. You can't imagine that someone who disagrees with you could possibly be acting out of principle or honest disagreement; no, if someone disagrees with you they must be self interested liars, and if they push it, they're bullies.

But let's cut to the chase. Despite repeated requests, you have thus far been unable (or at least unwilling) to articulate a reason that the current system is fair. So, for sake of argument, assume I have terrible motives. Now, assuming that, how is the current system fair?

[David Nieporent]

It *did* favor a popular-vote-losing Democrat - Woodrow Wilson in 1912, remember? So there's your question pre-answered, you ninny.

No, I don't remember. Wilson won a plurality of the popular vote, so your claim is false. Unless you just mean he got a plurality rather than majority, in which case why would you need to go back to 1912 rather than 1992 or 1996 or 1960 or 1948 or 1916?

[Cal Cetín]

"You can't imagine that someone who disagrees with you could possibly be acting out of principle or honest disagreement"

Look back and see who was the initial aggressor and who was replying to your aggression.

[Cal Cetín]

"So, for sake of argument, assume I have terrible motives."

Oh, honey, it's gone way beyond assumptions, your bad motives were on display from the beginning, I simply engaged in self-defense more than you expected me to.

[Cal Cetín]

"someone who disagrees with you"

Pull the other one.

Sorry, comrade, you expressed more than mere "disagreement." You committed the initial aggression when you said:

"Cal, I think you’re defining dictatorship to mean any time your side loses an election"

After that, I started to defend myself and you tried to play the injured innocent. Why, oh, why, was I being so mean to you?

In reality, I simply made an effective counterattack against your initial, unprovoked attack.

Now you're hoping to fool the reader into thinking I was the aggressor.

[Cal Cetín]

David Nieporent,

You're out of your depth. Look up how the popular vote for John Kennedy was calculated in 1960 - I've already mentioned that case.

[FourteenFour]

the two largest parties should fund printing of all third party names on the same ballots.

[Krychek_2]

Why?

[Kazinski]

Why don’t a few of the states implement their own single payer schemes and show the rest of us how it’s done?

California is a large rich state with all of its major population centers a few hours away from the nearest border, I’ll hold their beer while they show us.

At the same time maybe the feds can give a state like Texas the flexibility to show what a free market health care system looks like and they can duke it out in the laboratory of democracy, and free market of ideas.

[Krychek_2]

Kazinski, at the risk of turning this into a thread hijack on the merits of national health care, because there are some things that are done most efficiently at the national level, and I think health care is one of them. By not participating in national health care, Texas makes it that much less efficient for everyone else. And by the way, large parts of rural Texas may as well be the third world; in point of fact California voters care more about the health and well being of rural Texans than Texas politicians do.

By the way, Massachusetts has had its own health care program for decades and it works just fine.

[Kazinski]

Massachusetts is a great argument why the other states that want it should follow their lead, and why it's not necessary for the Feds to impose a one size fits all plan.

But what is missing is a free market alternative system, or a hybrid single payer catastrophic plan that kicks in at 40-50k, medigap insurance availability, and requirement to offer cash customers the lowest rate a provider offers, and of course continuing medicaid for the poor,

My real beef with our current system, and single payer is there is no incentive for consumers or providers to make sure medical services are cost effective and efficient.

[Krychek_2]

Kazinski, my beef with it is that it's the most inexpensive and least efficient system in the world. Americans pay more for health care and get less than citizens of other countries. In the US, it costs 10k to have a baby after you've already paid exorbitant insurance premiums; in the UK it's free. In the US we pay 16% of our gross national product on health care and a lot of people don't have access to health care because they can't afford it; in Europe, they pay about 10% of their gross national product for health care and everybody has access to it. We have the highest rates of infant mortality in the Western world, attributed in large part to lack of access to health care, and our life expectancy rates are actually declining, again because of lack of access to health care.

But oh yeah, socialism evil.

[Krychek_2]

Sorry, "inexpnsive" in the first line should have been "expensive".

[Armchair Lawyer]

Life expectancy in other countries has dropped...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2018to2020

[Krychek_2]

AL, did you actually read your own link?

"Life expectancy has increased in the UK over the last 40 years, albeit at a slower pace in the last decade.

“However, the coronavirus pandemic led to a greater number of deaths than normal in 2020."

[Armchair Lawyer]

Life expectancy has increased in the US over the last 40 years as well.

You need to do an apples to apples comparison. If you're arguing only life expectancy in the US has dropped recently...you're wrong.

If you're arguing US life expectancy has dropped over the last 40 years...you're also wrong.

If you're arguing that US life expectancy has dropped recently, but the UK has risen over the last 40 years....they you're not being honest.

[Krychek_2]

I just looked it up. According to worldometers.info the United States is Number 46 in terms of life expectancy, behind Estonia and Lebanon. 46. You know what the 45 ahead of us have that we don’t? Government health care.

[Toranth]

K_2, looking at flat statistics like "population life expectancy" when promoting 'government health care' is a great way to Lie With Statistics. Demographics matter a lot, and you are deceptively ignoring those significant factors in your (semi-accurate) statement.

For example - The US population is more overweight and less active than comparative populations, which leads to lower life expectancy.
However, this is behavioral and has absolutely zero to do the supplied health care.
If you want to compare health care systems, why don't you try looking at medical outcomes? Where does the US rank on cancer survival rates? How about heart attack survival? What's the infant survival rate for each age?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krychek,

If you're actually looking at health care measures, the best way to do it is at things like 5-year cancer survivor rates. There you'll find the US is generally among the best.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-survival-rates-by-country

In terms of life expectancy, there are a host of measures that reduce life expectancy in the US that aren't directly related to the hospitals and doctors. A history of smoking and obesity...life style choices that reduce life expectancy, which are in (much) higher prevalence than other countries. Much higher homicide rates and opioid overdose rates, which play a major role (while you're arguing to reduce drug enforcement....).

We're working on smoking, but it has a significant delay (in decades) between the smoking and the reduction in rates. Certain liberalization efforts towards smoking non-tobacco products doesn't help, nor does it help with opioid overdoses. But those are issues that "nationalized health care" doesn't help.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's an interesting assumption, but the LP actually was making gains before these barriers were put up. So I don't think it's a particularly safe assumption.

[Ed Grinberg]

hardly anyone agrees with libertarian philosophy

My philosophy is pretty libertarian. I vote Republican because, of the two major parties, they're (a lot) more libertarian. I don't think I'm alone (as in: I think there're a lot of people like me).

[Krychek_2]

Ed, a libertarian could equally as well vote Democrat because Democrats are more likely to end the war on drugs, appoint judges who rein in the police, support abortion rights and gay rights, oppose restrictive immigration laws, and oppose government funding for religion. Which party is more libertarian depends on which set of issues you consider more important.

[Armchair Lawyer]

A general rule of thumb is that Libertarians believe in less government intervention. Democrats in general believe in more government intervention.

[Krychek_2]

Democrats who want to end the war on drugs, have sentencing reform, reduce the incarceration rate, keep abortion legal, allow gays to marry? Those Democrats support more government intervention?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Those Democrats support more government intervention?

Yep.

[Brett Bellmore]

For me it always comes down to the fact the Democrats want me disarmed and muzzled. Nobody who means you well wants you defenseless and censored.

Right wingers tend to be authoritarian, sure, but left wingers tend towards totalitarian, and if you've got to pick between authoritarian and totalitarian, you should always go with authoritarian.

[Krychek_2]

And if Democrats were left wingers you might have a point. Ask AOC how left wing she thinks the Democratic Party is. It may be left wing relative to you.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd have a point if the Democratic party supported political censorship and gun control.

Maybe you want to dispute that they do?

[Krychek_2]

I dispute that the mainstream Democratic party supports political censorship; you can find individual Democrats who do. Though pound for pound, I think you have fewer Democratic extremists than you do Republican ones, and we don't typically elect ours to public office. Who is the Democratic elected office holder who is the equivalent to Marjorie Taylor Green?

As for gun control, of course Democrats support gun control (but not confiscation). Unless you think a 12 year old who saved the money from his paper route should be able to put down cash and walk out of the store with a hydrogen bomb, so do you. We just draw the line at different places.

[Brett Bellmore]

Give me a break, of course the mainstream Democratic party supports political censorship. They just call it something else. Campaign reform. Fighting disinformation.

Look, the Citizens United ruling was about nothing else: Citizens United was spending their own money to promote their own speech, and the Democratic party went nuts when told they couldn't stop them from doing it.

Here's the current Democratic party platform:

"Democrats believe that the interests and the voices of the American people should determine our elections. Money is not speech, and corporations are not people. Democrats will fight to pass a Constitutional amendment that will go beyond merely overturning Citizens United and related decisions like Buckley v. Valeo by eliminating all private financing from federal elections."

Here's the proposed amendment. Strips any 1st amendment rights from corporations. Every last newspaper in the country is published by a corporation!

Try publishing a newspaper without spending money. Try being heard by anybody not right in front of you without spending money.

Try exercising freedom of the press when the government can decide you're trying to "influence an election".

Trying to influence elections, political speech, is the very heart of 1st amendment rights in a democracy, and that's what they're trying to deny is a right.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As for gun control, of course Democrats support gun control (but not confiscation)."

They've already tried confiscating guns in more than one state. Not with great success, due to massive non-compliance, but they tried it.

O’Rourke Not Alone in Support of Mandatory Buyback (Spoiler: A mandatory buyback IS confiscation.)

That's right, the current VP is on the record in favor of gun confiscation.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, Brett: this judge just told elections officials to "ignore the law" drafted by the legislature! Why aren't you complaining?

[Michael P]

The difference between a federal court ruling that a state law violates the federal constitution and a state or local executive body just deciding to ignore the law is too challenging a distinction for David Nieporent to understand. My sympathies to your legal guardian, David.

[David Nieporent]

No; you're mistaken. Brett thinks that a judge declaring a law unconstitutional as applied and entering an injunction is telling people to break the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, in Pennsylvania, the state supreme court found the state's election laws perfectly constitutional, and directed that they be violated anyway.

They found them constitutional to avoid triggering a non-severability clause of the election law declaring the recent changes to the law entirely void if any part of the law was struck down, as the legislature didn't want it's compromise package only upheld in part.

[J-96-2020] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The court discusses the legislature's non-severability clause, and intent that the recent change to the law stand or fall as one piece.

It then acknowledges that nobody is arguing that the law is ambiguous or unconstitutional.

"Unlike other provisions of Act 77 currently before this Court, we are not asked to interpret the statutory language establishing the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots. Indeed, there is no ambiguity regarding the deadline set by the General Assembly:

...

Moreover, we are not asked to declare the language facially
unconstitutional as there is nothing constitutionally infirm about a deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day for the receipt of ballots. The parties, instead, question whether the application of the statutory language to the facts of the current unprecedented situation results in an as-applied infringement of electors’ right to vote."

And then orders the unambiguous and constitutional law be violated:

"Under our Extraordinary Jurisdiction, this Court can and should act to extend the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters."

And then doesn't admit they've just triggered the non-severability clause and invalidated the whole law.

They directed that an unambiguous and constitutional law be violated. Again, why would you expect the legislature to laugh that off?

[David Nieporent]

In fact, in Pennsylvania, the state supreme court found the state's election laws perfectly constitutional, and directed that they be violated anyway.

Sigh. At this point it's not Dunning Kruger; it's just lying. You've been told that this isn't true, and yet you keep saying it. Worse, you actually quote the language proving you a liar:

Moreover, we are not asked to declare the language facially unconstitutional as there is nothing constitutionally infirm about a deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day for the receipt of ballots. The parties, instead, question whether the application of the statutory language to the facts of the current unprecedented situation results in an as-applied infringement of electors’ right to vote."

[Brett Bellmore]

So, why didn't the non-severability clause kick in, then?

[David Nieporent]

It's almost as if the court addressed that in its opinion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because the court wouldn't admit they'd triggered it, that's why.

[rsteinmetz]

Voter Supression

[Frank Drackman]

Yay Trump! I mean Nader in 0-24"!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which of the libertarian politicians this 'often libertarian' blog and its 'libertarianish' contributors favor should be the Libertarian Party candidate in Maine? Ted Cruz? John Eastman? Donald Trump?

Being a movement conservative must be a terrible way to live in modern America if parading around in garish, silly, unconvincing libertarian drag is part of the deal.

Carry on, clingers.

[Cal Cetín]

The LP nominated a compulsory cake-baker in 2016 and a BLM sympathizer in 2020, so the question is why didn't *you* vote for them?

[Longtobefree]

Because of their foreign policies?

[Cal Cetín]

Ah, yes, not bombing enough people.

[Michael P]

I voted for Gov. "Where's Aleppo?" in 2016. In 2020, I don't remember even Reason saying "here are the major policy positions of this year's libertarian candidate", so I assumed there was no "there" there. I'm not sure why the LP had such a weak campaign that year.

[Jerry B.]

Hey! You finally remembered to include “clingers”,

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I expect to remember the clingers long after their deplorable like has been extinct in modern America. I was raised in a superstition-, bigotry-, and backwardness-steeped town.

Then I got an education, a job, and a better life as part of the triumphant, successful liberal-libertarian mainstream.

[Jerry B.]

And you translated the bigotry of your home town into another type of bigotry. I’m sure your bigot parents would be proud.

[Cal Cetín]

If there were a third party called the Screw You, Mom and Dad Party, Kirkland would join it in a second, leaving the Democrats.

[Cal Cetín]

But you gotta feel for poor Artie, growing up in such an awful family - thank God he escaped!

https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/arcade-publishing/9781628728057/children-of-nazis/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don't feel bad for me, clinger.

I overcome substantial obstacles to build a great life on reason, education, skill, effort, and good fortune. I have had several roundly rewarding careers. I have a wonderful home and family.

I was lucky enough to be born in America, and my country has embraced and advanced my political preferences throughout my lifetime.

Feel bad for the unfortunate persons who have not had such an enjoyable life, and especially for those whose lack of character and judgment have made them superstitious, bigoted, vanquished, and disaffected conservatives, Republicans, and clingers.

[Cal Cetín]

"those whose lack of character and judgment have made them superstitious, bigoted, vanquished, and disaffected conservatives, Republicans, and clingers"

You mean people like your parents?

[Purple Martin]

Possibly. Like, possibly, mine.

(And it wasn't the conservative part that was the issue—lean Burkean conservative myself, voting for rational local Republicans when I have the chance—it was the rest.)

Do you have a point?

[Cal Cetín]

I was hoping to get Arthur on record admitting his hatred for his own parents. I'm still interested in drawing him out on this subject.

[Purple Martin]

By displaying what appears to be your hatred of his parents? After all, he didn't call them "...superstitious, bigoted, vanquished, and disaffected conservatives, Republicans, and clingers"...you did.

Not sure I understand the logic of that.

[Cal Cetín]

He didn't give his parents any credit at all for his escaping "a superstition-, bigotry-, and backwardness-steeped town."

If they helped him in his escape, wouldn't basic gratitude and filial piety require some public acknowledgement?

Assuming, that is, that he believes his parents were distinct from the superstition, backwardness, et. al.

His extreme oikophobia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikophobia

...probably has one of two explanations. Either his parents and his hometown associates actually were nazis...or he's exaggerating and still hasn't recovered from his adolescent horror at his old surroundings.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe that Maine also allows rank choice voting. So, this could be a big win for Libertarians.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ballot access law is its own complicated corner of First Amendment law

I would have thought it was some part of election law.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because, as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It's not part of election law?

[benji]

It's both. See: Citizens United for more.

[Jerry B.]

So when will the Maine AG file an appeal?

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

The best thing for third parties would be what is known as “acceptance voting.” Acceptance voting is much simpler than ranked choice voting. In acceptance voting you vote for as many candidates for the office as you like. Whoever gets the most votes wins.

Major parties hate it. It would allow most third parties to have enough each election support to no longer need to gather petition siggys. Like the major parties if your party got more than X% of the vote in this election you have a spot on the next.

[Michael P]

In think usually that is called approval voting. The major criticism of it is that it is trivial to vote strategically, which undermines the fidelity of the count. On the other hand, it avoids Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which is the major problem for ranked-choice voting methods.

[F.D. Wolf]

States must ensure legitimate ballot access, but obviously can't allow access to every frivolous group of 5 people who declare themselves a "political party".

It's just another exercise in judicial line-drawing to determine whether a policy falls on one side of "too onerous" or the other.

[Cal Cetín]

Florida seems to manage - just form a state committee, have bylaws, file certain reports, and spend $500 per year on political expenses - presto-ballot access! The state constitution forbids discrimination between the largest party/candidate and smaller parties/candidates. (Additional requirements are on 3rd parties for President, but that's because state constitutions don't apply to Presidential elections - so no freaking out over 2000, thank you).

Here are Florida's political parties:

MAJOR: Republican, Democratic

MINOR: Constitution, Ecology, Green, Independent, Libertarian, Socialism and Liberation, People's Party, Reform, Unity

https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/candidates-committees/political-parties/

You don't like a minor party? Don't vote for one!

[F.D. Wolf]

Well, even the system for ballot access in the great state of Florida has had its detractors who believe it too restrictive. Libertarian Party of Fla. v. Florida,710 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1983).

"First of all, the argument that Florida's 3% requirement must be stricken as unconstitutionally burdensome because a majority of states protect interests similar to Florida's by imposing a lesser requirement is unavailing. A court is no more free to impose the legislative judgments of other states on a sister state than it is free to substitute its own judgment for that of the state legislature." Id. at 793.

[Cal Cetín]

That's 1983. Remember what happened in 1998? Among other things, the voters approved a change which gave minor parties and minor candidates the same ballot rights as the major parties.

https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Ballot_Access,_Public_Campaign_Financing_and_Election_Process_Revisions,_Amendment_11_(1998)

[RandomInternetPerson]

*Winger

[Kazinski]

The only valid path to an effective third party is to build first a state or regional party that has its own brand. Perhaps starting with an already established politician offering a real third alternative. Not trying to play the middle, because the middle isn't big enough, and it's getting smaller.

For instance Joe Manchin wouldn't be an effective as a third party leader because 'I'm for big government but I'm not as crazy as the progressives' isn't really a winning strategy.

Rand Paul may be able to do it in Kentucky as a libertarian with a minimal government, decriminalizing drugs, putting a cap on universities and schools with >10% of the budget going to Administration, and similar cuts across the rest of state government.

[Cal Cetín]

Sadly, while this site advertises itself as a legal blog it is in fact a Punch-and-Judy blog where partisans of the two wings of the duopoly rehearse tired talking points against each other.

I think I will try, at least for a time, to do something more productive than come here - something like folding paper boats: