We have to stop thinking it's OK for the government to
tell the voters whom they can and can't vote for.  If
10% of the voters decide they would rather not vote
for the Democrat, and want to vote for the Green,
that's the hallmark of a free election.

Does the British Labor Party keep the Liberal
Democratic Party off the ballot because it "takes
votes away" in the Labor Party's struggle with the
Conservative Party?

Does the Canadian Liberal Party keep the New
Democratic Party off the ballot because it "takes
votes away" in the Liberal Party's struggle against
the Conservative Party?

Does Mexico's PAN Party keep the PRI off the ballot
because it "takes votes away" from PAN's struggle
against the major leftist Mexican party?

Voters know what they want to do.  The voters must be
sovereign over the government; the government cannot
tell the voters whom they can or cannot vote for. 
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, James
Madison, would have been horrified at the notion that
the government can control whom a voter votes for. 
Back in their day, it was literally impossible for the
government to control whom the voters voted for, since
there were no government-printed ballots.

The only other countries that seem to keep voters from
voting for the party that some of them wish to vote
for, that I can think of now, are Egypt and Iran.  It
is unheard of in Europe, and as far as I know, it is
also unheard of in Latin America.

The First Amendment guarantees not only freedom of
speech and press, and freedom of religion, but freedom
of association.  Voters are free to organize
themselves into whichever parties they wish to.

The United States signed the Copenhagen Document of
the Helsinki Accords, pledging we would "respect the
right of individuals and groups to establish, in full
freedom, their own political parties and provide such
political parties with the necessary legal guarantees
to enable them to compete with each other on a basis
of equal treatment before the law".

We also break international human rights agreements
when we don't let U.S. citizens in the commonwealths
and territories, and D.C., have a voice in electing
congress.  U.S. citizens in those places must obey
federal laws and yet have no voice in electing
representatives that make those laws.  Isn't that
tyranny?  A complaint has just been filed with the
O.A.S. on this, but it doesn't get much attention on
this list or in the U.S. press generally.

Pennsylvania has had minor parties on the statewide
ballot, every even-numbered year, since the beginning
of government-printed ballots in 1891 (except in
1990).  There had not been a Pennsylvania challenge to
a statewide minor party or independent petition in
Pennsylvania since 1938 (and that was one minor party
challenging another minor party), until the Democrats
decided it was legitimate to challenge Nader's
petition in 2004.  Now this year, Pennsylvania and
Illinois Democrats are challenging the Green
petitions.  Something has changed in this country, and
very few people seem alarmed about it.

I'm going out of town tomorrow and won't be able to
see e-mail for perhaps a week.

--- David Lublin <dlublin@american.edu> wrote:

Not to be really thick about this but the Democrat
leads by 1 point more
with the off on the ballot than with the Green on
the ballot.  Most would
interpret this to mean that the Green candidate
hurts the Democrat since
he would win by a smaller margin or it would be
easier for the Republican
to catch up.  A small difference below the poll's
margin of error but the
results don't support your thesis.  The Democrat is
also above 50% without
the Green but below 50% with the Green.

Would you reconsider your belief that the Green
candidate should appear on
the ballot even if he took 10 points away from the
Democrat?  For example,
there is the case of NM's 3rd congressional district
where in recent
memory where a Green candidate rather clearly
enabled a Republican to win
with a plurality.  My bet is no.

David

David Lublin
Professor of Government
School of Public Affairs
American University
4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
http://www.american.edu/dlublin/index.htm





"ban@richardwinger.com" <richardwinger@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
08/15/2006 05:32 PM
Please respond to
ban@richardwinger.com


To
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
cc

Subject
New Pa. US Senate poll shows Greens don't hurt
Democrats






Quinnipiac Poll just released a Pennsylvania US
Senate
poll.  The poll was asked two ways:  with the Green
Party candidate on the ballot, and without him.

Likely voters, with the Green on the ballot, show:
Democratic 48%, Republican 42%, Green 5%, don't know
or other 5%.

Likely voters, with the Green off the ballot, show:
Democratic 51%, Republican 44%, don't know or other
5%.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com