Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: States with straight ticket voting, and those without.  (Read 3149 times)

Joe

  • Guest
States with straight ticket voting, and those without.
« on: July 10, 2003, 10:43:57 pm »

Without straight ticket voting.
This is a good thing. Yes?
Maine
Vermont
Alaska
Idaho
Montana
Wyoming
North Dakota
South Dakota

States With straight ticket voting.
This is a bad thing? which "fusion" is touted to be an antidote for.?
Delaware
New Hampshire

Source:
http://stars.csg.org/spectrum/2002/Fall/Fall_2002_Spectrum_26-28.pdf
« Last Edit: July 10, 2003, 10:45:31 pm by Joe (sequel to Solitar) »
Logged

etphonehome

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 118
  • Have a nice day!
Re:States with straight ticket voting, and those without.
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2003, 11:04:51 pm »

If a state has straight-ticket voting and fusion, then couldn't that potentially work in our favor? If we end up with a candidate who runs as a Libertarian-Democrat-Republican, then wouldn't that candidate get all of the votes from the people who do straight-ticket voting for either party? From what I've read, all you need to do to be listed as a Democrat or a Republican on the ballot in New Hampshire is to get ten people to write you in at the primary. If we have 20,000 people, I'm sure we won't have a problem getting ten of us to go to each primary and write in our fellow porcupines, right?
Logged
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”
   â€”Captain Picard

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:States with straight ticket voting, and those without.
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2003, 01:13:00 am »

If a state has straight-ticket voting and fusion, then couldn't that potentially work in our favor? If we end up with a candidate who runs as a Libertarian-Democrat-Republican, then wouldn't that candidate get all of the votes from the people who do straight-ticket voting for either party?

I do not know.  That sounds like a good arguement for Vermont.

 
Quote
From what I've read, all you need to do to be listed as a Democrat or a Republican on the ballot in New Hampshire is to get ten people to write you in at the primary. If we have 20,000 people, I'm sure we won't have a problem getting ten of us to go to each primary and write in our fellow porcupines, right?

I see what you are saying about fusion.  From what I understand, NH does not have real fusion.  If, for example, in a 5 member district, if 5 Republicans ran in the district than the LP candidates could not use fusion.  They can only use fusion if the Republicans run less candidates than there are seats.  What that means is if NH is selected and we use fusion to get LP candidates elected in the first election, the Republicans will figure out what to do.  All they will need to do is full candidates for all of the seats and than we can no longer use NH's indirect fusion.  That would mean that NH would not have straight ticket voting or fusion and would be in a lose-lose.

Add to that the 9th largest (overall) districts and the most expensive elections and the 9th largest number of voters and the 8 highest population (soon to be 9th) and the most number of candidates that have to win to form a majority and the highest cost of living and you have VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS.
Logged

etphonehome

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 118
  • Have a nice day!
Re:States with straight ticket voting, and those without.
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2003, 01:50:34 am »

Add to that the 9th largest (overall) districts and the most expensive elections and the 9th largest number of voters and the 8 highest population (soon to be 9th) and the most number of candidates that have to win to form a majority and the highest cost of living and you have VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

FreedomRoad, for these statistics, are you saying that New Hampshire is the 8th largest in the country, or 8th highest out of the ten states we're considering? I know for a fact that New Hampshire isn't even close to being the 8th highest population in the nation, but it's also one of the highest out of the ten states we're voting on. I don't understand what group of states you are referring to when you state that it has the 8th highest population. Also, from what I've read, New Hampshire has some of the cheapest campaigns anywhere, but if you have seen evidence to refute this I would love to see it so that I can make a more informed decision when we finally do vote on our state of choice. However, I will not accept your statement as gospel without any supporting evidence, especially since every piece of information I have seen about New Hampshire has contradicted at least some of what you said.
Logged
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”
   â€”Captain Picard

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:States with straight ticket voting, and those without.
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2003, 03:19:47 am »

Add to that the 9th largest (overall) districts and the most expensive elections and the 9th largest number of voters and the 8 highest population (soon to be 9th) and the most number of candidates that have to win to form a majority and the highest cost of living and you have VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

FreedomRoad, for these statistics, are you saying that New Hampshire is the 8th largest in the country, or 8th highest out of the ten states we're considering? I know for a fact that New Hampshire isn't even close to being the 8th highest population in the nation, but it's also one of the highest out of the ten states we're voting on. I don't understand what group of states you are referring to when you state that it has the 8th highest population. Also, from what I've read, New Hampshire has some of the cheapest campaigns anywhere, but if you have seen evidence to refute this I would love to see it so that I can make a more informed decision when we finally do vote on our state of choice. However, I will not accept your statement as gospel without any supporting evidence, especially since every piece of information I have seen about New Hampshire has contradicted at least some of what you said.

I agree that NH supporters have put out a ton of misleading information.

I was only talking about the 10 FSP candidate states (AK, DE, ID, NH, ME, MT, ND, SD, VT, and WY).  So, when I say 8th, I mean 8th out of the 10 FSP candidate states.

Campaign costs?
Well, here are the FSP official numbers, they may be found in several threads, in FSP reports, on the state data page, and in the spreadsheets.

Highest, most recent cost of US Congress elections. (In millions)
1. ND 4.2
2. VT 4.3
3. WY 4.7
4. ID 7.7
5. DE 8.7
6. MT 10.9
7. ME 11.8
8. SD 18.8
9. NH 19.6

Recent cost of NH Governor election: total cost of over 19 million dollars.
Benson spent ~12M, Homphrey ~4M, Fernald ~$3M

19.6 + 19 = $38,600,000.  This does not even include the 400 state house races and the 20 state senate races.  NH is, by far, the most expensive (of the 10 candidate states) when it comes to elections.  

Many people (including Dr Jason P Sorens) think that we should use the numbers from the highest recent election because that shows up what the major parties can spend if they really want to.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up