Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Lindsey Drath on Expanding the Two-Party Political System
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 14:15:24 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <105okfu$4s9f$6@dont-email.me>
References: <105m6a1$3i0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <t1ut7kth0d124omo801rjgmucu6umif96s@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 20:15:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b7d49c2055938f8bd222a4542cfac07f";
	logging-data="160047"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1922Mkruc+gV3Y0qgWtshBv3DFmIrtx5js="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RsXCk/6T0ymqgZd+Qe31UrdhZZs=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250722-4, 7/22/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <t1ut7kth0d124omo801rjgmucu6umif96s@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-CA
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 2025-07-21 10:43 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:01:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Here's a segment from C-SPAN Washington Journal from 7/21/2025.
>>
>> Lindsey Drath on Expanding the Two-Party Political System
>> https://www.c-span.org/program/washington-journal/lindsey-drath-on-expanding-the-two-party-political-system/662767
>>
>> She speaks well and really appeals to me. Someone else listen and tell
>> me what she gets wrong.
>>
>> She's promoting ballot access for the Forward Party. Andrew Yang put
>> cash into this but I think they've moved beyond his influence.
> 
> By "promoting ballot access" do you mean "having their candidates'
> name on the ballot"?
> 
> Because no question that CAN be abused - Canadian Conservative party
> leader Pierre Poilevre could speak to that - voters in his district in
> the April 2025 election were handed a ballot with 100+ names on it and
> this was considered THE primary element in his defeat. He is now
> facing a by-election and again the same types have managed to get 50+
> candidates on the ballot.

According to this article, there are now 132 candidates on the ballot 
for Poilievre's by-election - and there is still time for more 
candidates to sign up!

https://www.insauga.com/poilievre-calls-for-law-to-block-long-ballot-protests-that-abuse-democracy/

I like the reforms he's proposing to make it harder for people to put up 
spurious candidates, particularly a requirement that any given person 
can only nominate ONE candidate. Under the present rules, every one of 
the current 132 nominees could have been put up by the exact same 100 
people. I wouldn't be opposed to a small deposit being required too, 
just as it was for many decades. Even using the old deposit amount of 
$200 would quickly discourage frivolous candidates (except perhaps a 
wealthy AND frivolous candidate) without being an insurmountable barrier 
to almost any serious but impoverished candidate. (Heck, even the 
Communist parties came up with the deposit amount even if they only got 
a handful of votes each.)

> When my grandfather was twice a federal candidate in the 1960s and
> each time his party had to put up a deposit (refundable if he got a
> certain %age of the winner's vote count). Back in the 60s the deposit
> was $50 - now it's $250. Meaning that putting up 100 candidates costs
> at most $25000 if no other attempt to campaign is made. That was a
> serious deposit back in the 60s - far less so now. That's chicken feed
> for federal candidates - at least serious federal candidates.
> 
> Does the US have such a system for candidates - and if so what are the
> required deposits?


-- 
Rhino