Why is Oklahoma so hostile to third parties?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 05:43:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Why is Oklahoma so hostile to third parties?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why is Oklahoma so hostile to third parties?  (Read 1185 times)
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 14, 2014, 06:53:22 PM »

According to this article, no third party was able to obtain ballot access in Oklahoma with the strange exception of Americans Elect.  I read on another site that third parties need to obtain a number of signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast in the most recent election to be on the ballot, which is a very high threshold, but I don't understand how Americans Elect could obtain the necessary signatures but neither the Libertarian nor Green Party were able to do so as well.  Would anyone know why this might be the case?
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2014, 03:25:42 PM »

They wouldn't let Teddy Roosevelt on the ballot in 1912, or Ralph Nader in 2000, so they appear to always have had very restrictive ballot access laws. The only reason Debs did so well there in 1912 was protest votes from people who would have voted for TR.

Somehow John Anderson was able to qualify in 1980, even then he only got 3.3%, as opposed to 6.6% nationally, although he was weak throughout the South.

In 1948 both Wallace and Thurmond weren't on the ballot, but Norman Thomas made it in 1936 while Lemke didn't.

Now as to why the laws are so restrictive, I have no idea.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2014, 05:04:34 PM »


And there's your answer.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,658
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2014, 10:25:48 PM »

They wouldn't let Teddy Roosevelt on the ballot in 1912, or Ralph Nader in 2000, so they appear to always have had very restrictive ballot access laws. The only reason Debs did so well there in 1912 was protest votes from people who would have voted for TR.

Somehow John Anderson was able to qualify in 1980, even then he only got 3.3%, as opposed to 6.6% nationally, although he was weak throughout the South.

In 1948 both Wallace and Thurmond weren't on the ballot, but Norman Thomas made it in 1936 while Lemke didn't.

Now as to why the laws are so restrictive, I have no idea.

Debs did no better in OK than would be expected from Socialist strength there during the era:  Benson didn't do nearly as well nationally four years later, but did almost as well in Oklahoma.   It seems that since TR's candidacy, like Thurmond's later, came out of a post-convention split, that made it harder for them to get their parties on the ballot as opposed to an established party like the Socialists who had their electors all ready to go.
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2014, 07:34:50 AM »

Maybe it is at the presidential level, but in several gubernatorial races, third party candidates have seriously affected the outcome (see '94 and '02).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 12 queries.