Brian over at Bearing Drift tips us off to HB 3157, which is just a bad bill, as it raises the bar for those seeking office, in particular local candidates. Why in the world would you want to reduce the number of candidates, when so few are willing to run? The 125 petition signatures now required would more than double in Norfolk, due to the 105,000+ registered voters in the city.
Even more onerous is the increased cash required. The bill proposes a filing fee equal to 2% of the salary of the office being sought, with a minimum of $50, unless the candidate is indigent. My guess is that not too many indigent candidates are going to run for office. (By the way – what is Norfolk paying its council members these days? I couldn’t locate that info.)
Honestly, I had enough heartburn with the 2% filing fee I had to pay in order to run in the primary in 2005, which I saw and continue to see as a barrier to opening up the field, even though I understand it is to help offset the costs of running a primary. (My heartburn is intensified by the fact that Virginia does not put party affiliation on the ballot for candidates running below the GA.)
Send a message to the members of the House P&E committee and let them know that restricting those who run for office to the folks that have the money to do so is a bad idea.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Maybe this would keep certain nut-jobs from sabotaging certain city elections. 😉
I’m kidding, although that result would be good. I agree that raising the barriers higher is not a good move.
Why should they put party affiliation on the ballot?
Um, Jack – try reading the post I linked.
I read it, but still don’t get it. Obviously, anyone can run as an independent, so why bring it up? Are you upset that the party-selected candidates don’t have to get petitions signed?
Again, why should they put party affiliation on the ballots?
Jack – party-selected candidates do have to get petitions signed. Everybody has to do that to get on the ballot.
And if the parties are going to hold primaries, then the party affiliation should be on the ballot, plain and simple. Either that or do away with primaries (and the rule that if you lose, you can’t run as an independent).
There is value associated with party identification. That’s why those running at GA level and above have it. Believe it or not, a lot of people go to the polls and vote strictly on the basis of party affiliation. It does candidates a disservice to not have it there.
It is up to the parties to hold primaries if they want them. Why should that choice require that party affiliation be put on the general-election ballot?
Let me get this straight: you want people voting who have NO IDEA who their party’s candidate is until they get into the voting booth and see it on the ballot?
Jack – did you hear me? Party affiliation appears on the ballot for all candidates running for the General Assembly or above. Ever heard of coattails? Running downticket from those races is brutal. Trying to be heard above the noise of all the races above you is tremendously difficult, since downticket candidates lack the resources.
Tim Kaine and Jerry Kilgore spent about $50 million between the two of them in order to be heard. That same year, there were 100 House of Delegates races, with the contested races spending $200K-$300K each.
How does a local candidate, especially one running citywide in an area that has MORE voters than a HofD race, supposed to compete?
The drop-off in the number of votes cast for those running at the top of the ticket versus those running at the bottom is significant. And the reason is the lack of exposure. So ANYTHING that helps those candidates – and party affiliation helps – is the right thing to do.
Either put the party affiliation on the ballot or let everybody run as an independent. That way, the cost of running in a primary is eliminated.
What is painfully obvious is that you have no clue as to how campaigns and running for office works.
I’ve heard of coattails — it means voting for someone you know nothing about because of his party. I’d rather have few informed voters than many uninformed voters. Apparently, you disagree.
“Either put the party affiliation on the ballot or let everybody run as an independent.”
Everyone CAN run as an independent.
“That way, the cost of running in a primary is eliminated.” If party affiliation gets one nothing, a candidate is not forced to run in a primary, and may run as an independent. Why is that a problem?
“What is painfully obvious is that you have no clue as to how campaigns and running for office works.”
Actually, I have been the treasurer of a state party, and I am quite familiar with the process.
“We don’t do personal attacks here.” (From another post.)
Apparently, you do. You have here called me “clueless” and elsewhere accused me of “repeating the oft-spoken lies,” although you refuse to say what lies I have repeated.
If you have been a treasurer of a state party, I have to say that I feel sorry for that party. And that is not a personal attack – it is a statement of fact. To say there is no benefit to party affiliation demonstrates that you do not understand coattails nor the effects of running downticket. Another statement of fact.
You are clueless – another statement of fact.
And, as usual, I’m done. I have given you every opportunity to demonstrate some sort of understanding of the political realities and you have not.
Of course there’s benefit to party affiliation — the ignorant will vote for you based on your party. THAT is political reality.
Obviously, you prefer that ignorant people vote.
Jack, you are nothing more than a troll. You need to deeply thank Vivian for tolerating you. How she has the patience and benevolence to do so is beyond me.
Go away little troll.
Vivian,
I have read the above commentary and it is a shame. you state
“a lot of people go to the polls and vote strictly on the basis of party affiliation. It does candidates a disservice to not have it there.”
It does the country a bigger diservice that the party affiliation is there. Voting on party line alone is an act of ignorance. Which is the Jack’s point. A point you appear to ignore and then you switch to pitiful ad hominem attack. You do yourself a disservice here.
Pat,
I am sorry to see that Jack annoys you so. If you want to live in an echo chamber where you only hear thoughts you yourself might express stay off the web. Peoplle are entitiled to voice their opinions and if you don’t like those opinions then attack the message not the messenger.
J.A. – I have to disagree. Neither of you is dealing in political reality. I gave the reasons for why the downticket races have a tremendously difficult, if not impossible, task of the trying to inform the public about their candidacy. Neither one of you addressed that difficulty; both of you want to talk about a perfect world. Well, we don’t live in a perfect world. Too many people go to the polls and only look for the party affiliation – and that includes Republicans and Democrats, blacks and whites. It is a political reality. (In some states, you can pull the lever for a straight party ticket. Are you saying all those people are ignorant?)
If you have never run for office, you really don’t have much appreciation for what I’m saying.
And as for why there is no party affiliation on the ballot – well, ask your legislators. It is all about protecting their friends who are running downticket. The constitutional offices in Virginia have always been virtual political appointments, offices kept for the retired legislators to occupy in order to increase their state retirements.
No ad homien attacks here. To ignore reality is the real disservice.
Vivian,
I will roll this up in reverse.
To ignore someone’s point, especially when it is inconvenient, is to ignore reality. The fact that getting a message out is difficult is not the point. It is incumbent upon the public to go read the party literature, go to the numrous candidate web sites etc. Much of this can be done at the public library. Don’t even try that nonsense of “people do not have the time to do all that.” To do so is to advocate people voting in a state of ignorance which is an indefensible argument.
One does need to have run for office to understand the problem. That is akin to saying one nust have cancer to understand cancer. The public is still responsible to educate itself about the candidates on the ballot. Voting strict party line is ignorance in action. If I do not know either of the candidates, I do not vote. This often means I do not vote for the district soil and conservation dude. That is the resposible act.
To call someone names is always an ad hominem attack. Describe the argument not the messenger, Vivian. Calling someone a troll is lazy. Worst of all it demeans not the party who was the subject of the attack, but the attacker.