Super-majorities. Make the office a non-partisan one, appointed by a vote of 75% or more in the Legislature. You need to have a Chief Electoral Officer to run the election, so the representatives in the Legislature are forced to come to a compromise on someone that does not have ties to either party.
For example, in Canada, the current Chief Electoral Officer was appointed by a unanimous resolution of the Commons, moved by all four parties:
[QUOTE=Journals of the House of Commons]
Pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform) [Conservative], seconded by Mr. Goodale (Wascana) [Liberal] and, by unanimous consent, by Mr. Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean) [Bloc Québécois] and Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) [NDP], moved, — That, in accordance with section 13 of the Canada Elections Act, Chapter 9 of the Statutes of Canada, 2000, this House appoint Marc Mayrand as Chief Electoral Officer.
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to.
[/QUOTE]
Once appointed, the CEO serves until age 65, on good behaviour, and can only be removed by the Governor General on resolutions of the Commons and the Senate: the same security of tenure as a federally appointed judge. Neither the CEO nor the Assistant CEO can vote in federal elections. They are the only adult Canadians who are barred from voting.
I thought that it was in the governor’s race that that was happening.
I think New York is notable in allowing one person to be nominated by multiple parties and thus to appear on more than one “line” on the ballot (“fusion candidates”).
Although, I do know that when Earl Warren was governor of California—originally elected as a Republican—he was re-elected as the nominee of three parties—Republican, Democratic, and Progressive.
I think a lot of states don’t allow this, but I don’t know what the situation is in Kansas.
Roberts must be worried - he’s pulling out the big guns. John McCain was here this week for a campaign event, and I heard that Sarah Palin is supposed to be coming for a visit next week. :rolleyes:
A court has ruled that the Democrats do not need to put up a candidate:
Different state, different case, but I remember a judge in New Jersey saying that the voters MUST have a choice, regardless of what the law says.
As with so many of your assertions, this one is wrong. Many elections, including ones for the House of Representatives and the Senate, have a candidate who is running unopposed.
A voter can always “choose” to write in Mickey Mouse. Many do. Problem solved.
Though Mickey would be a terrible senator, I can at least see him acknowledging global warming exists and is man-made, unlike most Republicans
I assume that he is referring to The New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson,
175 N.J. 178, 814 A.2d 1028 (2002), which allowed Torricelli to be replaced on the New Jersey Sentate ballot after the statutory deadline.
adaher’s point is a little too cute, but it is not “wrong.” Two cases in which Senate ballots were changed, once by adding/substituting a name, once by subtracting a name, once giving voters “more”/different choice, once giving voters less. The commonalities were decisions by Democratic-nominated judges in favor of the Democratic Party’s preferred result, and contrary to highly-technical readings of state election laws. It’s not entirely fair to lump the two circumstances but it’s also a bit too cavalier to ignore the results-oriented logic. I’d say that the Republican view is the more cynical one in Kansas, the Democratic view the more cynical one in New Jersey.
I agree. THe judge did not, even though there already was a candidate on the ballot, but who wanted to get off. He ruled that the Democrats had the right to replace him days before the election on the made up theory that voters had to have a choice, even though they already had one.
You know, I’d forgotten all about that. My apologies to adaher.