Delegates to the Libertarian Party of Michigan nominating convention in East Lansing last month selected “None Of The Above” as the party’s candidate for Governor.
Though the party platform advocates including this choice on every election ballot (giving voters the opportunity to express their displeasure with the candidates offered in a way that cannot be misinterpreted for mere apathy), the delegates knew full well that current election law prohibits voters this option even if it is proffered by a recognized political party in place of an actual person.
The tongue-in-cheek, unofficial nomination came in a moment of frivolity, a welcome respite from long hours of the serious business of nominating what ended up being a total of 93 individuals for public office this November.
Only “minor” party faithful could appreciate the irony. Putting up “None Of The Above” as an alternative to the major party candidates for governor was at once an expression of both consternation and amusement.
Under Michigan election law the ballot status of a political party — that is, whether it is regarded as “major” or “minor” and, indeed, whether it may remain on the ballot at all — depends entirely on the success of what is called its “principal candidate,” defined as the one “nearest the top of the ballot.”
A party whose principal candidate garners votes equal to 5% or more of the total vote cast in the secretary of state’s race in the preceding election is automatically qualified to remain on the ballot as a “major” party for the next election. A well-financed, high-profile personality (such as Ross Perot) can, by virtue of this peculiarity in the law, single-handedly create the appearance of an entire “major” political party.
A party whose principal candidate garners votes equal to at least 1% of the total votes cast for the successful candidate in the secretary of state’s race in the preceding election is automatically qualified to remain on the ballot as a “minor” party for the next election. The Libertarian Party consistently falls into this category.
“Major” parties and “minor” parties operate under complicated and entirely different election rules which do not bear detailing here. Why qualifications for one should be based on “total votes cast for all candidates” and the other on only “the successful candidate” for secretary of state — or, indeed, why it should be based on that particular race at all — is anybody’s guess.
A party whose principal candidate does not meet even the “minor” party threshold is officially dissolved and removed from the ballot for subsequent elections. Individuals must then gather petition signatures equal to 1% of the total vote cast in the governor’s race in the preceding election to “form a new political party” — even if it is actually just a reincarnation of an old one. Why this calculation should be based on the governor’s race is, like so much of Michigan election law, also unclear.
Assuming they successfully requalify for the ballot, minor parties such as Libertarian, Natural Law, Green, Socialist Workers, and so forth, must then struggle to clear this “principal candidate” hurdle again. Or be officially dissolved. Most, however, trip over the requirement.
When considered in light of the pervasive mythology that ours is “a two party system” — though I would defy anyone to find such a description anywhere in our constitution or election law — this top-of-ticket rule works to significantly under-represent the overall popularity of alternatives to the slate of candidates offered by the two, old parties who (no surprise here) wrote the rules.
During the last presidential campaign Libertarian fortitude and forbearance were constantly put to the test by a seemingly endless stream of well-meaning folks singing different verses of the same tune.
“I’m voting straight-ticket Libertarian… except I have to vote for Dole to stop that philanderer, Bill Clinton.” Or “I’m voting straight-ticket Libertarian… except I have to vote for Clinton to stop that dinosaur, Bob Dole.”
But the refrain was always the same: “I really like you Libertarians and what you stand for — but when it comes to president your guy can’t win and I don’t want to waste my vote.”
This is, of course, a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy — made possible by the popular, though mistaken, perception that the United States, unique among western democracies, has “a two party system.”
In any case the result was that from state board of education all the way on down the statewide ballot, Libertarian candidates in the ‘96 election got anywhere from 82,000 to 154,000 votes.
Unfortunately, the LP’s presidential candidate, Harry Browne — the party’s “principal candidate” — garnered a mere 27,980 votes. Barely enough to even keep the party alive and on the ballot for the ‘98 elections.
Now, voters are, by and large, completely unaware of this arcane “top-of-ticket” rule. Which is why the Michigan LP made a conscious decision to make the state board of education race the highest one on its ‘98 slate. At this level the party routinely garners nearly enough votes to elevate it to “major” status — many times the number of votes required to simply stay on the ballot.
In other words the delegates simply did not wish to put at risk the opportunity for Michigan voters to consider the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2000 by running someone for governor in 1998.
Inevitably, the next presidential race will again jeopardize the party’s very existence. But, the party faithful figured, the presidential election provides the best and widest possible forum to promote libertarian ideas. Better to risk ballot status in exchange for that greater exposure than for the more limited opportunities of a gubernatorial contest.
So, in a moment that brought some chuckles and even a few outright guffaws, the delegates to the 1998 Libertarian Party of Michigan convention took a break from the arduous work of selecting candidates for everything from state house and senate to U.S. Congress, from county commissioners to state board of education, to nominate “None of the Above” for governor.
What was so amusing about being caught between this political block and philosophical hard place?
Simply this. Everyone knew that even if the Bureau of Elections could certify “None Of The Above” for the ballot, they wouldn’t dare. After years of manipulating election law to guarantee victory for themselves, the Republocrats are, after all, well acquainted with the term “shoo-in.” And none of them wants to find out how state government would work without a governor.
* * *
More on elections:
- Term Limits — A baby step in the right direction
- Democracy and Democrats
- It’s good to be King (or Clerk)
- Term Limits Redux
- Democracy in Detroit
- They say the Party’s over
- The limits of Term Limits
- Reforming campaign finance reform
- School millage fatigue
- King Edward of Wayne
- Wasting your vote
- Public Act 399 and the Michigan Legislation Factory
