Folmer hasn't introduced anything yet as the senate does not reconvene until September 16th. I hear he has been getting a lot of pressure to not introduce the bill and I suspect the powers that be will get to him by the time September rolls around.

The problem is the VCA does nothing for the established powers, so it is very unlikely that it will gain much support even if introduced. While a step in the right direction, the VCA still will not give us free and equal elections.

One small change that could address both of these issues would be to amend the VCA to eliminate the requirement that political parties with more than 15% of the registered voters use the primary election system to nominate candidates. This would give the option for the major parties to not have to gather signatures and nominate candidates at their own expense just as the other political parties would.

If a party with more than 15% of the registered voters wants to use public funds in a primary election, then the signature requirement would remain. Also, if independent candidates wanted to be on the November ballot, they would have to collect the same number of signatures as a candidate for the primary except it could be from any registered voter. All candidates would have to be confirmed for the November ballot at the same time, say May 15th.

This would eliminate, or at least provide the option to eliminate, one of the concerns of the major parties, that of signatures and challenges. It would also address the late entry of candidates in August, which is of concern to the major parties.

This would make the VCA more in line with free and equal elections and would also make it much more likely to gain support should it be introduced.

Mik

Dave,

In the eyes of many legislators, much of the general public, and certainly in the eyes of most Party hacks, the current system is seen as more or less free and equal. They believe there is a system in place that allows people to run for office who want to, while at the same time eliminating the chaos that would result from voters having to choose from five or six candidates for every elected office.

While most people see our point when we make it, I don't think it will ever rank as a sufficient concern among PA voters to force legislators into a debate on the issue. If we want to make progress we will have to present something that will hold the interest of the major parties. So if you want the receptive audience, put some things they like in the draft legislation.

Not having to run statewide candidates every other year against them may be something, but if they really wanted to get rid of that they could increase the signature requirement. Look what happened in 2006. If the VCA is adopted, do the major parties expect to not have to run against other statewide candidates in the future? Of course not!!!

What is the point of gaining ballot access if then we would decide to not run candidates? I strongly doubt there would be such libertarian candidates for statewide office that we wouldn't need to field our own. The major parties don't like the burden of signatures, even at the lower numbers, and they don't like the late entry of other candidates. What is equal about having different filing deadlines for nominees?

The VCA may be free and equal as far as minor parties go, but it does not comprehensively address PA election law. The goal is free and equal elections, or at least as close an approximation as can be made in the real world. Until we get public funding out of the nomination process, or at least tie it to some additional burden, we won't get to that goal.

I'm afraid the Party powers are going to get to Sen. Folmer before he introduces the VCA. PBAC should consider some possible alterations to the VCA should it become necessary to negotiate an introduction of a bill.

Mik Robertson

Mik,

We can dream up a million ways to compromise and alter the VCA, but there is no point in doing so.  There are a number of reps who have indicated they would co-sponsor or introduce the VCA as is.  

We met with the government committee and spoke with many of our reps.  It seems to me that many of them are small minded people of limited intelligence.  If we present them with a smorgasbord, they will never be able to decide what they want to eat.  We have narrowed the VCA down to a couple simple points.  We presented them with a ballot access model that is already functioning in other states.

What we need now is a serious dialog that provides the feedback we need to either propose alternative legislation or develop a strategy to sell it to them.

I hate hearing that there is nothing in VCA for them.  I would think assuring their descendants along with every other citizen has the right to run for office without kowtowing to a major party should count for something.
  
David Jahn

Sadly, most people probably won't immediately see the positive side of the "free and equal" part of elections. Excuse my cynicism, but they might actually look at it as multiple choice test with more choices to make the selection harder. In those instances, non-D+R promoters of the legislation need another angle to push it to the public. How about this....

With a third candidate for governor a simple debate might see a topic addressed that would never be asked by two candidates representing the incumbent parties in the incumbent legislature.  A third candidate for a statewide office would help to force the D+R candidates to discuss things that they BOTH don't want to discuss. That alone makes the VCA, and balloted third candidates, important for the people of Pennsylvania.

Mark