What does “minor party” status mean?

Why are there different rules for the political parties based on whether they are classified major or minor? Are the rules set up to benefit the minor parties or the major parties? Based on who has been in power I’m guessing the rules are set to favor the major parties, the Ds and the Rs. Also with those few Rs still pushing for Maes, because they are worried about the GOP becoming a “minor” party makes me believe that the field is set to favor the major parties. I think a little research is in order, and if the rules favor the major parties maybe it’s time for a change.

To be very clear I am not bringing this up because the Rs may be in the minor party status because of Maes. I’m bringing this up, frankly because I never knew there was a different set of rules for major and minor parties. Unless the rules give an advantage to the minor parties, the rules are wrong and the playing field should be leveled.

Your thoughts?

First, major parties are shown a the top of the ballot in each race. If the Republican Party becomes a minor party, it will no longer have a random chance of obtaining the top line on the ballot. Minor parties are listed alphabetically below the major parties. Basically, it would mean the Democratic Party and the American Constitutional Party would get the two top spots on ballots.

Unlike “major” parties, a minor party cannot raise money for both primary and general elections unless it has more than one candidate in any primary race. A major party is required to hold a primary election, even if there is only one candidate for each office, and it can raise money both during the primary and the general election.

Tancredo, meanwhile, very well could make the American Constitution Party a major party in Colorado by taking more than 10 percent of the vote, which is considered likely. The ACP in Colorado has 2,330 registered members, compared to 863,000 registered Republicans in Colorado.

If that happens, the ACP would be bound by major party rules, including a requirement to hold expensive statewide caucuses. Jim Clymer, national chairman of the ACP, welcomed the opportunity.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/19/gop-f ... z130cySEUL

As far as working this out in the next legislature, that's a Dick Wadhams dream.

State Senate President Brandon Shaffer said Wadhams can't count on it if Democrats retain their majority in the Legislature next month.

"I don't have a lot of sympathy for Dick Wadhams," Shaffer said. "It's his job to recruit good candidates for the Republican Party and he failed."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_ ... n_quandary

Colorado would be the first state in the union where the Republican Party is listed as a minor party.

one issue with minor party status means that unless you have an active primary opponent, you can not raise funds except for the general election. Since there are strict limits on campaign donations, if you are a minor party candidate, this limits your campaign fund because you are either spending your donations against your primary opponent, or you can only raise half the amount of a major party candidate. On the flip side, if you are a major party candidate, then you can raise for both primary and general election, even if you do not have a primary opponent. I believe that most news stations also limit minor party candidates from participating in debates unless they are polling at a high number.

One point that those who are trying to get Maes out of the race, is that automatically drops the Republicans to a minor party. The Republicans can not select Tancredo as their candidate, because he renounced his party membership to become the ACP candidate, and under their bylaws you have to be a Republican for a set amount of time. So if Maes did drop out, the Reps become a minor party and lose their ability to raise as much money as the Dems, and if Maes stays in and gets less than 10%, the Reps become a minor party. But if Maes gets more than 10%, Hickenlooper will win.

One of the reasons I want to see Tancredo win is to have the big parties taken down a peg. Also would like to see the independent Crist win in Florida. He is pretty close to Rubio.

And back to your original point, I think it is unfair to make seperate rules for major and minor parties, but it would be cumbersome to let everyone in a debate. Maybe make major parties include the top five based on voting.

SS109 wrote: Maybe make major parties include the top five based on voting.

You may have stumbled onto a great idea...kind of like the 'American Idol' of politics.

Would you really want a political party that garnered only 1% of the vote to be on equal status with a party that garnered 40% of the vote?

Pineguy wrote: Would you really want a political party that garnered only 1% of the vote to be on equal status with a party that garnered 40% of the vote?

Yes I would. Maybe then we'd see some real change.

Why should the candidates from the major parties get top billing on the ballot? That seems patently unfair. How about listing the viable candidates in alphabetical order, or by birth date, or some other arbitrary order?
So bottom line it is about ballot position, and the ability to raise money? Which means it’s about power and maintaining the status quo.