Editing Ballot access (section)

==Arguments==
The primary argument put forward by States for restricting ballot access has been the presumption that setting ballot access criteria too low would result in numerous candidates on the ballot, splitting the votes of similar minded voters. Example: With [[plurality voting]], also known as [[First-past-the-post voting|first-past-the-post]], the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the candidate does not have a majority of the votes. Suppose 55% Belief A and 45% Belief B vote in a district. If two candidates appeal to A, but only one appeals to B, the votes of A could split between the two A candidates, say 25% vote for one and 30% for the other, giving the B candidate the office although 55% preferred to see an A candidate in the office.  However, proponents of ballot access reform say that reasonably easy access to the ballot does not lead to a glut of candidates, even where many candidates do appear on the ballot. The 1880s reform movement that led to officially designed secret ballots, such as the [[Australian ballot]], had some salutary effects, but it also gave the government control over who could be on the ballot.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/ahistoryaustral00evangoog/page/n5|title=A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States|last=Evans|first=Eldon|publisher=The University of Chicago Press|year=1917|location=Chicago, Illinois|pages=21–26}}</ref> As historian Peter Argersinger has pointed out, the reform that empowered officials to regulate access onto the ballot, also carried the danger that this power would be abused by officialdom and that legislatures controlled by established political parties, would enact restrictive ballot access laws to ensure re-election of their party's candidates.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Argersinger|first=Peter|date=April 1980|title="A Place on the Ballot": Fusion Politics and Antifusion Laws|journal=The American Historical Review|volume=85|issue=2|pages=287–306|jstor=1860557|doi=10.2307/1860557}}</ref>

Perhaps the most prominent advocate of the 1880s ballot reform movement, [[John Henry Wigmore]], suggested that "ten signatures" might be an appropriate requirement for nomination to the official ballot for a legislative office.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/australianballo02wigmgoog/page/n6|title=The Australian Ballot System as Embodied in the Legislation of Various Countries|last=Wigmore|first=John|publisher=The Boston Book Company|year=1889|location=Boston, Massachusetts|pages=53}}</ref> In the 20th century, ballot access laws imposing signature requirements far more restrictive than Wigmore had envisioned were enacted by many state legislatures; in many cases, the two major parties wrote the laws such that the burdens created by these new ballot access requirements (usually in the form of difficult signature-gathering [[nominating petition]] drives) fell on alternative candidates, but not on major party candidates. Proponents of more open ballot access argue that restricting ballot access has the effect of unjustly restricting the choices available to voters, and typically disadvantages [[Third party (United States)|third party]] candidates and other candidates who are not affiliated with the established parties.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Sifry|first=Michah|date=February 2, 2018|title=Why America Is Stuck With Only Two Parties|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/146884/america-stuck-two-parties|magazine=The New Republic}}</ref><ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/23/|title=Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)|website=Justia Law|language=en|access-date=2019-12-30}}</ref>

President [[George H. W. Bush]] signed the [[Copenhagen Document]] of the [[Helsinki Accords]] that states in part:

{{cquote|(7.5) – respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organizations, without discrimination;

(7.6) – respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities;...}}

The [[Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]] (OSCE) has criticized the United States for its ballot access laws. In 1996, United States delegates responded to the criticism by saying that unfair ballot access "could be remedied through existing appeal and regulatory structures and did not represent a breach of the Copenhagen commitments."<ref>"[http://ballot-access.org/1997/0505.html#01 U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Fusion]", ''[[Ballot Access News]]'', 5 May 1997. Retrieved 22 September 2008</ref>  The OSCE published a report on the 2004 United States election, which among other things, noted restrictive ballot access laws.<ref>[http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2005/03/13658_en.pdf "OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report on the 2 November 2004 elections in the United States", ''OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights'', 31 March 2005. Retrieved 22 September 2008.]</ref>