velopments in American history. Senator Robert La Folletternwas nominated for President in Cleveland by the new ProgressivernParty on July 6, 1924. According to the New York Times ofrnJuly 12, 1924, which surveyed the ballot access restrictionsrnthat La Follette faced, in no state had the petition deadlinernpassed. In 30 of the 48 states, the petition deadline was not untilrnOctober 1924. No state required more than 12,000 signatures,rnand in all 48 states put together, approximately 50,000rnsignatures were required. La Follette ended up on the ballot ofrnall states except one, Louisiana (where only 1,000 signaturesrnwere needed to get on the ballot, but where the signers couldrnnot be registered members of the Democratic or Republicanrnparties, which was too much of a hurdle for La Follette). InrnNovember, La Follette carried one state in the electoral collegernand polled 17 percent of the popular vote.rnBy contrast, a new party formed for the 1994 election neededrnto collect 3,501,629 valid signatures if it wanted to run a fullrnslate of candidates for all federal and state offices. A partyrnin Russia needs only 100,000 signatures to get on the ballot forrnall offices; a party in South Africa needs a mere 10,000. InrnGreat Britain and Canada, no petitions are required; instead,rncandidates of all parties qualify by paying a filing fee.rnIt is true that Ross Perot got on the ballot in all 50 states inrn1992. He needed 805,759 valid signatures to do the job, andrnhe did it. But what few people know is that many states havernmade it easier for a third party or independent presidential candidaternto get on the ballot than for third party or independentrncandidates for other offices. For instance, in Florida in 1992, arnthird party or independent presidential candidate neededrn60,312 signatures, but a third party or independent candidaternfor any statewide office needed 180,936.rnIn Georgia in 1992, a third party needed 26,955 valid signaturesrnto get on the ballot for statewide office, but 134,770 additionalrnsignatures were needed to qualify a full slate of candidatesrnfor the U.S. House of Representatives, another 200,000rn(approximately) signatures to get all legislative candidatesrnon the ballot, and still another 700,000 (approximately) to getrnits candidates for county office on the ballot. The Georgia lawrnrequires a separate petition for each third party or independentrncandidate for district or county office. The petitions are notrnneeded for parties that polled at least 20 percent of the vote inrnthe entire nation for President in the last election or for partiesrnthat polled at least 20 percent of the vote for Georgia governor.rnMeanwhile, Republican and Democratic candidates inrnFlorida and Georgia are not required to submit any signaturesrnto get themselves on their own party’s primary ballots, as longrnas they are willing to pay filing fees. New party candidates inrnboth states must pay the same filing fees as well as submit thernsignatures detailed above.rnThe result of ballot access restrictions is that no party,rnother than the two major parties, has been able to putrncandidates for the U.S. House of Representatives on the ballotrnin even half of the districts since 1920, when the SocialistrnParty did it for the last time. It has therefore been theoreticallyrnimpossible for the voters to elect any party to power in thernHouse, other than the Democrats and Republicans, duringrnmost of our lifetimes.rnBecause the Democrats and Republicans themselves do notrncontest all important elections, restrictions on third party ballotrnaccess also mean that the voters frequently have no choicernwhatsoever on their ballot. Each year, either the Democrats orrnthe Republicans fail to run any candidate for one-third of allrnstate legislative races. This means that in one-third of all districts,rnthe voter is faced with only one candidate on the ballotrnfor state legislature. In Arkansas, where the ballot access lawsrnare so tough that no third party has qualified since 1970, 75rnpercent of state legislators are usually elected with no opponentrnon the November ballot.rnWhy do these restrictions exist? The U.S. Supreme Court,rnwhich upheld restrictive ballot access laws in Georgia in 1971,rnin California and Texas in 1974, and in Washington State inrn1986, says that they are needed to avoid “voter confusion” andrnto preserve “stability.” In an opinion on June 7,1994, the U.S.rnCourt of Appeals, 10th circuit, upheld an early Kansas petitionrndeadline on the grounds that the state has an interest in “voterrneducation.” In another opinion on July 14, 1994, the U.S.rnCourt of Appeals, 9th circuit, upheld a Washington Staterndeadline of July 5 on grounds of… administrative conveniencernfor elections officials! These are just polite ways of sayingrnthat the courts do not trust the voters to choose wisely, if theyrnhave meaningful choices other than voting Democratic or Republican.rnSome might argue that the two-party system is useful andrnthat ballot access restrictions are therefore helpful. This ignoresrnAmerican history, which teaches that a two-party system worksrnbetter when the people are freely permitted to organize newrnpolitical parties.rn”Two-party system” is a political science term, describing arnsystem in which two political parties are naturally bigger thanrnall other parties. Such systems invariably exist when a nationrnelects its officials on a “winner-take-all” basis rather than withrnproportional representation. If a nation does not use proportionalrnrepresentation, a two-party system comes into existence,rneven when the government does not discriminate for or againstrnany political parties or impose barriers to the formation ofrnnew parties.rnIn an ideal two-party system, the two major parties are fairlyrnevenly balanced, so that when the governing party falters orrnbecomes corrupt, or its ideas fail, there is a preexisting politicalrnparty strong enough to oust it. In a good two-party system,rnvoter turnout is high, because a relatively small share of the voterncan tip the balance between the two major parties, and a voterrnsenses that his or her vote is important.rnIn the United States, the two-party system worked far betterrnin the period 1870-1900 than it does today. During that period,rncontrol of the U.S. I louse of Representatives alternated betweenrnthe two major parties, on the average, every four years.rnFurthermore, the swing was sometimes staggering: the Housernwent Republican in 1888 by a margin of 166 to 159, but inrn1890 the Democrats won it by 235 to 88. Also, the Republicansrnwon it in 1880 by 147 to 135, but in 1882 it was Democratic byrn197 to 118. There was no need for term limits. According tornthe U.S. Census Bureau, voter turnout was never better than inrnthat period of our nation’s history. The percentage of votersrnwho were able to vote and who did vote never dipped below 75rnpercent in the period 1876-1892.rnThere were absolutely no government barriers back then tornpeople organizing new parties, and they did so frequently.rnThird parties, particularly parties representing farmers, werernstrong in that period. Except in 1888, third parties won somernscats in the House in every election during that period, peakingrnwith 40 members in 1896.rnCompare that period with elections today. Our voterrnNOVEMBER 1994/27rnrnrn