text:
Ballot access

Ballot access are rules and procedures regulating the right to candidacy, the conditions under which a candidate, political party, or ballot measure is entitled to appear on voters' ballots in elections in the United States. The jurisprudence of the right to candidacy and right to create a political party are less clear than voting rights in the United States. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has established in multiple cases that the federal constitution does not recognize a fundamental right to candidacy, and that state governments have a legitimate government interest in blocking "frivolous or fraudulent candidacies". As election processes are decentralized by Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, ballot access laws are established and enforced by the states. As a result, ballot access processes may vary from one state to another. State access requirements for candidates generally pertain to personal qualities of a candidate, such as: minimum age, residency, and citizenship. Additionally, many states require prospective candidates to collect a specified number of qualified voters' signatures on petitions of support and mandate the payment of filing fees before granting access; ballot measures are similarly regulated (as is the wording and format of petitions as well). Each state also regulates how political parties qualify for automatic ballot access, and how those minor parties that do not can. Fundamental to democracy, topics related to ballot access are the subject of considerable debate in the United States.

In order to get on the ballot, a candidate, political party, or ballot measure must meet various requirements. The Elections Clause in Article I of the Constitution states that "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof." Consequently, each state may design its own unique criteria for ballot access. The United States is one of the few nations that do not have uniform national laws on ballot access.

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, 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. 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.

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. 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 candidates and other candidates who are not affiliated with the established parties.

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

(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." The OSCE published a report on the 2004 United States election, which among other things, noted restrictive ballot access laws.

Ballot access laws by state
Ballot access laws in the United States vary widely from state to state: If at the last preceding gubernatorial election there was polled for any one of the party's candidates for any office voted on throughout the state, at least 2 percent of the entire vote of the state; If on or before the 135th day before any primary election, it appears to the Secretary of State, as a result of examining and totaling the statement of voters and their political affiliations transmitted to him or her by the county elections officials, that voters equal in number to at least 1 percent of the entire vote of the state at the last preceding gubernatorial election have declared their intention to affiliate with that party.
 * Alabama: Although not required to, major party candidates are nominated by the state primary process. Independent candidates are granted ballot access through a petition process and minor political party candidates are nominated by convention along with a petition process; one must collect 3% of the total votes cast in the last election for the specific race or 3% of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election for statewide ballot access. The figure for 2016 and 2018 statewide ballot access is 35,412 valid signatures. Be aware that the validity of signatures generally means that 20–30% more signatures will need to be collected to ensure that the goal is achieved. To retain ballot access in the following election, a party has to poll 20% in a statewide race.
 * Arizona: To gain ballot access, a new political party must gather signatures on a county–by–county basis, achieving over 20,000 valid signatures (i.e. from registered voters). Once this has been achieved the party must run a candidate for Governor or President who garners at least 5% of the vote to maintain ballot access for an additional two years, maintain at least 1% of registered voters registered with their party, or gather approximately the same number of signatures again every two years. The Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican parties have ballot access by voter registrations. In 2008, the Arizona Green Party gathered enough signatures to gain ballot access.
 * California:
 * Any office, all elections – Per section 5100 of the California Election Code, ballot access requires one of two conditions to be met:
 * Governor, primary elections – Under legislation signed into law in 2019, candidates for Governor of California must publicly release personal tax returns for the previous five years in order to be listed on the primary election ballot in that state; write-in candidates are exempt from this requirement. As initially enacted, the law also applied to candidates for President of the United States; this provision was later held to be unconstitutional by the courts.
 * Colorado allows candidates to be placed on the ballot either through political party assemblies, or by collecting the required number of valid signatures as specified in Colorado Revised Statutes 1-4-801 and 1-4-802 for major- and minor-party candidates respectively. The major parties are parties whose gubernatorial candidates received at least 10% of the vote in the most recent general election. The relevant county, state house, state senate, judicial district, congressional district, and state assembly place all the candidates who receive 30% or more of the assembly vote on the primary ballot; a candidate who receives less than 10% of an assembly vote is ineligible to try the signature route for the same primary ballot. Candidates may choose to bypass the assembly route altogether in favor of collecting signatures. The required number of valid signatures per congressional district for statewide candidates ranges from 500 for State Board of Education and University of Colorado Regent to 1,500 for governor and US Senate. For other offices, the signature requirement is based on the lesser of a specified number of signatures and a specified percentage of the vote for that seat in the previous election – the primary if one was held for the major party and the general election otherwise and for minor-party candidates.
 * Georgia In 2016 Georgia required a third-party presidential candidate to produce 7,500 signatures of registered voters to gain ballot access. The 7,500 number was imposed by Federal District Court Judge Richard Story in a March 17, 2016, ruling against the state that their requirement of signatures equaling at least 1% of the total number of registered and eligible voters in the most recent presidential election was an unconstitutionally high barrier.  The number would have been about 50,334.  On April 13, 2016, the Georgia secretary of state appealed the decision without seeking a stay until the state legislature acts to change the requirement. Reason magazine reported in October 2022 that the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear a case that would have challenged the ballot access laws of Georgia, which were reported as some of the most onerous in the nation that have kept any third party off the ballot for nearly sixty years from 2022 prior: "Candidates for federal elected office in Georgia face different hurdles depending on which party they belong to. Republicans and Democrats get on the ballot automatically, since each party received at least 20 percent of the vote in previous elections. But for any third-party candidate running for a districted position, like in the House of Representatives, they must first collect signatures from 5 percent of all registered voters in their district—between 20,000 and 27,000. That task has proved so daunting that no third-party House candidate from Georgia has achieved it in nearly six decades."
 * Illinois: The threshold barrier to ballot access in Illinois is collecting an adequate number of voters' signatures on nominating petitions. Illinois distinguishes between "Established Parties" (i.e., the Democratic Party and Republican Party, although other parties may achieve Established Party status on a county-by-county basis), "New Parties", and Independent Candidates. The signature requirements are lower for Established Parties than New Parties or Independent Candidates. The petitions must be circulated no more than 90 days prior to the filing deadline. (New for 2022 only: Due to COVID-related census information delays, the Illinois General Assembly pushed back the 2022 Illinois Primary Election and truncated the petition circulation period to 60 days.) Candidates in Illinois must also file a notarized Statement of Candidacy and, for non-federal offices, a Statement of Economic Interests. Candidates may also, but are not legally required to, submit a Code of Fair Campaign Practices pledge and a Loyalty Oath. The Loyalty Oath requirement was ruled unconstitutional in 1972.
 * Statewide Offices: Established Party candidates must submit between 5,000 and 10,000 signatures. New Parties & Independents must submit at least the lesser of 25,000 signatures or 1% of the number of voters who cast a ballot in the preceding general election. Statewide offices in Illinois include the Governor, Lt. Governor, Comptroller, Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Attorney General, and United States Senator. (New for 2022 only: Statewide candidates of Established parties require 3,250–6,500 valid signatures.)
 * Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives: Established Party candidates must submit at least 0.5% of the primary voters in the candidate's party in the congressional district. New Party & Independents must submit at least 5% of the number of voters who cast a ballot in the preceding general election. (New for 2022 only: Congressional candidates of Established parties require only 1/3 of their typical valid signature requirement.)
 * Senator in the Illinois General Assembly: Established Party candidates must submit between 1,000 and 3,000 signatures from voters in the Illinois Senate district. New Party & Independents must submit signatures from at least 5% of the number of voters who cast a ballot in Illinois Senate district the preceding general election. (New for 2022 only: State Senate candidates of Established parties require 650–2,000 valid signatures.)
 * Representative in the Illinois General Assembly: Established Party candidates must submit between 1,000 and 3,000 signatures from voters in the Illinois House district. New Party & Independents must submit signatures from at least 5% of the number of voters who cast a ballot in Illinois House district the preceding general election. (New for 2022 only: State Representative candidates of Established parties require 400–1,000 valid signatures.)
 * Kentucky uses a three-tier system for ballot access, using the results of the previous presidential election as the gauge. If a party's presidential candidate achieves less than 2% of the popular vote within the state, that organization is a "political group". If the candidate receives 2% or more, but less than 20% of the popular vote in Kentucky, that organization is a "political organization". Parties whose candidate for president achieves at least 20% of the popular vote are considered "political parties". Taxpayer-funded primaries are achieved as a "political party". Automatic ballot access is obtained as a "political organization" or "political party", and these levels require only 2 signatures for a candidate to run for any partisan office. There is no mechanism for placing an entire party on the ballot in Kentucky, other than achieving "political organization" or "political party" status. Candidates of "political groups" and independent candidates must collect a minimum of between 25 and 5000 signatures to run for any particular partisan office. Filing fees apply equitably to all levels. Traditionally, the state only tracked voter registration affiliation as Democratic (D), Republican (R), or Other (O). Beginning 1 January 2006, Kentucky law provides for County Clerks to track the voter registration of Constitution (C), Green (G), Libertarian (L), Reform (F), and Socialist Workers (S), as well as independent (I); though a number of County Clerks have not been complying with this regulation.
 * Louisiana is one of the easiest states to get on the ballot. Anyone may obtain a spot on the ballot by either paying a qualifying fee, or submitting petition signatures. For independent candidates for President (or non-recognized parties) the fee is $500 or 5000 signatures, with at least 500 from each Congressional district. Recognized Parties simply file their slate of Electors – their access is automatic, no fee or signatures required. For statewide office, the signature requirement is the same as that for president, but the fees are $750 for Governor and $600 for all other statewide offices. District and local office fees range from $40 or 50 signatures for a small town office, to $600 or 1000 signatures for US House. All signatures for district offices must come from within that district. If the office is for a political party committee, the signatures must be from people affiliated with that party. For Presidential Preference Primaries, the fee is $750 or 1000 signatures affiliated with that party from each Congressional district. (pdf) Present Louisiana law only allows for Presidential Primaries if a party has more than 40,000 registered voters statewide. Currently, this only applies to the Democratic and Republican Parties. Louisiana law changed in 2004 under efforts from the Libertarian Party of Louisiana to relax rules in place at that time for recognizing political parties in the state. There are now two methods to gain official recognition. Method A allows a party to be recognized if it pays a $1000 fee AND has 1000 or more voters registered under its label. To retain recognition, it must field a candidate at least once in any four-year period in a statewide election – with no requirement on performance in the election. Statewide election slots include Presidential Elector, Governor, Senator, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Comm. of Insurance, and Commissioner of Agriculture.  To date, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party have used this method to attain and retain official party recognition. Method B allows a party to be recognized if one of its candidates in a statewide race or for Presidential Elector achieves 5% of the vote. To retain recognition, it must repeat the 5% tally for statewide office or Presidential Elector at least once in any four-year period. To date, the Reform Party has used this method to gain and retain official party recognition. Due to their size, parties recognized by these methods are exempt from certain laws governing public elections of political committee offices and from certain financial reporting requirements until their membership reaches 5% of registered voters statewide. Recognized political parties in Louisiana are allowed to have their party name appear alongside their candidates on the ballot, and for their party to be offered as a specific choice on voter registration cards. Non-recognized parties appear as OTHER, and the party name must be written in on the registration card.  Non-affiliated voters are listed as N for No Party. In the 2008 and 2010 Congressional elections, Louisiana experimented with closed primaries for House and Senate. Under this system, recognized parties participated in semi-closed primaries before the general election. Only one candidate from each party was allowed on the General Election ballot; there was no limit for OTHER or NONE. An attempt to pass a law differentiating "minor" parties similar to the rule for Presidential Primaries was defeated but made irrelevant by Louisiana reverting to its "Jungle Primary" system where all candidates, regardless of number from any party, all compete together on the same ballot. If no one achieves a majority, a general election is held as a run-off between the top two, also regardless of party affiliation.
 * Maryland: Party certifications are done for each gubernatorial cycle (e.g. 2006–2010). If the number of registered voters to a political party is less than 1%, then 10,000 petition signatures must be gathered for that party to be considered certified. A party must be certified before voters can register under that party. A party can also be certified for a two-year term if their "top of the ticket" candidate receives more than 1% of the vote.
 * Michigan: Major party candidates for Congress, governor, state legislature, countywide offices, and township offices are chosen through a primary system. A candidate can appear on the ballot by filing petition signatures; candidates for certain offices may file a $100 filing fee in lieu of filing petition signatures. All minor-party candidates, as well as major-party candidates for certain statewide offices, are chosen by a convention. Candidates running for nonpartisan offices (including judgeships, school boards, and most city offices) can appear on the ballot via petitions, as can candidates running for partisan offices without party affiliation.
 * Minnesota: Major party candidates are nominated by the state primary process. Independent and minor political party candidates are nominated by a petition process; 2,000 signatures for a statewide election, or 500 for a state legislative election. Candidates have a two-week period to collect nominating petition signatures. Independent candidates may select a brief political party designation in lieu of independent.
 * Missouri exempts parties from needing to gather signatures if they attain 2% of the vote in a statewide election.
 * New York
 * To be recognized, a political party must gain 50,000 votes in the most recent gubernatorial election. (There are, as of 2019, eight such parties. Three of these have primarily resorted to electoral fusion and usually only nominate candidates already on either the Democratic or Republican lines.) This allows for primary elections and allows statewide candidates to be exempted from having to petition. Any other candidate must file petitions. For statewide candidates, 15,000 signatures are required, and there must be at least 100 signatures from each of at least 1/2 of the congressional districts in the state (27 as of 2014). All state legislature and congressional candidates must file petitions regardless of party nominations, except in special elections. Village and town elections have less restrictive ballot access rules.

 * North Carolina's law pertaining to ballot access is codified in N.C.G.S Chapter 163 Elections and Election Law:
 * New Political Parties: According to N.C.G.S. §163-96(a)(2) for a new political party to gain access to the election ballot they must obtain signatures on a petition equal to at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for Governor in the most recent election by no later than 12:00 noon on the first day of June before the election in which the party wishes to participate. In addition, at least 200 signatures must come from at least four separate US Congressional Districts each within the state. To qualify for the 2010 or 2012 election ballot a new political party must gather at least 85,379 signatures within approximately a 3.5 year time span, averaging at least 67 signatures every day for three and half years straight counting weekdays and holidays.
 * Political Party Retention Requirement: According to N.C.G.S. §163-96(a)(1) in order for a political party to remain certified for the election ballot after obtaining access to the ballot, or to remain recognized by the State of North Carolina, that party must successfully garner at least 2% of the total vote cast for Governor for its candidate. If a party's candidate for Governor fails to receive at least 2% of the vote, that party loses ballot access (N.C.G.S. §163-97 ) and must begin the petitioning process over again, and the voter affiliation of all registered voters affiliated with that party is changed to unaffiliated (N.C.G.S. §163-97.1 ).
 * Statewide Unaffiliated Requirements: According to N.C.G.S. §163-122(a)(1) in order for an unaffiliated candidate to qualify for the election ballot for a statewide office, the candidate must obtain signatures on a petition equal to at least 2% of the total number of votes caste for Governor in the most recent election by 12:00 noon on the last Friday in June before the election in which the candidate wishes to participate. In addition, at least 200 signatures must come from at least four separate US Congressional Districts each within the state. To qualify for the 2010 or 2012 election ballot unaffiliated statewide candidates must obtain at least 85,379 signatures.
 * District Unaffiliated Requirements: According to N.C.G.S. §163-122(a)(2–3) in order for an unaffiliated candidate to qualify for the election ballot for a district office, the candidate must obtain signatures on a petition equal to at least 4% of the total number of registered voters within the district that the candidate is running for election in as of January 1 of the election year in which the candidate desires to appear on the election ballot. Signatures must be turned in by 12:00 noon on the last Friday in June before the election in which the candidate wishes to participate.  District candidates effectively cannot start petitioning for ballot access until after January 1 of the election year they are running for election, giving them just under half a year to obtain signatures for ballot access. To qualify for the 2010 election ballot unaffiliated US Congressional candidates are required to obtain as many as 22,544 signatures and an average of 18,719 signatures required for access to the 2010 election ballot.
 * North Dakota requires 7,000 petition signatures to create a new political party and nominate a slate of candidates for office. Independent candidates need 1,000 for a statewide office or 300 for a state legislative office. The independent nominating petition process does not allow for candidates to appear on the ballot with a political party designation, in lieu of independent, except for presidential elections.
 * Ohio: Late in 2006, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated Ohio's law for ballot access for new political parties in a suit brought by the Libertarian Party of Ohio. After the November elections, the outgoing Secretary of State and Attorney General requested an extension to file an appeal to the US Supreme Court so that the decision to appeal could be made by the newly elected Secretary of State and Attorney General. The new Secretary of State did not appeal, but instead asserted her authority as Chief Election Officer of Ohio to issue new ballot access rules. In July 2008, a US District Court invalidated the Secretary of State's rules and placed the Libertarian Party on the ballot. Three other parties subsequently sued and were placed on the ballot by the Court or by the Secretary of State.
 * Oklahoma: A party is defined either as a group that polled 10% for the office at the top of the ticket in the last election (i.e., president or governor), or that submits a petition signed by voters equal to 5% of the last vote cast for the office at the top of the ticket. An independent presidential candidate, or the presidential candidate of an unqualified party, may get on the ballot with a petition of 3% of the last presidential vote. Oklahoma is the only state in the nation in which an independent presidential candidate, or the presidential candidate of a new or previously unqualified party, needs support from more than 2% of the last vote cast to get on the ballot. An initiative was circulated in 2007 to lower the ballot access rules for political parties.
 * Pennsylvania: A new party or independent candidate may gain ballot access for one election as a "political body" by collecting petition signatures equal to 2% of the vote for the highest vote-getter in the most recent election in the jurisdiction. A political body that wins 2% of the vote obtained by the highest vote-getter statewide in the same election is recognized statewide as a "political party" for two years. A political party with a voter enrollment equal to less than 15% of the state's total partisan enrollment is classified as a "minor political party," which has automatic ballot access in special elections but must otherwise collect the same number of signatures as political bodies. Political parties not relegated to "minor" status qualify to participate in primary elections. Candidates may gain access to primary election ballots by collecting a set number of petition signatures for each office, generally significantly fewer than required for political bodies and minor political parties.
 * South Dakota: For a registered political party in a statewide election they must collect petition signatures equal to 1% of the vote for that political party in the preceding election for state governor. An independent candidate must collect petition signatures equal to 1% of the total votes for state governor, and a new political party must collect 250 petition signatures. In state legislative elections, a registered political party needs to collect 50 signatures and an independent candidate must collect 1% of the total votes cast for state governor in the preceding election in their respective district.
 * Tennessee: A candidate seeking a House or Senate seat at the state or national level must gather 25 signatures from registered voters to be put on the ballot for any elected office. Presidential candidates seeking to represent an officially recognized party must either be named as candidates by the Tennessee Secretary of State or gather 2,500 signatures from registered voters, and an independent candidate for president must gather 275 signatures and put forward a full slate of eleven candidates who have agreed to serve as electors. To be recognized as a party and have its candidates listed on the ballot under that party's name, a political party must gather signatures equal to or in excess of 2.5% of the total number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election (about 45,000 signatures based on the election held in 2006). A third party to be officially recognized was the American Party in 1968; none of its candidates received 5% of the statewide vote in 1970 or 1972 and it was then subject to decertification as an official party after the 1972 election. In 2012, a state court ruled that the Green Party of Tennessee and the Constitution Party of Tennessee would join the Republican and Democratic Parties on the ballot beginning with the November 6, 2012 election.
 * Texas: For a registered political party in a statewide election to gain ballot access, they must either: obtain 5% of the vote in any statewide election; or collect petition signatures equal to 1% of the total votes cast in the preceding election for governor, and must do so by January 2 of the year in which such statewide election is held. An independent candidate for any statewide office must collect petition signatures equal to 1% of the total votes cast for governor, and must do so beginning the day after primary elections are held and complete collection within 60 days thereafter (if runoff elections are held, the window is shortened to beginning the day after runoff elections are held and completed within 30 days thereafter). The petition signature cannot be from anyone who voted in either primary (including runoff), and voters cannot sign multiple petitions (they must sign a petition for one party or candidate only).
 * Virginia: A candidate for any statewide or local office must be qualified to vote for as well as hold the office they are running for, must have been "a resident of the county, city or town which he offers at the time of filing", a resident of the district, if it is an election for a specific district, and a resident of Virginia for one year before the election. For any office the candidate must obtain signatures of at least 125 registered voters for the area where they are running for office (except in communities of fewer than 3,500 people, where the number is lower), and if they are running as a candidate from a political party where partisan elections are permitted, must pay a fee of 2% of their yearly salary (no fee is required for persons not running as a candidate for a primary of a political party). Petitions, along with additional paperwork, must be filed between about four and five months before the election, subject to additional requirements for candidates for a primary election. 1,000 signatures are required for a US House race and 10,000 for a statewide race (i.e. US president, US Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or Attorney General), including 400 from each Congressional district. Nominees of a political party that "at either of the two preceding statewide general elections, received at least 10 percent of the total vote cast for any statewide office filled in that election" are exempt from needing to gather signatures.

Constitutional dimensions of ballot access laws
The Constitution has limited the states' discretion to determine their own ballot access laws:
 * the right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment (when the restrictions involve a discriminatory classification of voters, candidates, or political parties);
 * rights of political association under the First Amendment (especially when the restrictions burden the rights of political parties and other political associations, but also when they infringe on the rights of a candidate or a voter not to associate with a political party);
 * rights of free expression under the First Amendment;
 * rights of voters (which the Supreme Court has said are "inextricably intertwined" with the rights of candidates);
 * property interests and liberty interests in candidacy;
 * other rights to "due process of law"
 * the right to petition the government (this argument is sometimes raised to allege that signature-gathering requirements, or the rules implementing them, are unfairly restrictive);
 * freedom of the press (which historically included the right to print ballots containing the name of the candidate of one's choosing);
 * the right to a "republican form of government," which is guaranteed to each state (although this clause has been held not to be enforceable in court by individual citizens).

The US Supreme Court precedent on ballot access laws cases has been conflicting. In Williams v. Rhodes (1969) the court struck down Ohio's ballot access laws on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. During the 1970s the Supreme Court upheld strict ballot access laws, with a 'compelling State interest' being the "preservation of the integrity of the electoral process and regulating the number of candidates on the ballot to avoid voter confusion."

The Supreme Court did strike down provisions in a ballot access law in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), but most of the subsequent court rulings in the 1980s–2000s continued to uphold ballot access laws in both primary and general elections. Among the most notable of these cases from the 1970s–1990s:
 * Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972)
 * Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979)
 * U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
 * Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974)
 * Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992).

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

Requiring an otherwise eligible candidate or political party to obtain signatures greater than 5% of the eligible voters in the previous election may be unconstitutional. This is based on Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971); the court upheld a restrictive ballot access law with this 5% signature requirement, whereas the Williams v. Rhodes (1969) had involved a 15% signature requirement. Most State ballot access requirements, even the more restrictive ones, are less than 5%, and the Supreme Court has generally refused to hear ballot access cases that involved an Independent or minor party candidate challenging a ballot access law that requires less than 5%.

International human rights law and ballot access
International agreements that have the status of treaties of the US are part of the supreme law of the land, under Article VI of the United States Constitution:
 * International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 25
 * Copenhagen Document, ¶¶6–8, Annex I to 1990 Charter of Paris

Another source of international human rights law derives from universally accepted norms that have found expression in resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not binding under US law the way a treaty is, this type of norm is recognized as a source of international law in such treaties as the Statute of the International Court of Justice, to which the US is a party:
 * Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 21

(NB: to be completed)

Write-in status versus ballot access
Depending on the office and the state, it may be possible for a voter to cast a write-in vote for a candidate whose name does not appear on the ballot. It is extremely rare for such a candidate to win office. In some cases, write-in votes are simply not counted. Having one's name printed on the ballot confers an enormous advantage over candidates who are not on the ballot. The US Supreme Court has noted that write-in status is not a substitute for being on the ballot.

The two most notable cases of write-in candidates actually winning are the elections of Lisa Murkowski in 2010 and Strom Thurmond in 1954, both to the United States Senate. Other cases include the election of Charlotte Burks to the Tennessee State Senate seat of her late husband, Tommy Burks, murdered by his only opponent on the ballot; and the write-in primary victories in the re-election campaign of Mayor Anthony A. Williams of the District of Columbia. All of these cases involved unique political circumstances, a popular and well–known candidate, and a highly organized and well–funded write-in education campaign.

Other obstacles facing third parties
The growth of any third political party in the United States faces extremely challenging obstacles, among them restrictive ballot access. Other obstacles often cited as barriers to third-party growth include:
 * Requirement hurdle of a number of signatures (often in the many thousands) required prior to placing a third-party candidate on the ballot (a requirement often waived entirely for other parties, in the US, such as the Democratic and Republican parties );
 * Campaign funding reimbursement for any political party that gets at least 5% of the vote—implemented in many states "to help smaller parties"—typically helps the two biggest parties;
 * Laws intended to fight corporate donations, with loopholes that require teams of lawyers to navigate the laws;
 * The role of corporate money in propping up the two established parties;
 * The allegedly related general reluctance of news organizations to cover minor political party campaigns;
 * Moderate voters being divided between the major parties, or registered independent, so that both major primaries are hostile to moderate or independent candidates;
 * Politically motivated gerrymandering of election districts by those in power, to reduce or eliminate political competition (two-party proponents would argue that the minority party in that district should just nominate a more centrist candidate relative to that district);
 * Plurality voting scaring voters from credibly considering more than two major parties, as opponents of one would have to unite behind the other to have the most effective chance of winning (see Duverger's law);
 * The extended history and reputations of the two established parties, with both existing for over 150 years and being entrenched in the minds of the public;
 * The absence of proportional representation;
 * The 15% poll requirement by the non-government entity Commission on Presidential Debates;
 * The public view that third parties have no chance of beating the worse of evils, and are therefore a wasted vote;
 * Campaign costs of convincing interested voters that the party nominee has a chance of winning, and regaining that trust after an election where the third party got the third-most votes or split the vote between two similar candidates so that the most disliked candidate won (i.e. "spoiling" the election; this is less of a problem with Condorcet voting and range voting).

Justification of strict ballot access laws by two party supporters
Strict ballot access laws are not required for a two–party system, as can be seen by the experience of the United Kingdom. However, the following arguments are put forth about the need for strict ballot access laws in the United States:
 * With plurality voting, allowing third candidates on the ballot could split the vote of a majority and throw the race to a candidate not favored by the majority. Allowing only two candidates on the ballot ensures that at least the worst one is never elected.
 * If a third party could get enough votes to win an election, then voters who would support the nominee could infiltrate one of the two parties by registering as members, and force a win in that party's primary. However, pulling this off would take considerable coordination on the part of the supporting voters, especially if half of them preferred to infiltrate the other major party or remain independent. It would also depend on the rules of the major party for how people may become candidates in their primary, and on which registered members may vote in the primary.
 * There is a one person one vote mandate. If voters could vote in a primary for one candidate, and then sign a petition for another candidate, this would violate that mandate. Some voters might sign a petition for the candidate they want, and then vote in the primary for the candidate who would be easier to beat. Since primary votes are anonymous, and a party therefore cannot remove that voter's vote after it is cast, the only remedy is to strike the voter's signature on the petition. As for signatures not counting if a voter later votes in a primary, that could be reformed since the political party would know in advance about the signatures if they are filed in time.
 * Sore loser laws, where a candidate who loses in a primary may not then run as an independent candidate in that same election, stem from contract laws. Similar–minded candidates run in the same primary with the contract that the losers will drop out of the race and support the winner so that they do not split the votes of similar–minded voters and cause the other party's nominee to win with 40% of the vote. The need for primaries is primarily because of plurality voting, whose rules state that the candidate receiving the most votes wins, even if not a majority.
 * Strict ballot access laws make it difficult for extremists to get on the ballot, since few people would want to sign their petition.

title: Ballot access


text:
User talk:HarryHenryGebel

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 14:56, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Can you make an edit from 68.82.179.108 to confirm that this IP is you? Thanks  — Kate Turner | Talk 07:47, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors participation drive!
Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:
 * Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
 * Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! Budding Journalist 01:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Hgebel Hgebel 01:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ordnance
You seem to be replacing some links to the disamig page ordnance with a Wikitionary link. Wouldn't it be better to replace these links with a more suitable Wikipedia article, for instance Royal Army Ordnance Corps? I'd welcome your opinion. -- MightyWarrior 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * MightyWarrior, I am trying to, but many of the articles are using ordnance in a very general way that does not correspond directly to any individual wikipedia article. For example, when referring to an ordnance depot, (ordnance depot does not have it's own article) would I link to Ammunition, Weapon, Artillery, or Bomb? An ordnance depot can contain all of these.--Hgebel 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For example, you replaced my edit at Didcot with a link to Royal Army Ordnance Corps, labeling my link as "not useful". However, the RAOC no longer exists, and in any case I don't think it would cover the RAF ordnance depot that the article states is located in Didcot, so I don't know how a linkto the RAOC is more useful than my link.--Hgebel 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

John Smart
Hi Harry; thanks for letting me know! I have the page on my watch list anyway. Yeah, rather sneaky of Denni to put in the the deletion tag without notifying me. Anyway I'll have the page fixed in a day or so. Cheers M Alan Kazlev 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, HarryHenryGebel! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:66.202.73.102
I'm afraid that I've removed your "final warning" notice, as you added it immediately after my block notice, and it looked a bit odd. I hope that that's OK. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 17:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I think I must have been typing it in while you where doing the block.--HarryHenryGebel 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but…
You just posted a warning on my talk page about "unhelpful" changes to Dental caries, but all I did was revert an incorrect grammatical fix. I'm not sure how you found it unhelpful and decided it needed reversion, but the change I reverted was the problematic (but minor change). +Fenevad 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dental caries
Hi HarryHenryGebel. Regarding this edit, please note that dental caries, while ending in an "s", is a singular word. Fenevad's edit to the article was correct and was certainly not vandalism (I'm not a dentist myself, but I know the dentist who wrote the caries article; please note the consistent use of the singular throughout). Please be a little more careful before accusing an editor of vandalism. Thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have left an apology on Fenevad's talk page, and logged the edit as a mistake.--HarryHenryGebel 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured you just hadn't noted the edit summary, and if you didn't know caries was singular, it certainly would look like I had made an act of petty vandalism. No harm done though, and I suppose the occasional happening like this is the price of catching real vandals. Best +Fenevad 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

82.42.5.178 vandalism
Still at it. Some people have got way too much time on their hands. RoyalBlueStuey 15:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to keep an eye on them, their block expired.--HarryHenryGebel 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell
Hi. I can't see why my edits should be considered unhelpful. They're accurate and I'm gathering reference on them. Why should they be reverted? One of the most interesting thing about Cromwell in history is the difference in view on him on the two sides of the Irish Sea. In Britain (mostly England) he is widely admired. In Ireland his memory is despised. It's a fact. Hughsheehy 19:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree that the difference's in view are interesting (and I am of Irish descent and am not fond of Cromwell myself), but when adding the a highly charged phrase like genocidal murderer, I think you should add the references at the same time as the the phrase.--HarryHenryGebel 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Probably true. However, I don´t have everything in the same place at the same time, so I guess if someone reverts it I´ll just come back in when I have the refs to hand.  A day or so won´t change the facts or the refs.  Hughsheehy 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi again. I put in some refs on Cromwell in Ireland, which describe the actions as genocidal or near-genocidal. There are lots out there but after the MarkThomas revert I just put in one Irish and one non-Irish (Polish, I think, published by Cambridge University press and apparently quite respected).  Also, please note that the Reilly book now referenced at the end of para 1 is seemingly highly challenged by at least one 17th century specialist in Cambridge (or Oxford...i can never remember which is which) as being a very "selective" book.  I'm no Cromwell expert but have a look.  Hughsheehy 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:NewtLivingston
He went nuts yesterday on a similar list. He wouldn't communicate, he just kept yanking the speedy templates off his page, until he was banned. The only reason I haven't noted him as a sockpuppet is that I'm at work and for the life of me cannot remember what his name was yesterday. --Mhking 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He's definitely an annoyance, thanks for changing back to the correct db-tag, I misremebered the first one that had been put up.--HarryHenryGebel 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice
Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Delaware, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD
Whoops! Thanks for correcting that for me. I'm always confused by the deletion/renaming process...people like you help make it a bit easier Paul 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ali
Hi, Thanks for your help with Portal:Islam/Selected Muslim(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3AIslam%2FSelected_Muslim&diff=160658232&oldid=158940224). Can you please correct Ali as well.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth postal orders
I didn't write this article, but thanks for the notification anyway; I see its been deleted (which is the action I would have prefered anyway, due to lack of content, and banned status of the actual author). --Kiand 22:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. extra-curricular  Double Blue  (Talk) 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise. I presumed the Australian spelling would be the Commonwealth form. I should have been more careful and checked. I have reverted myself back to your version. Cheers! Double Blue  (Talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Stayton
Hello Harry, I'm a user from the German-language wikipedia and currently I'm workin' on a article about de:Jimmy Stayton, but there's not much I know about him. I found out that he lived in Milford, DE like you. Maybe you know some older persons in Milford who know Statyon (he was a local star back in the fifties and did barn dances). I hope you can help me a little bit. And I'm sorry for my bad English... The yodeling cowboy (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
Dear User:HarryHenryGebel,

 * I really appreciate your interest in the UN list. It's very refreshing. I also like the idea of beautifying the article to improve legibility. Unfortunately, I believe your recent changes may have done so at the cost of functionality. You see, Wikipedia sortable tables like the one on this article currently do not distinguish between numbers and text strings. As such, leading zeros are necessary to allow the reader to sort a table sensibly by numbers; removing them makes 11 confusingly seem larger than 100 but smaller than 2. On a different point, the tailing decimal points on both the entries for Tokelau and Turks and Caicos Islands were intentionally inserted to convey that each tailing zero was a significant figure. I do not mean to disrespect you and I am happy to research a way to fix that sortable table glitch this week but failing such a revelation, I will probably revert those edits of yours. Have fun!

Sincerely, :)--Thecurran (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I found out how to sort out the sorting, so I fixed it and brought back the two decimal points.:)--16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template
In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect. You currently have NoMultiLicense on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Village pump (policy) if you have any comments.

Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot  at 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.

Presbyterianism
Thank you for restoring the Characteristics section in the article on Presbyterianism. I too get frustrated by vandals. I was amused, however, that the section as you restored it still had some vandalism in it: it claimed that Presbyterians are governed by a "Book of Kittens." If I am to be governed by kittens, it will have to be the actual kittens and not a book. Sterrettc (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Futurist
Hi,

There is currently a discussion about merging Futurist into Future Studies. I notice that you withdrew a similar proposal back in 2007. I don't know the history of that but I thought you might like to comment on this occasion.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Scaphe Page
Hi-

I see that you were one of the last people to edit the scaphe page. I have been working on it in my sandbox. I am about to post the new scaphe page, would you help me out by looking it over and improving anything I didn't quite get right?

Thanks--Gaurd.vanforlife (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tan Sri Mubin Sheppard listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tan Sri Mubin Sheppard. Since you had some involvement with the Tan Sri Mubin Sheppard redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Please help with usability testing
Hello! The Anti-Harassment Tools team is running a usability test to find out how and where IP addresses are used when patrolling wikis, particularly when patrolling RecentChanges. This could include New Pages or RecentChanges patrol. We want to see your patrolling process and get your views on some prototypes. Getting your perspective would be really helpful to us at this stage of the process. If you’d like to help, and have 30 minutes to spare, please fill out this Google form with your details: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfjYyRNGMkO4_TdNOgG4qmK9cp9YOKzM4GFO5pTd_bEcu23YQ/viewform

For the purpose of the tests we’ll be using Google Forms for recruitment, and UserTesting.com to conduct the actual tests. Please review the privacy statement and release form in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ijmwrIoNO0W1p_zfFU1LBf3_6mFF53kUUFy1L_DCUKc (Google docs link)

Thank you,

NKohli (WMF) (talk) and PSaxena (WMF) (talk)  09:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

User category proposed deletion
You may be interested in Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 21. It is proposed to delete this category. SpinningSpark 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello HarryHenryGebel! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II  talk  17:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:HarryHenryGebel


text:
Negentropy

In information theory and statistics, negentropy is used as a measure of distance to normality. The concept and phrase "negative entropy" was introduced by Erwin Schrödinger in his 1944 popular-science book What is Life? Later, French physicist Léon Brillouin shortened the phrase to néguentropie (negentropy). In 1974, Albert Szent-Györgyi proposed replacing the term negentropy with syntropy. That term may have originated in the 1940s with the Italian mathematician Luigi Fantappiè, who tried to construct a unified theory of biology and physics. Buckminster Fuller tried to popularize this usage, but negentropy remains common.

In a note to What is Life? Schrödinger explained his use of this phrase. ... if I had been catering for them [physicists] alone I should have let the discussion turn on free energy instead. It is the more familiar notion in this context. But this highly technical term seemed linguistically too near to energy for making the average reader alive to the contrast between the two things.

Information theory
In information theory and statistics, negentropy is used as a measure of distance to normality. Out of all distributions with a given mean and variance, the normal or Gaussian distribution is the one with the highest entropy. Negentropy measures the difference in entropy between a given distribution and the Gaussian distribution with the same mean and variance. Thus, negentropy is always nonnegative, is invariant by any linear invertible change of coordinates, and vanishes if and only if the signal is Gaussian.

Negentropy is defined as

 * $$J(p_x) = S(\varphi_x) - S(p_x)\,$$

where $$S(\varphi_x)$$ is the differential entropy of the Gaussian density with the same mean and variance as $$p_x$$ and $$S(p_x)$$ is the differential entropy of $$p_x$$:

 * $$S(p_x) = - \int p_x(u) \log p_x(u) \, du$$

Negentropy is used in statistics and signal processing. It is related to network entropy, which is used in independent component analysis.

The negentropy of a distribution is equal to the Kullback–Leibler divergence between $$p_x$$ and a Gaussian distribution with the same mean and variance as $$p_x$$ (see  for a proof). In particular, it is always nonnegative.

Correlation between statistical negentropy and Gibbs' free energy
There is a physical quantity closely linked to free energy (free enthalpy), with a unit of entropy and isomorphic to negentropy known in statistics and information theory. In 1873, Willard Gibbs created a diagram illustrating the concept of free energy corresponding to free enthalpy. On the diagram one can see the quantity called capacity for entropy. This quantity is the amount of entropy that may be increased without changing an internal energy or increasing its volume. In other words, it is a difference between maximum possible, under assumed conditions, entropy and its actual entropy. It corresponds exactly to the definition of negentropy adopted in statistics and information theory. A similar physical quantity was introduced in 1869 by Massieu for the isothermal process  (both quantities differs just with a figure sign) and then Planck for the isothermal-isobaric process. More recently, the Massieu–Planck thermodynamic potential, known also as free entropy, has been shown to play a great role in the so-called entropic formulation of statistical mechanics, applied among the others in molecular biology and thermodynamic non-equilibrium processes.

 * $$J = S_\max - S = -\Phi = -k \ln Z\,$$

 * where:
 * $$S$$ is entropy
 * $$J$$ is negentropy (Gibbs "capacity for entropy")
 * $$\Phi$$ is the Massieu potential
 * $$Z$$ is the partition function
 * $$k$$ the Boltzmann constant

In particular, mathematically the negentropy (the negative entropy function, in physics interpreted as free entropy) is the convex conjugate of LogSumExp (in physics interpreted as the free energy).

Brillouin's negentropy principle of information
In 1953, Léon Brillouin derived a general equation stating that the changing of an information bit value requires at least $$kT\ln 2$$ energy. This is the same energy as the work Leó Szilárd's engine produces in the idealistic case. In his book, Brillouin further explored this problem concluding that any cause of this bit value change (measurement, decision about a yes/no question, erasure, display, etc.) will require the same amount of energy.

title: Negentropy


text:
Promagistrate

In ancient Rome, a promagistrate (pro magistratu) was a person who was granted the power via prorogation to act in place of an ordinary magistrate in the field. This was normally pro consule or pro praetore, that is, in place of a consul or praetor, respectively. This was an expedient development, starting in 327 BC and becoming regular by 241 BC, that was meant to allow consuls and praetors to continue their activities in the field without disruption.

Prorogation created an official with no civilian authority or responsibility in Rome and allowed commanders to retain their position indefinitely, weakening the time-limited check that Romans had over their commanders. Prorogation, by allowing veteran commanders to stay rather than being rotated out for someone with little experience, also helped increase the chances of victory. In the late Republic, politics, often motivated by the ambitions of individuals, decided whose commands were extended.

Sometimes men who held no elected public office – that is, private citizens (privati) – were given imperium and prorogued, as justified by perceived military emergencies. In the late republic, this was most exemplified by Pompey, who held a series of promagisterial commands before ever holding a magistracy or even joining the senate. With the acquisition of provinces outside of Italy and the expansion of the quaestiones perpetuae (permanent courts), it became normal for the provincial governors to be promagistrates. By the late republic, practically all governors were dispatched pro consule, regardless of their last urban magistracy.

The titles "proconsul" and "propraetor" are not used by Livy or literary sources of the republican era. Those Romans did not view a promagistracy as a formal office in the republic but rather as an administrative expedient.

Legal effect
A provincia was originally a task (e.g., war with Carthage) assigned to someone, sometimes with geographic boundaries; when such territories were formally annexed, the fixed geographical entity became a "province" in modern terms, but in the early and middle Republic, the "task" was most often a military command within a defined theatre of operations with unclear geographic boundaries.

Prorogation did not create a new commander or even class of general. It merely allowed a magistrate to continue performing duties beyond the expiration of the magistracy. While Livy implies that prorogation extended a magistrate's imperium, this is contradicted in that imperium was not time-limited. Cicero, for example, possessed imperium even after his governorship of Cilicia expired.

Because imperium did not expire, prorogation was simply an extension or reassignment of a commander's possession of a provincia, something feasible by senatorial decree. Previously, a provincia expired with a magistracy; prorogation severed the old tightly-linked connection between magistrate and provincia. While normally someone in the theatre or province was prorogued, one could also be prorogued by assigning a someone still possessing imperium to new provincia (as was the case with two imperatores during the Catilinarian conspiracy).

While modern scholars often suppose that prorogation was intended originally to ensure that an experienced commander with hands-on knowledge of the local situation could conclude a successful campaign, in practice the extension of command was subject to "unsteady ad-hoc politics". And "unusual political influence" was required for prorogations of longer than one year.

A Roman governor had the right, and was normally expected, to remain in his province until his successor arrived, even when he had not been prorogued. According to the lex Cornelia de maiestate, passed following Sulla's dictatorship, a governor was then required to give up his province within 30 days. A prorogued magistrate could not exercise his imperium within Rome.

The nature of promagisterial imperium is also complicated by its relation to the celebrating of a triumph as awarded by the Senate. Before a commander could enter the city limits (pomerium) for his triumph, he had to lay aside arms formally and ritually, that is, he had to re-enter society as a civilian. There are several early instances, however, of a commander celebrating a triumph during his two- or three-year term; it is possible that the triumph was held at the completion of his assignment and before he returned to the field with prorogued imperium.

Emergence
The literary sources of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus name a number of commanders in the early republic as proconsuls or propraetors. Modern historians believe the use of these titles is largely anachronistic and also self-contradictory, as Livy notes that that the first promagisterial appointment was in 327 BC. In the republic after 367 BC, only three types magistrates held imperium: dictators, consuls, and praetors. At first, the appointment of dictatores and magistri equitum filled the need for additional military commanders.

The first recorded prorogation and promagistrate was that of the consul Quintus Publilius Philo in 327 BC. The senate ordered Philo, whose consulship was about to expire, to continue to perform his military duties as he was on the verge of capturing Palaepolis (modern day Naples) and completing his provincia (assigned task). It "probably seemed imprudent to send a new consul to take over a command that would be completed within days". Livy reports that legislation was then moved by the tribunes that "when [Quintus Publilius' term expired] he should continue to manage the campaign pro consule until he should bring the war with the Greeks to an end". This innovation permitted Philo to hold the military authority and responsibility of a magistrate while not actually being one. The Romans did not seem to be too bothered by the legal innovation which occurred, as Philo's success was rewarded with a triumph even though his consulship had expired.

In the following decades, it became regular practice to prorogue consuls and prorogation of praetors started in 241 BC. During the Second and Third Samnite Wars (326–290 BC), prorogation became a regular administrative practice that allowed continuity of military command without violating the principle of annual magistracies, or increasing the number of magistrates who held imperium. In 307, Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus became the second magistrate to have his command prorogued. But in the years 296–95, several prorogations are recorded at once, including four promagistrates who were granted imperium while they were private citizens (privati). Territorial expansion and increasing militarization drove a recognition that the "emergencies" had become a continual state of affairs, and a regular system of allotting commands developed.

In this early period, prorogued assignments, like the dictatorship, originated as special military commands, they may at first have been limited in practice to about six months, or the length of the campaigning season.

During the Punic Wars
Commanders were often prorogued during the First Punic War (264–241 BC). During the Second Punic War, Rome started to assign private citizens both imperium (military authority) and assign them to provincia (here meaning military tasks). These privati cum imperio were unable to triumph, probably due to their lack of an official magistracy. The legal authority for this emerged directly from the sovereign powers of the Roman assemblies who were then able "to select any man[,] whether or not he had ever been elected to office[,] and make him the commander of any provincia they wished". These privati cum imperio had titles pro consule or pro praetore, in place of regular magistrates.

The first instance may have been in 215 BC after the losses at Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae when Marcus Claudius Marcellus was elected suffect consul in the place of Lucius Postumius Albinus, deceased. However, he was forced to resign when the augurs detected flaws in his election; even so, the people passed laws to invest him with imperium and assigned him to take a consular army regardless. Some scholars and argue instead that Marcellus' just-completed praetorship meant he was just prorogued.

The clearest instance is in the assignment of Publius Cornelius Scipio (later Africanus) to Spain in 211 BC before he had held any magistracy. After the deaths of his father and uncle in Spain, no consul or praetor wanted to take up the province. The people invested Scipio with the command and the necessary imperium and auspicium militiae regardless. After Scipio's victory in 206 BC, two more privati cum imperio were dispatched to the peninsula, which continued under such command until the creation of two new praetors in 197 BC made it possible to send annual magistrates. Generally, prorogation became almost the norm for the provinciae of Sicily, Sardinia, Hispania, and the naval fleets due to the lack of sufficient annual magistrates.

The expansion of promagistracies shattering the connection between military command and magisterial office, allowing any aristocrat so empowered by law the power to exercise military authority without any official status within the city's normal civilian government. Another impact of this wartime expedience was separating "magisterial precedence" from the magistracy itself, creating something akin to a military rank, evident in the jockeying of magistrates over the specific status of their prorogation: eg, desire to attain the more prestigious pro consule status. The close of the wartime crisis and the return of annual governors also dampened the length of prorogations, allowing the senate to regain more granular control over provincial assignments.

At the beginning, there were two distinct forms of prorogation – per T. Corey Brennan's Praetorship in the Roman republic – a prorogatio before the people to determine whether a provincial command should be extended and a propagatio from the senate in other cases. But by the 190s BC, the senate stopped submitting decisions on prorogation of permanent provinciae to the people for ratification and eventually all extensions of imperium were called prorogatio. After this point, the term prorogatio became a misnomer, since no rogatio (consultation of the people) was involved. This likely emerged because the decision of whether to send commanders had been replaced to the question of who should be sent, and therefore became a routine staffing decision.

In the late republic
The promagistrates take on a new importance with the annexation of Macedonia and the Roman province of Africa in 146 BC. The number of praetors was not increased even though the two new territories were organized as praetorian provinces. For the first time since the 170s, it became impossible for sitting magistrates to govern all the permanent praetorian provinciae, which now numbered eight. This point marks the beginning of the era of the so-called "Roman governor", a post for which there is no single word in the Republic. Promagistracies became fully institutionalised, and even the praetor urbanus was sometimes prorogued. Due to the lack of replacement magistrates, governors with established territorial provinces had their tenures increased. The addition of the wealthy Asian province in 133 BC as a bequest of Attalus III put further pressure on the system, again without increasing the number of praetorships:

"The senate evidently placed a premium on controlling competition for the consulship, and chose to neglect the rapidly accelerating erosion of a fundamental Republican constitutional principle — the annual magistracy — as well as to ignore the added inconvenience to commanders and possible danger to provincials... The members of the senate had lost serious interest in maintaining a working administrative scheme for Rome's growing empire."

In one major administrative development for which the career of Marius offers the clearest evidence, praetors now needed to remain in Rome to preside over increased activity in the criminal courts; only after their term were praetors regularly assigned to a province as proconsul or propraetor. The scale of Roman military commitments in annexed territories during the late republic required regular prorogation, since the number of magistrates and ex-magistrates who were both able commanders and willing to accept provincial governorships did not increase proportionally. Emergency grants of imperium in the field during the Social War (91–87 BC) made the granting of extra-magisterial command routine. When Sulla assumed the dictatorship in late 82 BC, the territorial provinces alone numbered ten, with possibly six permanent courts to be presided over in the city.

The rise of popularis political tactics from the time of Gaius Marius forward also coincided with the creation of "super provinciae", "massive commands in which multiple permanent provinces were incorporated into a single consular provincial assignment" with "proportionately larger military and financial resources". Pompey, for example, declined a province after his consulship in 70 BC until he was able to convince a friendly tribune to create an enormous command against the pirates in consequence of the lex Gabinia in 67 BC and, then, a similarly vast eastern command during the Third Mithridatic War the next year. These super-provinces were traditional in the sense that they were meant to defeat some particular enemy, but the scale of the campaign and the concentration of power under a single commander was unprecedented. The fixed multi-year terms of those campaigns also were unheard of in the earlier Republic; their length detracted from the Senate's de facto powers to assign provinces and control the ambition of its members by splitting both the proceeds and glory of single campaigns between multiple commanders.

Propraetor
A propraetor was a form of promagistrate, as the name implies, acting in place of a praetor. Initially, praetors who were prorogued continued to act pro praetore after their terms, but through the second century, prorogued praetors started to be titled the more prestigious pro consule instead. After the time of Sulla, all governors were prorogued pro consule. One of the few exceptions to this rule was a senatorial snub against Octavian in 43 BC when he was vested with imperium and prorogued pro praetore, putting him lower in status than all other promagistrates.

If a governor died in office, it was normal for his quaestor to assume command pro praetore. It also became normal for legates during the late republic to be titled pro praetore if they were themselves vested with imperium. Pompey, for example, received such legates during the campaign against the pirates in consequence of the lex Gabinia. During the imperial period, the legates of the emperor were titled pro praetore, consistent with late republican practice; the quaestors and legates of the public provinces were by this period similarly granted praetorian imperium and likewise titled pro praetore.

Proquaestor
A proquaestor was a person who took up the administrative duties normally adopted by a quaestor. This was normally done in the absence of a questor, usually by death or resignation. In such cases, a governor normally named a member of his staff: for example, Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella named Gaius Verres to serve pro quaestore in 80 BC. At other times, ex-quaestors were sent or kept as proquaestor to act as someone's quaestor. But more extraordinarily, in the absence of sufficient governors or to complete some specific task, an ex-quaestor could be sent as a governor with the title pro quaestor pro praetore. For example, Marcus Porcius Cato was dispatched to Cyprus pro quaestore pro praetore to handle the annexation of the island.

Procurator
The title procurator is not related to prorogation and is not a promagistracy. Procurators were originally agents of rich men, later of the emperor, who acted on his patron's behalf with regard to financial matters.

title: Promagistrate