How do you run for Congress?

Remove all ads!

I was talking to a friend yesterday, and he said he was actively considering making a Congressional run in 2012. We wondered openly exactly what one had to do. I assume you need to get so many signatures on some kind of petition, and meet the minimum requirements for holding office (he does), but is there an actual list of requirements (outside the guidelines listed in the Constitution) that says what you actually have to do to get on a ballot? I imagine the rules are pretty much the same everywhere, as Congress is a federal election.

 

I believe the qualifications are...

- 25 years of age
- 7 yrs as an eligible US citizen
- When elected, must be an inhabitant of the state they are representing. This one varies from state to state????

My bestman's ex tried it about 10 years ago. I do believe she needed signatures as well, IIRC it was 5,000. Though I think there are other qualifications as well, depending upon your state.

 

First there's the lobotomy....

 

In the UK the requirements are a lack of rhythm, possibility of alzheimers or dementure in the near future, a lack of a casual wardrobe and a complete lack of touch with modern culture and worldly goings on.

Creepy eyebrows are advised but not compulsory.

 

I think you also have to look at the rules that "your party" has created to get on their primary ballot. If you are running as an independent it is probably easier as you just have to follow your state's guidelines that you should be able to easily get from the Secretary of State's office.

 

Aldeth, I would not assume that the rules are the same from state to state. Oh, there are likely to be similarities ... the need for X number of signatures and an application to be on a primary ballot before a given date. But I wouldn't assume that these requirements are the same from state to state.

If your friend is seriously thinking about running for Congress in 2012, he (or she) should start investigating the legal requirements now.

BTW, also note that in some states, the number of signatures required for a major party candidate may be significantly lower than for a minor party or independent candidate.

 

5000? In Ireland you need a few dozen votes and a tiny deposit which you get back together with expenses money if you make any kind of a reasonable showing.

We get some right oddballs going for election. There's one farmer who's run in every election going back about four decades just for the craic. It's not unusual for his vote count to be smaller than his campaign team . My favourite are the anti-abortionists. Abortion is already illegal in Ireland .

 

Proof of sale of soul to a special interest group!

In seriousness, the fact I want to reiterate is that without the support of one of the two parties, it's a moot point.

 

LKD, I agree that this is true in most cases, though in some states, independents have a chance, once in a while.

IIRC, both Maine and Connecticut have had independent governors in the past 20 or so years (CT's indy gov, Lowell Wiecker, was a liberal republican who went independent). Also, Joe Lieberman was able to get re-elected to his CT Senate seat as an independent, though of course, he was a well-known democrat who was forced to run as an indy.

I'm not familiar with any successful 3rd party or indy candidates outside of New England however.

 

Yeah, we know he meets the legal requirements to be able to run. My question was more regarding how to get on a primary ballot.

I didn't think about the Secretary of State's office. I'll let him know...

I agree. The requirements are not exactly the same from one state to another, but as far as general guidelines, I'd assume they would be. I'm sure all Democrat and Republican candidates have to go through the guidelines as set forth by the DNC and RNC to get on a ballot, and I imagine since those are national organizations, they'd be pretty standard. For example, before running as a Democrat, you'd have to have your backbone removed, and as a Republican, they'd suck out of your brain everything having to do with science and replace it with young-earth creationism.

That's exactly what he's doing. He feels he has to start generating money and getting name recognition in 2011 if he wants to win in 2012.

How many people do your representatives represent? In the US Congress, each Congressman has over 600,000 constituents, and that number will only get bigger once the census is completed at the end of this year. Perhaps we need a lot more signature because we have a lot more constituents?

Really?

 

We've multiple seat constituencies and no primaries, so the system is very different. There's very little cost to the state of adding another name to the ballot (there's usually at least a dozen) so we pretty much just let any lunatic run. They're no harm.

Yes but in what's dubbed as "An Irish solution to an Irish problem" women simply travel to the UK if they want one. Far from ideal but it stops any great pressure building up on the issue, as the pro choicers have access whilst the pro lifers can pretend it doesn't happen. Any change in the law would require a full national referendum. The last few attempts were rejected for the wording so all the parties are terrified to touch it at this stage. Hence why I can't understand people running for office on a purely anti-abortion stance. You can hardly bring in any more restrictions .

 

Jessie Ventura won election to become Minnesota's governor as an independent some years back-he may have had backing from the Reform Party (a 3rd party that has declined since Ross Perot) at some point but I'm not sure if he did initially.

In the mid 20th century (right through part of the "Red Scare" when McCarthy was one of the people representing WI in the Senate) there were a string of Socialist Party (they count as 3rd party here in the US) Mayors of Milwaukee (the largest city in WI).

3rd party candidates often have a hard time here in the states and if someone seriously wants to run outside of the 2 main parties they either have to take advantage of a lucky situation (such as voters in an area being disgusted by both major party candidates) or build up their fame slowly-such as being recognized for some outstanding achievement or being elected to lower office first and responding well enough to voters that a group of supporters has come to respect them (the 3rd party candidates). Even then it isn't a easy.

 

DOH! I should have remembered Jessie Ventura.

And yes, I'm familiar with the Reform Party, although frankly it never struck me as much more than a front name for the "Ross Perot Party".

I wasn't aware that there were some socialist mayors of Milwaukee. But now that you mention it, in Vermont, Bernie Sanders held a seat in Congress (still does, I think). IIRC, he ran as an "independent", but he really was an actual Socialist. IIRC, he caucuses with the Democrats in the House (surprise, surprise ).

Also, IIRC, the state of Maine has had a couple of indy governors over the past 40 years.

 

Bernie Sanders is still one of Vermont's senators, and yes he is considered an independent. Joe Lieberman is also an independent. AFAIK, they are the only two in the Senate, and both caucus with the Dems.

EDIT: Oh, and yes, Sanders does consider himself a socialist, although he is not actually affiliated with the socialist party (yes we have one) of the US. That's why he is listed as independent.

 

Do you mind if I ask some questions? I'm just curious as to how your friend is likely to get on and what the factors (as opposed to legal requirements) are for succeeding. If you think any are personal please feel free to disregard. The congressional elections are a first past the post system in a local district, correct? You mentioned getting onto the primary ballot, is your friend seeking to run for on of the big two parties? Is he currently a member of such a party and is he actively involved?

Does your friend currently have a high public profile? Is he currently involved in politics at a local level below Congress? Is he independently wealthy or does he have a network that he can tap for campaign funds?

What kind of activities will take up his time campaigning if he does run? Media appearances, constituency work, policy formulation, etc., what areas do you think he would need to focus on to get elected (not to do a good job, mind)?

 

Before I answer your questions, I don't think my friend - let's call him Jim (as that's his first name) has any chance of actually getting elected.

In order to be elected, it's a two part system. (It's not exactly like "first past the post" as that implies a majority is needed.) First each party holds a primary, and whichever candidate receives a plurality (not necessarily a majority if there are more than two candidates running) earns the right to get their name placed on the ballot during the general election. Then, in the general election, there's only one name on the ballot for each party (the winner of the primary) and whichever candidates receives a plurality wins the election. (In the US, since a member of one of the two major parties almost always wins, they usually have a majority in the general election, although pluralities in primaries are not uncommon.)

Jim is registered as a Republican, but he is very politically moderate, and many people would consider his social views to be liberal. For example, he doesn't have a problem with abortion or gay marriage. He is actually considering running as a Democrat, because the current incumbent is a Republican. While his state is considered a "red" state overall, and the current Republican incumbent has held the seat for the last four years, prior to that the seat was held by a Democrat, and so it is possible for a Democrat to win.

While I think that part of his strategy is sound, I think he has no freakin chance of winning, as my answers below will show:

No. He is a state police officer. It's not like he's the Commissioner of the police or anything - just a regular officer.

No, and I think this is his biggest problem. I told him he should consider running for a position in the state or county first, as most people don't start off their political careers by running for Congress.

Hell no. He's a police officer, and his wife is a veterinarian's assistant. (She's kind of like a nurse for a vet.) So they are decidedly middle class, and certainly not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

That's the other major problem he has. He's the bread winner in his family. I don't see how he can quit his job with the police force from a financial perspective, and I certainly don't see how he can win if he doesn't quit his current job.

 

Thanks for the reply. I was just curious comparing independents in the US to here in Ireland. There are currently 0 of 435 congressmen as independents and 2 of 100 senators. That's not looking good for Jim.

In Ireland independents are a lot more common. We currently have 7 of 166 politicians who are independent. In the previous parliament there were 14. In both parliaments some of the independents are part of the government (as in Britain whoever controls the parliament forms the government).

There are two reasons for this. Obviously, it's easier for independents to make an impact in a smaller country. The ad spend needed is lower and personal canvassing is much more effective as you reach a much larger % of voters. Our election system is also much friendlier. There are mutiple seats per contituency and excess or unused votes transfer. Independents tend to attract a lot of the transfers from other parties in preference to the votes going to a rival party.

It wouldn't really be possible for an independent to go straight into parliament unless they already had a high profile though, say from business or sport. They'd have to start at the local elections (very easy to get elected) and then work up from there. The trick is extending your appeal from your local base to the larger constituency for national elections.

Jim wouldn't have a hope in hell of running for a party here. You'd have to serve your time working hard and working your way up the local branch. Existing party members would go ballistic if somebody tried coming in from another party to improve their chances. Unless you genuinely had a great chance of winning, in which case party HQ would intervene.

There's a lot of talk recently though about trying to reform the system to reduce the ability of independents to get elected. They excel at parish pump (I believe the US term is pork barrel) politics but never contribute anything to national politics, which is what they're supposed to be doing. One of the independents who's propped up the last few governments proudly boasts he doesn't care what he's asked to vote through or what the government does to the country as long as his pet local projects go through.

Does Jim have any specific issues he's looking to address by getting elected? What strengths does he think he would bring to the role, would he have any competencies in national legislation?