Submitted by Larry Littlefield, Jan 17, 2008 09:18

(We didn't have much sympathy with her case. She could have run as an independent. )

It takes three times the signatures to get on the ballot as an independent candidate as it does a party candidate. And given that even perfectly valid signatures has been known to be struck down for any made up reason in New York, if you aren't on the inside you'd better collect double that number again. In a shorter period of time than party candidates have. And, in addition to lost income, you'd better have $60,000 available for an election lawyer, even if you do everything you are supposed to do.

Otherwise, you'll make all those sacrifices without even gaining the satisfaction of actually getting on the ballot, speaking your piece, and being ignored by the press. That was my great fear when I actually attempted something like this in 2004. I didn't have the $60,000, and snuck around like a theif trying to get on the ballot, hoping not to be noticed. Had I been a real threat rather than just a protest candidate, I would not have been allowed to run.

While speaking my piece and getting it off my chest made me feel better, I failed to gain either enough votes or even enough attention to what I was saying, for me to be able to claim that such a candidacy really had the possiblity of achieving something. Thus the blithe statement the Sun makes -- "she could have run as an independent." That is a statement I actually attempted to back up, after years of sitting back and saying "someone should do something about this," but could not.

As I wrote here http://ipny.org/Littlefield/ "I had hoped to prove that a challenge by an independent or minor party candidate, in the general election when everyone shows up, could be a way to create real competition for office. Regardless of the strength or weakness of my individual appeal as a candidate, and of the incumbent I ran against, I should have attracted more votes if this theory was correct. The simple desire for change in an ossified system ought to have been enough to attract the 5,000 or so votes that I had hoped to receive, if a large share of people were really open to such challengers. Had I received that many votes or something close to it, I would have claimed that someone with more political ability than I might have been able to actually threaten an incumbent. That is, if I could get 5,000, a "real" politician with real political ability may have been able to get 51 percent against an incumbent, and such prospective politicians should run rather than continuing to wait around for someone to die or be convicted. As it is, honesty requires that I see the vote totals for what they are..."

Eventually, I realized that sitting around and expecting someone else to do something I wasn't willing to do myself -- run for public office (and with no chance of winning) -- was morally unsupportable. It wasn't easy. You think it is? Go for it.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.