[maxerickson]

There shouldn't be ballot access for a party nominee. I would be fine with the party endorsement of a given candidate still appearing on the ballot.

It's not a gate, it's privileged access, where organizations that pass some rule play by different rules than other candidates.

[SllX]

Ah, no, I get it now and I get the sentiment but I think this is better a case where we actually lean into the party system that has developed rather than running away from it, in no small part because it isn’t going away. I still don’t think the States should be executing party primaries or running the party registration process, but I do live in a a locality with numerous officially non-partisan offices with elections that are exactly what you describe and it isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. I would describe it as basically a charade.

[maxerickson]

I don't see how non partisan offices relate to what I'm saying.

I don't care if candidates are endorsed by parties, claim to lead parties, whatever, I think that it is not a net benefit that established organizations play by rules that consolidate their power, that it's worth the mess for the system to not work in that direction.

[SllX]

Okay, well candidates already have to qualify for the ballot on their own. Being the party nominee doesn't except you from all the paperwork and petitioning that is required in pretty any jurisdiction I know of in America. Even Presidential candidates already have to qualify on a per State basis, but they have large campaigns, campaign staff in volunteers in each State that are willing to go to bat for them and dot the necessary i's and cross the necessary t's. Party machinery helps with this, but is insufficient on its own.

The main reason you don't see more people running as candidates outside their Party is because of Party discipline and the sheer cost of running national campaign. Third parties can tread water qualifying for each ballot as they come up in some States, but they have no real media presence because they're not effective at creating a real presence for themselves (and it is often off-putting in the years they can, yeah, parties can get worse).

People running outside their party as independents would be putting their political careers on the line by doing so, and not because of any kind of benefit or privilege in the law that favors parties specifically; it's because by doing so they are actively sabotaging their party's chances of winning that seat and parties don't want to keep people like that in their ranks. Add on top of that that it is expensive to even try, and it's just not worth it, although candidates that can raise more money on their own can shrug some of that party discipline off when it's a case of the party needs them more than they need the party, it's still not the norm.

As far as partisan vs non-partisan offices go, the only distinction to a voter reading their ballot is whether or not the candidate's party affiliation is listed in the text box. There is no other functional difference that matters. That's why I call it a charade.

[maxerickson]

The rules are different for 'established party' (or so) candidates in a whole lot of places. Less signatures, exceptions, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_major_and_minor_pa...