Ballot Access laws for ranked ballots

[Steve Eppley]

Tom Round wrote:
>Steve E wrote:
>>One thing I can't tell from Tom's message, and which I consider
>>very important, is whether a party in Australia can nominate more
>>than one candidate onto the ballot in single-winner elections.  This
>>would give more choices to the voters, and parties would have an
>>interest in nominating more than one if a good voting method (i.e.,
>>no spoiler dilemma) were in use, since it would help the party win.
>
>In Australia candidates are officially _nominated_ by voters,
>remember, not by parties
-snip-
>The main reason our parties don't run more candidates than the
>number of seats they expect to win is that they don't want to
>sacrifice their control over who gets elected by giving voters a
>choice of candidates.
-snip-

I'm asking about single-winner elections, not multiwinner STV, but I 
thank Tom for his general comments.

It looks like Tom is saying, if he included single-winner elections
in his general comments, that there's almost always one candidate per
party competing in single-winner "Instant Runoff" elections.  (Which
is as predicted, given the Instant Runoff method's spoiler dilemma.)

I've a bunch more questions:  

1. Are the voters (the nominating agents) clever enough not to
nominate more than one candidate per party in single-winner
elections?  Do potentially viable candidates discourage voters from
nominating them if their party is planning to endorse a different
candidate?  

2. How does a party decide which candidate to endorse? (Evidently
not by U.S.-style primary elections.)  

3. How would a party punish a member who throws his/her hat into the
ring without their endorsement?  Do you think parties would be as 
interested in punishing upstart members if a better tally method
(i.e., no spoiler dilemma) were used, and if concerns about voters
messing up their ballot orders were somehow reduced (perhaps by 
using higher technology in voting booths)?