Libertarian Party & Bob Barr file suit in Texas alleging Obama/McCain illegally on ballots
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Count on it. Laws are for little people. There isn't the slightest chance that Texas will allow its 34 electoral votes to go to the Libertarians.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 176
Now if only we could somehow force the other 49 states to follow suit.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Agreed. But in fairness, to do otherwise would cheat 99% of Texans out of their vote.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #5
So, it's ok for the majority to ignore the law then.
Well, Texas has about 24 million residents. Suppose 18 million of them are eligible to vote. Who is really being punished if the top wtwo candidates can't run? It'd be funny to see them left off but hardly in the public's best interest.
Remember, they'd declare themselves write-in candidates and make a heck of a lot of work for the state.
Remember, they'd declare themselves write-in candidates and make a heck of a lot of work for the state.
Does the number matter? If a 3rd party candidate would be held to the rules, sometimes whether they are running or not is enough to swing the vote from one to the other. Not to mention not letting them run is cheating whoever was going to vote for them out of their vote.
The size of the party shouldn't matter, had it been the Democrats that missed it and the Republicans didn't do you think the Republicans would give in without a fight and let them in? Being a largely Republican state isn't it at least conceivable that they might win and the democrats not get on the ballot?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #8
That's ok. It'll be within the law then. Why should the "Big 2" be given a pass when they miss the legally designated (by them, BTW) deadline for such things, when -any-non "big 2" candidate would not be given the same "fair chance"?
Hey, I'm an independent--don't blame me for what you members of criminal organizations do. But does anyone not agree that if this comes before a judge it'll be "handled"? I see the argument for putting them on the ballot. You have to consider the public's needs.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #10
Why? The Big-2 don't.
A judge has different obligations--including the public interest.
And upholding the law
I think the really funny part is the law was written by the big two to protect their own interests.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #13
Certainly public interest would also be served by extending the same exclusion from the deadline to the Greens, Constitutionalists, etc then since they also missed the deadline.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #14
Very true. Hoist by their own Picard, not that it applies to them unless convenient.And upholding the law
I think the really funny part is the law was written by the big two to protect their own interests.
What's it matter?
I don't know Texas law... but the popular vote is often irrelevant in the presidential election. The Texas reps to Electoral College will do what they want.
I actually kind of like what I know about Barr and his platform so far -- and need to do some more research. But I think that the truth is simply that he's coming from what Penn Jillete would call "The Nut Point of View." I don't see a 3rd party candidate doing well enough to be much of a threat absent unusual circumstances.
I don't know Texas law... but the popular vote is often irrelevant in the presidential election. The Texas reps to Electoral College will do what they want.
I actually kind of like what I know about Barr and his platform so far -- and need to do some more research. But I think that the truth is simply that he's coming from what Penn Jillete would call "The Nut Point of View." I don't see a 3rd party candidate doing well enough to be much of a threat absent unusual circumstances.
The easiest way to resolve this is to let it stand. The electoral math would have to change from 270 to 236, aside from that, no changes are needed. Both parties deserve some hatred from Texans for this.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #17
Ok, this is now confirmed, by the state of Texas itself.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/2008gensbs.shtml
Here's the registration rules for candidates
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/runpres07.shtml
Various important dates, etc.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2008dates.shtml
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/2008gensbs.shtml
Here's the registration rules for candidates
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/runpres07.shtml
Various important dates, etc.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2008dates.shtml
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Yeah....sigh....but wouldn't that be awesome!
That's a plan worth pursuing. LOL
It's been that way for more than a century, whey should it change now.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #19
Here's what I see happening. Once all the hype and pomp and whatnot of the "big national conventions" is over, and all those candidates are "properly decided", they'll update, and if questioned say that all big-2 candidates were registered as of the earlier cut offs. Or that the page hadn't been updated yet. And the sheeple will go 'bah' and go back to watching 'Friends' or 'Survivor'.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Even more interesting is that I've yet to see it reported widely on any network news outlet.
