Getting a head start on electoral controversey -

[StruckingFuggle]

Forget Florida; this time the issue that might be going to the Supreme Court of the United States is BEFORE NOVEMBER. That's right, folks, Libertarian nominee Bob Barr is filing suit to have both their names removed from the Texas ballot for the Presidential election.

The lawsuit by the former Republican congressman from Georgia claims that neither McCain nor Obama met the requirement of Texas law that all candidates provide “written certification” of their nomination “before 5 p.m. on the 70th day before election day,” because neither had been formally nominated by their respective parties in time. The suit was filed in the Texas Supreme Court in Austin.

Now, chances are, nothing's gonna happen! But ... assuming that to be the case, and assuming Barr wins this suit - that's the question, eh? "then what?".

[collegestudent22]

But ... assuming that to be the case, and assuming Barr wins this suit - that's the question, eh? "then what?".

Barr or another third party will win the state of Texas. Big deal. Although it might play into the national election, definitely resulting in a win for Obama....

Personally, I think the tactic is underhanded and anti-Libertarian. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a Libertarian candidate to do. Restricting voters' choices..... real "Libertarian" there.....

[StruckingFuggle]

Barr or another third party will win the state of Texas. Big deal. Although it might play into the national election, definitely resulting in a win for Obama....

On the one hand, "big deal" sounds sarcastic, but on the other hand "definitely resulting in a win for Obama" (becuase if Texas doesn't go to either major party, it will probably, indeed, by a win for Obama) (though write ins could sway it, as long as everyone spells it right and the RNC gets more people to do so than the DNC) ... so I'm confused by how you mean it, because "the election being swung by the major candidates in a close election not being on the ballot" seems like a fairly legitimate "big deal".

Personally, I think the tactic is underhanded and anti-Libertarian. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a Libertarian candidate to do. Restricting voters' choices..... real "Libertarian" there.....

Well if that's the case, we should put people who didn't register up on the ballot, too, shouldn't we? Because totally ignoring procedural law for your own interests is definitely a libertarian value, isn't it?

[collegestudent22]

Barr or another third party will win the state of Texas. Big deal. Although it might play into the national election, definitely resulting in a win for Obama....

On the one hand, "big deal" sounds sarcastic, but on the other hand "definitely resulting in a win for Obama" (becuase if Texas doesn't go to either major party, it will probably, indeed, by a win for Obama) (though write ins could sway it, as long as everyone spells it right and the RNC gets more people to do so than the DNC) ... so I'm confused by how you mean it, because "the election being swung by the major candidates in a close election not being on the ballot" seems like a fairly legitimate "big deal".

Big deal, in the sense that it really doesn't mean anything for any third parties. It would affect the election, but Barr (or any third party candidate) wouldn't really get anything out of it.

Well if that's the case, we should put people who didn't register up on the ballot, too, shouldn't we? Because totally ignoring procedural law for your own interests is definitely a libertarian value, isn't it?

That's what write-ins are for. Also, a third party nomination doesn't require THAT many people in most states. Forcing people off the ballet doesn't seem like a libertarian value. (On the other hand, I wouldn't say IGNORING the law is a value, but changing it to allow as much choice as possible..... Pointing out when the law MAY be violated in a way that doesn't really matter goes counter to that. It's like running around "tattling" about people speeding at 5 over the limit..... pointless and stupid.)

[The Cid]

Forcing people off the ballet doesn't seem like a libertarian value.

It brings to light a particularly silly regulation. Illustrating an example of over-regulation by trying to enforce it. I'm reserving judgment until I see where he goes with it.

While we're kind of on the subject of Bob Barr, I'll say this: I'm constantly disappointed in the Libertarian Party when it comes to elections, especially presidential. Maybe it's the nature of what the party believes, but Libertarians don't campaign entirely well.

It's no wonder nobody's buying what Bob Barr's selling--he's not a very good salesman! *Sigh*, at least Ron Paul got some people to listen up. Even if he's only a tick less crazy than a Batman villain. ...Still better than Michael Badnarik.

[adciv]

Two things some of you are apparently forgeting.
1) There is always the name write in on the ballot.
2) What happens if neither Obama or McCain get Texas is that there is the possibility of no one getting 270 electoral votes, invoking Amendment XII

[ampersand]

And if that happens, there will be a clamoring to make the electoral process more about direct popular vote and not if no one gets 270, then the Congress decides.

[adciv]

Would the winner in a direct popular vote be required to have 50%+1 of the vote in order to win?

[ampersand]

Yup, it would. It would.

[adciv]

That would be tough then, given how frequently a presidential candidate does not receive 50%+1 of the vote. 2000, 1996, 1992, 1964, 1956, 1948, 1916, 1908, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1860, 1856, 1848, 1844 and 1824.

[Deacon]

O RLY

[adciv]

Still waiting for Tower to make that topic.

[StruckingFuggle]

*Sigh*, at least Ron Paul got some people to listen up. Even if he's only a tick less crazy than a Batman villain. ...Still better than Michael Badnarik.

Ha-HA! You ADMIT it!

[collegestudent22]

*Sigh*, at least Ron Paul got some people to listen up.

Yeah, like CNN's Glenn Beck.... if that counts as "some" people.

Even if he's only a tick less crazy than a Batman villain.

The sad thing is, he actually has some good economic ideas. If his followers weren't so insane, he might be able to get others to actually listen...

[The Cid]

Ha-HA! You ADMIT it!

Oh yeah. He's crazy.

But when given the list of choices this year gave us, crazy wasn't such a bad alternative. I'll never vote for the lesser of two evils. I think it's wrong. I can live with crazy, though. Compared to evil or less evil, crazy doesn't seem so bad.