Slashdot Mirror
Barr Sues Over McCain's, Obama's Presence on Texas Ballot
corbettw writes "Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline."
For two months from now and get this all settled. Oh, what do you mean the election is before then?
I'm an Obama supporter living in Texas and I think this is actually a great thing to have both McCain and Obama's names removed from the ballot. Texas is a very conservative state, which makes my vote here virtually worthless. But if neither is on the ballot, then the chances of Obama winning the state because of write-ins or Barr (or another 3rd party candidate) winning because their name is on the ballot increases. Basically if John McCain doesn't win Texas, its a very deep blow for him and this lawsuit is pretty much the only shot we have at it.
When will we abolish this stupid electoral college?
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
If his case is valid, you'll see some true bi-partisan cooperation in Austin as they speedily pass a repeal of the relevant section of the state code.
I don't even see what this is doing on slashdot. There are far more important political events and news in the world going on every day, and this gets posted to slashdot? Why exactly is this news for nerds? Bob Barr is hardly relevant on a site ostensibly about tech and tech relevance. He is of almost no factor in the 2008 election. Why not start posting news about other fringe candidates, including the Communist, and Green parties while you're at it.
You know what we need? A federal law mandating that the top six political parties automatically get on the ballot for the Presidential election. The top six would be determined by the top six vote getters, nationally, as of the previous presidential election. This would ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again, but would significantly help third party candidates.
Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilised countries have.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Hey, this is awesome! Screw electronic voting. Screw pre-printed ballots in general! Just think -- if candidates were forced to rely on a write-in only process, voting participation would drop like a stone because the average American couldn't be bothered. Only the activists would show up, and the polls wouldn't be tainted by idiots who know nothing other than the contents of TV ads.
John
They've also missed the deadline for running as write-ins. They should rightfully face the same penalties Barr would have to if he made the same mistakes.
No, it's not just to keep his name in the press. Ballot access is a huge issue for 3rd party candidates. He's trying to make a point.
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. For no good reason.
Few other countries (civilized or otherwise) are as big as to be a Union of states.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Personally I would prefer writing in "None of the Above"
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
There is no legal guidance on the steps taken by a state in choosing how to cast their electoral votes. They could toss a coin and it'd likely be legal depending on THAT STATE'S constitution.
Ensuring fair, reasonable, and standardized elections isn't a good reason? I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the current electoral system is ideal. And the failures, as 2000 showed, are fairly catastrophic (i don't mean Bush's policies. I mean the turmoil, and lack of clarity)
There are lives at stake here!
Few other countries (civilized or otherwise) are as big as to be a Union of states.
Indeed, Switzerland is huge.
"I think he's trying to get votes. Isn't that what you do when you're running for office?"
Not when you are running as a third party. It's *never* about winning when you are running as a third party.
I don't know about that. What motivation would the Democrats have to permit passage of the bill? Texas is a guaranteed red state which they have no expectation of winning, and without Texas, McCain essentially loses the election. Now, it's likely that McCain would still win even as a write-in candidate, but if the Dems are represented enough in the Texas legislature, I'd think that they'd try to block passage of the bill using any means at their disposal.
Just because someone is an activist doesn't mean they're intelligent or well informed.
It just means they have strong opinions, and I have plenty of those about things I haven't even heard of yet.
Indeed: the real problem is that the states are letting the people choose the electors, when it ought to be the state legislature doing it!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What possible legal grounds could a political party - a private organization - have for forcing a state to do anything? Political parties have no constitutional standing; they're just clubs. Clubs of people who have very effectively fooled you, at least, into thinking that somehow the country would fall apart if they weren't around to tell you how to think.
States can do whatever they like to choose their electors, and put whatever constraints they feel like on the process, SO LONG AS those constraints are clear and unprejudicial. If every private club that wants their candidate on the ballot has to meet the same vaguely reasonable criteria, you don't have a damned thing to say about it unless you live in that state.
At least, that's how it is now. I'll bet just about anything that if Barr did somehow prevail here, the ultimate result would actually be another small death for states' rights, one way or another.
cogito ergo dubito
Agreed! Most people are completely confused about our government, and believe that it is a democracy. It would actually be quite difficult to have a true democracy with this many people in our country.
I'm also with you when it comes to our federal government (even state and local govt) coming in and telling us what to do. This is suppose to be a "government of the people and for the people" but it has turned into a goverment of the politicians and lobbyists for the politician, lobbyists and those who pay the lobbyists.
As someone one said, "I love my country, but I fear the government."
Contrariwise, if major party candidates can't find the time or motivation to follow election laws, why do they deserve your vote?
how to invest, a novice's guide
Hm, holding people accountable for rules without considering who they are or how powerful they are. Man, what an asshole.
You bring up an interesting analogy, but with a problem: if you miss the tax filing deadline, you are subject to penalties. Those are the rules, and it's well known.
I don't know the specifics of the election rules, but I suspect the stipulation is that if you miss the filing deadline, you won't get on the ballot. And not that if you miss the filing deadline, you'll get a fine.
Is that reasonable? Is that even true? I don't know. But seriously, bending rules out of convenience or _perceived_necessity? you're kidding, right?
Maybe he doesn't deserve your vote. You might not even agree with his Libertarian Party platform. But it's not about him; it's about the Big Party guys.
Does whether or not this Barr guy (I know nothing about him) would be a good president affect whether or not the two powerful parties in the US should be held accountable? I think that's the point.
And seriously, third parties have it kind of bad here. They have trouble getting on the ballot in all states, and I'm not surprised that they'd pull out all the stops to improve their situation.
Personally, I don't like it this two-party dominance a whole lot. Their collective monopoly of power is a little scary.
I naively hope that the rule of law wins out in this case. I have no expectation of that, but I hope.
Well we (Americans) lost our own Civil War. The repercussions have rung through the last century plus. The federal government was not meant to be a massive overriding force in our lives. States were supposed to govern their own borders and the Constitution was there to limit a few things that states could not govern (like trade between states, or basic rights).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Thank you! It saddens me that 90% of the population have such a poor understanding of their own system of government. Do high schools no longer require a class in Government? Do people just not care what the reality is and just make up facts that suit them? It's insane that people think it is important to vote but not important to understand what the fuck is going on.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Ron Paul!
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
I fail to see really how the failures of 2000 were "catastrophic" in any sense of the word. Nobody died, the government didn't shut down, and there was a peaceful succession of power.
I believe the issue here was that the major parties hadn't yet decided who their candidate was going to be, and that Texas has an unusually early filing requirment compared to most of the other states.
The issue here is that Barr is off the ballot or fighting for access in other states for the same reason.
That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves. Now if you'd like to make some big spiel about how the Union winning the civil war lead to negative repercussions for your state's rights, then I'm simply going to point out that the previous system was far, far worse. It allowed slavery. Yes it did. So arguing for states rights to be reinstated in order to protect people's rights is not really a solid argument.
May the Maths Be with you!
Both the EU and the US are examples that this can actually be done.
Except that the EU is much closer to the original vision of the US than the modern US is. As the GP says, there to limit a few things that states could not govern (like trade between states, or basic rights). The modern US is in nearly all significant ways a unitary country with provinces, rather than a union of sovereign states as originally intended.
Of course, this is mostly because the EU is ~40 years old. Give it a century or so, and we'll probably see it go the same way.
Well we (Americans) lost our own Civil War.
Can a civil war end in any other way?
To be clear on this "publicity stunt" implies something that it isn't -- that this is just an attempt to garner some sort of public attention for some childish purpose.
In fact, just as in the case of Kucinich, this is about public awareness by the only means by which the public has any real access -- the press. The fact that we have the press is no accident. Freedom of the press is here by design. It is unfortunate that it wasn't foreseen that the press would all be bought up by a rather limited number of people and use it to push their views and agendas. But even as twisted as it is, it is still a useful institution for a democratic republic, struggling as it may be, to have available.
The Libertarian party grows with each election cycle. The two big parties are trying to keep even the knowledge its existence suppressed as much as possible. The press, of course, doesn't help this much when they exclude them from debates and statistical reporting of the facts. (Isn't it publishing false or intentionally inaccurate information an actionable offence when they take any results associated with other parties and assign them to the two biggest parties so that their two numbers conveniently add up to 100%? The practice is despicable, manipulative and distorting of the facts they are charged with reporting.)
Further, the Libertarian party is using the same tool of repression that has been used against them for a very long time -- election law. If we even PRETEND to have a fair and unbiased legal system, this has to be admitted and acted upon properly. Otherwise, it's time we all start to admit that our system is very tainted, distorted and is a complete sham against the public.
With all other things being controlled by the big two, the press is the only vehicle remaining when it comes to getting the word out. Is the purpose of the action to gain public attention? Very likely. But it is more than that as well. It is a demand for equality under the law; a demand that all operate under the same laws for better or worse; a demand that law not be enabled to favor one [or two] party over others regardless of their majority status. There could be nothing more American. Whites only? Men only? The fight for equality under the law is more than a racist or a sexist issue -- it is about all forms of minority having equal treatment and access to government.
If you're throwing all that 'taxation without representation' business out of the window, then logically you should be required to join the British Empire.
This would only help Obama. Texas being a solid red state so by removing both (giving the impression of fairness) McCain looses his electorates. And a large Republican stage goes away. Sure there is always a right in. But the question is how many people know about it. I mean only a small portion of people actually vote, and now if it isn't on the ballet. It would go further. This may be the first time a 3rd party candidate wins an electoral votes in a long time.
Getting elected isn't about getting the most people to be for you. It is all about targeting the correct areas. Let NY, CA, Rot they will vote Democrat anyways but lets focus Ohio and Florida. They even will figure out where teh swing counties are and campaign there.
That is why I am kinda disapointed that I live in a solid blue state. That means the democrates take our vote for granted and will not do much to get our vote in essence letting our state rot. And the republicans see it deep in enemy teratorry will avoid the state and let our state rot. I am hoping the NY votes for McCain not because I want him as president but I wan't Politions to take notice of our state, see that our state has problems that needs to be addresssed too.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Using the past as a example is not a solid argument in this case. But then against he Declaration of independence should have been written into the constitution to enforce that we are all born equal. Something that is not in there to this day...
If you don't like that, amend the constitution or move.
STFU. Since *I* don't like it, I'll keep right on making noise about it until it is changed. I cannot amend the constitution alone and I damn sure am not going to move because some asshole has the kneejerk reaction of a child.
"Or move." What a crock of shit that tired line is.
"Indeed: the real problem is that the states are letting the people choose the electors, when it ought to be the state legislature doing it!"
Have you looked at your state legislature lately? Do you know who your state legislators are? Do you even know what your state legislature as called, as well as the names of its houses?
I'm in favor of what you propose, as well as what another respondent said about repealing the Seventeenth, but that would require that voters not only trust their state legislatures (which they don't, not that they've been given much reason to), but that they know their legislatures.
Reform the legislatures into more trustworthy bodies (say, by eliminating gerrymandering, or by implementing ranked voting, or both), then you can start looking at how they apply to the federal government.
Do you think this best serves the interest of the people of Texas, almost all of whom want to vote for Obama or McCain?
E pluribus unum
That's ridiculous.
Both systems allowed for slavery. It doesn't take a change in the type of government to prohibit slavery. It just takes the willingness of those in power to prohibit it.
Slavery ended with the passing of the 13th amendment after the war. Until then, it was still legal in the North wherever individual states or territories didn't prohibit it. Thanks to our lousy government run education, everyone thinks Lincoln abolished slavery with his "Emancipation Proclamation". Read it. It allowed slavery in the north.
It's amazing how our government has managed to whitewash history to make it look like hundreds of thousands of chivalrous northern soldiers fought and died to free the black man. Yet if you look at the way blacks were treated in the north before and after the war, you'd quickly realize that these northerners were hardly willing to die for the rights of blacks. But the whole "free the slaves" cover is great for whipping up patriotism while covering the real reason for the war - a federal power grab by wealthy interests.
Face it. If the northerners really believed in equality and rights strongly enough to fight for them, we wouldn't have had another century of segregation in both the north and the south followed by race riots all over the north in the 60's.
Just FYI: As a rust belt resident who lives one mile from one of the largest and most profitable steel mills left in the entire state of Pennsylvania (if not the country)... We pretty much nailed the lid on the coffin of the American steel industry about 25 years ago and there isn't a steel man in the area who doesn't realize the steel tariff is a bad joke, if not an insult to their industry.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Not at a state level, only on an individual level (this was one of the original mandates of the federal government, specifically to prevent trade embargoes between states). You'd easily end up with individuals willing to trade in slave-produced goods from the south, and with less competition in the market (and higher demand for those products as a result of other people being unwilling to trade in it), such individuals would profit substantially.
Even if no such individuals already existed in those states (presuming all citizens of the northern states were of like mind), southerners would have readily traveled north and taken on the role.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
What would you suggest as a replacement ?
A big ol' yes/no for each candidate ? Tally them up, and whoever gets the most "Yes" answers wins ?
I'd approve that system. I'd say it's even easier to understand and harder to game than STV/IRV.
MA is also a commonwealth. (That word sounds like socialism...)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Federal elections are about choosing between Democrats or Republicans. So long as these two can get ready in time, it's all that matters. Let's keep in mind that we have a legal system here that is based on common law. US law is about reality, not books and schools.
The bottom line is that Libertarians are just not part of the democratic process in the United States. He should just shut up and choose to be Democrat or Republican.
Please stop propping up the two-party system. Thank you.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
No, the people lost the war. The government won it.
Since *I* don't like it, I'll keep right on making noise about it until it is changed.
Making noise won't get a single thing changed. Unorganized bitching won't get a thing done. You want to fix things? Call your Senator, call your Representative, call your State Senator and Representative. Encourage other people to do the same.
Unless you actually DO SOMETHING, you'll be just like those old welfare bums that I remember from when I was a kid who used to sit around drinking cheap beer crying about how the "system" was a "sham".
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves.
Wrong. Take a look at the Emancipation Proclamation sometime, and you'll see that it was much more of an economic attack than a declaration of the right of men and women to be free of slavery. From Wikipedia:
If the Union had been so interested in declaring all men and women to be free, why did it only apply to states that didn't toe the line? I'm fairly sure it wasn't until after the American Civil War that slavery was completely abolished by federal/Constitutional law, which means (from a federal standpoint, at least) Union states were still allowed to have slavery throughout the war. It's completely revisionist to claim the war was "about" freeing slaves (though I admit that's what you'll typically be taught in school as a child here in the US).
Yeah, the commerce clause has done some terrible things, but it's done some good too. We wouldn't have our interstate highway system without it.
The real offender is the 16th amendment. It basically let's the federal government say to the states, "Do what we say, or we won't give you your money back."
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
This is based on what I hear versus what I know from experience, so please don't flame me for being an ignorant American. I already know I am :)
What I've heard about the situations regarding Moslems is that the Moslems do not accept the culture they are surrounded by. It's one thing to maintain one's own culture (I am an Orthodox Jew), but it's quite another to try and force your new neighbors to cater to your prejudices.
Weren't the northern states, in the old system, capable of declining trade with slave-enabling states?
No. Regulation of interstate commerce is a federal, not a state prerogative. Under the Constitution, states are not allowed to impose embargoes, tariffs, or other trade restrictions on their neighbors. Individuals in the north could have chosen not to trade with the south, but that wouldn't work.
However, slavery wasn't really the reason the southern states seceded, any more than taxes were the reason for the Revolution. In both cases, the reasons were complex and deep, and had as much to do with people feeling like they didn't really belong as any specific concerns. As another poster pointed out, several northern states allowed slavery throughout the Civil War, and that wasn't changed until well after the war was over.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
but libertarianism is an empty, flawed ideology anyways, so what do you expect?
Would that be the same empty and flawed ideology the country was founded on in the first place? It might be entertaining for you to give an example of an ideology you don't consider empty and flawed.
This is my signature.
soid st egr.hyTa rsiugm usnin
Any questions?
Have you looked at your state legislature lately?
I have tried and it's very difficult. The media pays no attention to the state legislature. It's like they don't even exist. Therefore, everyone turns to the federal government to solve their problems.
Not enough cops on your street? Washington needs to pass that crime bill!
The schools suck in my area. We need No Child Left Behind!
These are local problems. The need to be solved by state and local government!
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
And today we get yet another lesson on why the electoral college is useless and outdated. How is it that someone can get a majority of votes and not win? Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Yes, we are a nation of laws. The nice thing about that is that when something is not explicitly spelled out in the law, people have leeway to do as they see fit.
The law in this case is a contract between the state and political parties, stating that if the political parties jump through all the right hoops then the state is compelled to put the party's candidate on the ballot.
It doesn't say anything at all about what the state can or cannot do if a party fails to jump through a hoop. So that means it's up to the actual officials involved, all the way up to the Texas Secretary of State.
In this case, it means that the political parties involved have no legal recourse if their candidates' names do not appear on the ballot. They missed the deadline, so the state is not compelled to include their names on the ballot. But the state certainly is still allowed to put those names on the ballot, because the law does not forbit it.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
I would argue that it is completely revisionist to claim that the war was not about freeing the slaves. I suspect that this revisionism has its roots in modern Southern politicians and historians who are embarrassed by The Peculiar Institution and want to claim some other more noble sounding reason for starting the War of the Southern Rebellion. One has only to look at the reaction in the North to John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry to see that a major confrontation was brewing over the issue although Lincoln, ever the politician, later tried to spin the cause of the war as "we were just trying to restrict it's growth." The usual reason given for why the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states that allowed slavery was that Lincoln could not afford to alienate them too much since they might also choose to secede.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1865
FreeSpeech.org
Let's give blame where blame's due. FDR threatened to stack the court if they voted against him, and Congress lined up behind His Royal Highness King Franklin I and said they were good with that. This was all to pass the unconstitutional New Deal programs, which did little to actually fix the depression and transformed us into a socialist state. The alternative, of course, was to let people suffer the consequences of their own poor choices instead of looking to Washington to bail them out when their greed took them down. We have seen the epic failure of American socialism in the last 60 -- 70 years. Two-thirds of our federal budget is still going to pay for these cumbersome, ill-managed programs, but they are headed to bankruptcy, and are likely to take us down with them.
Unfortunately, the last week has demonstrated that we have learned absolutely nothing. Thanks to our Republican Chief, we are all paying to socializing losses to bail out the greedy, and we are all set to welcome, with open arms, the Democrats' Second Coming of the Socialist Messiah in January.
We will have nobody but ourselves to blame, comrades.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
If neither candidate can run on the ballot OR as a write in, that would almost certainly precipitate a nationwide constitutional crisis.
To win the Presidency in a one on one race, a candidate needs to get 270 electoral votes, because there are a total of 538 votes in the Electoral College. Texas has the 34 electoral votes, meaning that if the electors from Texas were barred from voting for either candidate, Obama would almost certainly win a plurality.
Except -- the electors aren'tspecifically bound by the constitution to vote for anybody. Theoretically an elector, while elected standing for candidate A, can change his mind and vote for B. About half the states have laws which punish "faithless electors", although the constitutionality of these laws have never been tested. It's doubtful that they are constitutional.
If Obama wins 270 electoral votes, it won't matter. But if he wins 235 electoral votes it won't matter (because McCain will have 370), although that is unlikely in the extreme.
If we have anything in between, we have a constitutional crisis. What would be clear is that had the will of Texans been honored according to how the system was supposed to work, then McCain should have won. If some TX electors acting on this theory votes for him, then he will win, but the legitimacy of this win will be questioned by around half of Americans who voted for Obama -- possibly more than half if Obama wins the popular vote. If not enough TX electors vote for McCain to put him over the top, the people who voted for McCain will not recognize the legitimacy of the elections. If each candidate gets exactly 252 votes (I haven't checked whether this is possible mathematically), then the election goes to the House, which will give the Presidency to Obama.
I'm afraid you misunderstand the system. The House doesn't just decide in a dead tie, it decides if nobody gets a majority of the total electoral votes cast. With 538 electors, that always means 270. It's not a question of who gets the most votes, it's a question of who gets >50% of the total. If both McCain and Obama get less than 270, the election goes to the House, no matter who has more. Since McCain is guaranteed to win Texas if he's on the ballot, there are three possible outcomes if he's not. 1) Obama gets 270, so McCain not being on the ballot in Texas doesn't matter. 2) McCain gets 270, even without Texas. 3) Obama doesn't get 270, nor does McCain because of Texas. Election goes to the House. So the real question is, who would win if the House voted state by state, along party lines? Anyone care to count it up?
Former US House candidate, TN-5
I don't think you quite understand the point of the electoral college. It wasn't to make some people's votes be worth more than others; the founders had a more state-centered view of the matter, as back then being a state meant a lot more than it does now.
Rather than remove the electoral college to keep in line with modern encroachments on the constitution, why not go back to the state-centered approach instead of the large-central-government one? It would mean that the feds couldn't try to override local marijuana laws and stick sick people in jail, for one thing.
And today we get yet another lesson on why the electoral college is useless and outdated. How is it that someone can get a majority of votes and not win? Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.
Insightful my ass.
Try reading the constitution. You know, the founding document of our nation? The supreme law of the land?
People don't vote for president. States do. It's the law. Get over it.
Complete disregard for constitutional law is exactly why we're having so many problems today. (Lack of education is another one.)
My Freakin Blog
I would argue that it is completely revisionist to claim that the war was not about freeing the slaves. [...] The usual reason given for why the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states that allowed slavery was that Lincoln could not afford to alienate them too much since they might also choose to secede.
So let me paraphrase what you just said... the war was about freeing the slaves, except that in order to keep some border states on the side of the Union, those states would be allowed to keep their slaves.
Doesn't that imply the war had to be about other things too, if the Union was willing to concede slavery to states "on their side"? Why wouldn't all the southern states just say "Ok, great, we'll come back to the Union and keep our slaves, just like you said we could." if that was "the cause of the war"? It sure *looks* like there had to be more going on that was considered more important than slavery.
The fact is, the winners write the history books. Maybe there's a lot I just don't understand about the context, but so far I'm not convinced. I could very well be wrong about this, maybe the Union really was fighting the good fight, sacrificing themselves for the good of others, but I suspect the truth is less black-and-white (and FAR less morally uplifting) than most people think.
People don't vote for president. States do. It's the law. Get over it.
Or you could change the law if it's become anachronistic (I'm not saying it has, but saying "It's the law. Get over it" is rather silly... if one were to take that view, women and minorities wouldn't have the right to vote in the US).
Complete disregard for constitutional law is exactly why we're having so many problems today
Funny, many other countries don't have a US-style constitution, and yet they don't have the problems the US does. Mayhap you're looking in the wrong place for an excuse?
having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.
Having people concentrated in cities is a reality that they knew about. This creates voting blocks that would dominate rural areas. To give rural areas a bit of an influence, the votes of people in more populous states are diminished. Those are the facts. That's what the framers had in mind, and that's how it works now. If you are only figuring this out now, you weren't paying attention in elementary school (or aren't American).
Learn to love Alaska
I change what I can, where I can. I have a much better shot at changing the status quo by trying to change people's minds, one person at a time, than I do by pleading with those in power to change the system so that they have less power.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
What the hell planet has he been living on for the last ten years?
But as soon as it's a minority party doing the same thing, then the Law is Gold and needs to be upheld no matter what.
You really do not understand anything about the situation. At all.
The Republican and Democrat parties have been conspiring for decades to keep 3rd parties out of elections, out of debates, off of ballots through a huge variety of very sleazy tricks.
They had the former LP candidate, Badnarik arrested for showing up at the location of the debates to serve court papers related to their unauthorized restriction of our electoral process. That's one example among hundreds.
So, given that dirty tricks and sleaze are the standard technique that the 2 major parties use to maintain their power at the expense of the Republic, it is absolutely a great thing that Barr, douchebag that he is, is able to use election laws for the good of the country rather than at its expense.
Plus it is completely hilarious to see both parties screwed by the same techniques that they've mastered the art of fucking 3rd parties with. That is justice.
It's really not a bad thing to expect a presidential candidate to follow the laws regarding the election that they're running in. I'm pretty scared that you think that just believing that makes a person a scumbag. You might consider looking into what it means to be a citizen as opposed to being a subject. You clearly do not understand the distinction.
Laws ARE absolute. And governmental power extends from, and defines, those laws.
I do not speed -- 1 kmph or mph over the speed limit is a violation. The speeding law is an absolute. Note that the signs on the highway say "Violators WILL be prosecuted" (at least along the highway I take). The job of governments is to tend law via legislation. As a result, the scrutiny should be even more intense. Enforcement MUST be absolute in the case of the government itself breaking the law.
Nothing else can be tolerated by a democratic society.
So, yes, when it comes to the people who DESIRE to rule following the law TO THE LETTER; and especially ELECTORAL law, yes, I am absolutist.
As should everyone.
Now this is an especially egregious case -- the law seems to be SELECTIVELY enforced, and there is a possibility of selective bias being introduced.
Not revenge -- control of the democratic process upon which your country is founded.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
But failing to obtain that guarantee does not somehow imply that the state must prevent their names from appearing on the ballot.
Not according to the numerous lawsuits filed by the Democratic and Republican parties to exclude 3rd parties that missed the deadlines or managed to get signatures invalidated. The way the rules are here, it does explicitly state that the deadline is a deadline. You don't meet it, you don't get on the ballot. I haven't read TX law on this exact point, but what is the point of calling it a "deadline" if it isn't, in fact, a deadline? That should be the guaranteed date, not a deadline. And if that was the case, it would be unconstitutional. Vague laws are not allowed, because in practice, they are applied unequally, which is unconstitutional.
Learn to love Alaska