Bob Barr FTW

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.star-telegram.com/464/story/916789.html

He's suing to have Obama and McCain removed from the ballot on the grounds that they were not nominated before the deadline for filing in Texas.

I'm not a lawyer, but this case actually looks legit.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Wheres FWDT when you need him?

[timvp]

The chances of him winning this legal battle is less than the chances of him becoming the next POTUS.

[MannyIsGod]

The chances of him winning this legal battle is less than the chances of him becoming the next POTUS.

Don't rain on my parade bitch.


:depressed:depressed

[MannyIsGod]

The Supreme Court has refused to dismiss the case outright and has asked all parties to file their response to the lawsuit by Monday.
Part of the legal basis for the suit is Bush vs. Gore, by which the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail,” and that election laws must be uniformly applied and interpreted.


I don't think this is getting nearly enough play in the media today. Quite frankly I'll admit part of this is probably wishful thinking on my part but this shit really does look airtight. If the official nomination of the party is at the convention then how could they possibly put someone on the ballot before that point?


I'd love to see Barr win this.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/091908dntexbarrballot.8b61581c.html

[baseline bum]

I can never vote for a third party candidate. Having a third party with any kind of strength would be a disaster for the presidential election, since a third party candidate that wins enough electoral votes to keep one side from getting a majority ensures the president will be the one from the largest party in the House. Even though that would be a win for Obama, there is no way I'd be happy with it being decided like that.

[Spurminator]

NM misread

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'll have to find the link to it, but as I understand it both parties actually filed the papers in time, and this is nothing more than a sort of half ass parliamentary procedure by Barr that he won't win.

[braeden0613]

I can never vote for a third party candidate. Having a third party with any kind of strength would be a disaster for the presidential election, since a third party candidate that wins enough electoral votes to keep one side from getting a majority ensures the president will be the one from the largest party in the House. Even though that would be a win for Obama, there is no way I'd be happy with it being decided like that.
What if a third party actually won the most electoral votes? Its not like either party is putting out an entirely different candidate anyway.

[fyatuk]

I can never vote for a third party candidate. Having a third party with any kind of strength would be a disaster for the presidential election, since a third party candidate that wins enough electoral votes to keep one side from getting a majority ensures the president will be the one from the largest party in the House. Even though that would be a win for Obama, there is no way I'd be happy with it being decided like that.

Are you sure about Obama winning there? Remember, that in the specific case of the House choosing the President, each STATE has one vote. I'm not sure how the state delegations are divided, but considering there are many more traditionally red states than traditionally blue states, McCain might win that.

Of course, since the Senate would then choose the VP, Biden would almost assuredly win that.

So then the winners would be... McCain/Biden!

[JoeChalupa]

I object!!!!

[Nbadan]

Are you sure about Obama winning there? Remember, that in the specific case of the House choosing the President, each STATE has one vote. I'm not sure how the state delegations are divided, but considering there are many more traditionally red states than traditionally blue states, McCain might win that.

Errr.........Dems control both houses...

[fyatuk]

Errr.........Dems control both houses...

Did you read what I wrote. The vote in the house is BY STATE, not by Rep.

That means Alaska, which has 1 Rep counts the same as California's 55.

The question is how many states have a majority Republican within their state delegation and how many have majority Democrat. Doesn't matter who controls the House as a whole, it matters who controls the most states delegations.

After actually looking it up, it wouldn't make a difference though.

Republican controlled delegations: Alabama, Alaska, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Delaware, Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia, Idaho, South Carolina, Kentucky, Texas, Louisiana, Utah, Virginia, Michigan, and Wyoming (21)

Democrat controlled delegation: Arkansas, California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Illinois, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Mississippi (27)

Even split delegations: Arizona, and Kansas (2)

If everyone goes through party lines, and each state goes with majority rules (how they decide which way the state delegation votes is up to them), Obama wins 27-23 at worst. Many of this states are only biased by one vote though, so one person changing sides can vastly change the result, but note how there are only 50 votes...

[Creepn]

I told my girl about this Texas ballot thing and she immediately dismissed it and rolled her eyes. She didnt even believe the story I told her was true. She says that Texas will not do a thing like that and find some way to have their names on the ballot. I said "The candidates skipped the deadline though, its in the rules!" but she just scoffed and even dared me to take her bet that Obama and McCain will be on the ballot.

Should I take this bet or what?

[fyatuk]

No way they'll be removed from the ballot. This will disappear rather quickly to the point where no one will remember it ever happened.

[MannyIsGod]

Ruled against Barr today. What really pisses me off is that they didn't write an opinion so its like WTF was the reasoning behind your decision? Such a crock of shit.

[Anti.Hero]

Always trying to keep the independent man down.

[Wild Cobra]

So then the winners would be... McCain/Biden!
I need o go back and read that. However, maybe the states would pick Palin over McCain, or is that not possible?

[Wild Cobra]

I'll have to find the link to it, but as I understand it both parties actually filed the papers in time, and this is nothing more than a sort of half ass parliamentary procedure by Barr that he won't win.
I heard they failed to meet a deadline that the state changed. I didn't read the two links in this thread though.

I would love to see Barr win texas' electorial votes! Shake things up a bit!

[RandomGuy]

Errr.........Dems control both houses...

Not quite. You can't "control" the senate without 60+ votes.

[whottt]

:lol this suit was just slightly more relevant than the Libertarian party. Remind me not to hire Barr as a lawyer for anything.

[fyatuk]

I need o go back and read that. However, maybe the states would pick Palin over McCain, or is that not possible?

It's not since the Amendment that changed the way VPs were selected. Formerly VP was just the second place presidential candidate effectively, but now they are classified completely separately.

The House vote would only involve the top three electoral vote getting Presidential candidates, and the Senate would choose the VP from the top 3 VP electoral vote getting candidates.

Theoretically, those two lists don't have to be from the same tickets (electoral votes are done separately for Pres and VP), but in practice, most states only allow voting by ticket and many have "faithless" elector laws requiring electors to vote as they are pledged.

[Creepn]

lol glad I didnt take that bet. I'm disappointed though.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol this suit was just slightly more relevant than the Libertarian party. Remind me not to hire Barr as a lawyer for anything.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you here. I don't agree with all libertarians, but I agree with them more than the two prominent parties.

The problem is that we accept the two parties and one of the other. We need more choice. The third parties can never get prominence because we have election systems that win by the most votes, rather than at least 50%+1 votes, using some form of a run-off election. The current powers, democrat and republican, would never allow this power hold to change. Just ask your representative and senators about run-off elections, and see what they say.

[whottt]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you here. I don't agree with all libertarians, but I agree with them more than the two prominent parties.


You feel free to disagree all you want :tu





The problem is that we accept the two parties and one of the other. We need more choice. The third parties can never get prominence because we have election systems that win by the most votes, rather than at least 50%+1 votes, using some form of a run-off election. The current powers, democrat and republican, would never allow this power hold to change. Just ask your representative and senators about run-off elections, and see what they say.



That's ok because I like the 2 party system and basically think I am lucky to be American. If you think the out of power party bitches now...just wait till there are 3 parties and one of the book end parties governs. It'll get militant...and that's when the country will start turning into a shithole.


I don't think America is broken...I realize it's supposed to make you some kind of pseudo intellectual to be cynical and think America is fucked up...but I don't share that opinion.


The only thing wrong with the 2 party system is the party loyalists...a 3rd party is going to exacerbate that problem...not correct it.