"Sore Loser" law keeps Libertarian candidate off of the ballot

[Centrehalf]

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President this year, will not appear on the ballot in Michigan because he switched affiliation after losing in the GOP primary. A very short article from the Detroit Free Press:

http://www.freep.com/article/201209...ry-johnson-will-not-appear-on-michigan-ballot

I haven't seen anything on this topic anywhere on this forum and apparently most states have these "sore loser" laws. I was wondering what the rest of you think.

Two quick thoughts from me:
1. This disenfranchises voters.
2. The only thing this can do is protect the candidates from the two major parties because the other parties don't hold primary elections, and these laws should be struck down due to their prejudicial focus. The more I think about it the more I come to think that we should altogether stop holding primary elections.

 

[dogtowner]

i guess conn doesnt have such law.
far too much bs involved with running for office.

 

[Cruella]

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President this year, will not appear on the ballot in Michigan because he switched affiliation after losing in the GOP primary. A very short article from the Detroit Free Press:

http://www.freep.com/article/201209...ry-johnson-will-not-appear-on-michigan-ballot

I haven't seen anything on this topic anywhere on this forum and apparently most states have these "sore loser" laws. I was wondering what the rest of you think.

Two quick thoughts from me:
1. This disenfranchises voters.
2. The only thing this can do is protect the candidates from the two major parties because the other parties don't hold primary elections, and these laws should be struck down due to their prejudicial focus. The more I think about it the more I come to think that we should altogether stop holding primary elections.

I kind of like the law. If Johnson wanted to run as an independent, why didn't he do that in the first place?

 

[Centrehalf]

Oddly enough, if he had wanted to run as an Independent on the November ballot he could have as long as he collected 19,000 signatures. Since he's running as a Libertarian he can't appear on the ballot.

 

[Cruella]

Oddly enough, if he had wanted to run as an Independent on the November ballot he could have as long as he collected 19,000 signatures. Since he's running as a Libertarian he can't appear on the ballot.

I think Newt had a problem with getting enough signatures in on time in a couple of states where he wasn't on the primary ballot. What's the point of that anyway? Why can't anyone run without jumping through that hoop?

 

[dogtowner]

I think Newt had a problem with getting enough signatures in on time in a couple of states where he wasn't on the primary ballot. What's the point of that anyway? Why can't anyone run without jumping through that hoop?

the stated intent is to keep frivolous candidates from cluttering the ballot up and that it will. I don't object to signatures as anyone can do that but I have a real problem with the money some demand. that eliminates people for no reason. Newt and Perry should have had no problem obtaining signatures, that they let this get past them is inexcusably stupid.

 

[Centrehalf]

I think Newt had a problem with getting enough signatures in on time in a couple of states where he wasn't on the primary ballot. What's the point of that anyway? Why can't anyone run without jumping through that hoop?

dogtowner is right, it's supposed to weed out people who aren't serious about running. I agree with you, if you have the backing of a party then I don't see any reason for it. Independents should still have to in lieu of having party support.

 

[dogtowner]

dogtowner is right, it's supposed to weed out people who aren't serious about running. I agree with you, if you have the backing of a party then I don't see any reason for it. Independents should still have to in lieu of having party support.

oddly the backing of a party was originally intended to ease the satisfying of this requirement.

 

[Cruella]

oddly the backing of a party was originally intended to ease the satisfying of this requirement.

If I remember correctly, Newt had more than enough signatures turned in, in one state, but the Dems challenged them and there wasn't enough time to verify all the signatures before some deadline. There is just too much BS game playing in our election process. I think the way the whole system, including all the game playing that goes on in Washington and the way our congress works is totally corrupt.

 

[Centrehalf]

It's interesting how many candidates are having "petition signature malfunctions" this election cycle. If I were a cynic I might say the fix is in.

 

[dogtowner]

If I remember correctly, Newt had more than enough signatures turned in, in one state, but the Dems challenged them and there wasn't enough time to verify all the signatures before some deadline. There is just too much BS game playing in our election process. I think the way the whole system, including all the game playing that goes on in Washington and the way our congress works is totally corrupt.

perhaps somewhere but I was only paying attention to my commonwealth and he just didn't get-r-done. ditto Perry.

 

[dogtowner]

It's interesting how many candidates are having "petition signature malfunctions" this election cycle. If I were a cynic I might say the fix is in.

its worth consideration especially given the work of G.Soros who has been quietly working to put friendlies in positions such as there. but it also seems like everyone is too concerned with running ads and not doing the work of campaigning.

 

[PLC1]

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President this year, will not appear on the ballot in Michigan because he switched affiliation after losing in the GOP primary. A very short article from the Detroit Free Press:

http://www.freep.com/article/201209...ry-johnson-will-not-appear-on-michigan-ballot

I haven't seen anything on this topic anywhere on this forum and apparently most states have these "sore loser" laws. I was wondering what the rest of you think.

Two quick thoughts from me:
1. This disenfranchises voters.
2. The only thing this can do is protect the candidates from the two major parties because the other parties don't hold primary elections, and these laws should be struck down due to their prejudicial focus. The more I think about it the more I come to think that we should altogether stop holding primary elections.

This is one way the Tweedledumocrats and the Tweedledublicans keep their hegemony and make sure that nothing really changes as they trade power back and forth.

 

[Cruella]

If the RINO Republicans don't change their ways they will find themselves out of the game completely. The TP isn't going to wait forever for them to shape up.

I think we should all become Independents, constitutionalists, libertarians etc and kill both parties.

 

[Centrehalf]

Just read something in the NY Times I thought was interesting on this topic. It's an opinion piece by Mickey Edwards.

http://The Unraveling Of Government

Let’s begin with the election process itself. In most states, party leaders have conspired to create “sore loser” laws that deny any place on the November ballot to a candidate who loses in a party primary or convention, no matter how few people participated. The two most egregious recent examples were former governor Mike Castle’s losing a spot on the Senate ballot in Delaware in 2010 because 30,000 people, in a state of nearly one million, voted for his primary opponent, and Utah, with a population of nearly three million, where Senator Robert Bennett was denied a place on the general election ballot that same year because a convention of 3,500 party activists denied him their endorsement.

Because activists can use closed primaries to deny ballot access to people they deem insufficiently pure, the majority of voters — many of whom would prefer the candidates who have been eliminated — simply lose the ability to make that choice.

I agree almost entirely with this piece. Closed Primaries and sore loser laws result in candidates being elected who wouldn't have otherwise been elected. And, even with that advantage, if the Party doesn't like the outcome, just rig it like the GOP did in Michigan this year (Santorum actually won the GOP primary here)