Posted on 01/11/2012 9:14:40 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
... Virginians [won't] be allowed to support their candidates in the GOP primary, unless they happen to like [Romney/Paul]. Some say this is “fair”; I say it is a ridiculous and unacceptable outcome for Virginia’s voters.
...[it's] a federal election; candidates are being chosen by voters in every state. Requiring presidential candidates to meet these requirements is like requiring statewide candidates to qualify for the ballot in each county. Imagine going to vote and finding only half the candidates for governor on your ballot. That’s what we face here; there are more than six candidates left for the GOP presidential nomination.
...Some argue it isn’t “fair” to change the rules. As an editorial in this paper noted, the candidates “knew the rules” and were called “sore losers.” But ballot access isn’t an election for a candidate to “lose” before a vote is cast. And the losers aren’t the candidates, who are still in the race, but the voters of Virginia, who don’t get our say. [We're] the ones being punished by these rules.
...What harm is there if voters want to write in another candidate? It might be a little harder to count ballots, and maybe we can’t announce winners for an extra day or two. But Alaska managed to successfully count write-in votes, and picked a senator; are we incapable of doing the same? Blocking write-ins is an arbitrary act meant to enhance the value of signature collection and restrict choice to “preferred” candidates.
...Ballot restrictions haven’t limited the candidates, just our ability to vote for them. Virginians are not served by being denied the right to choose between all the candidates. ... It’s not about “rules” or “fairness” — it’s about Virginians having a say in choosing the person who leads our country for the next four years.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsandmessenger.va.newsmemory.com ...
Legislatures act on the will of the people, and if enough people took the time to write and call (and it wouldn't take that many) they could act to fix our ballot.
Since I wrote this, I edited it slightly to get under the 300-word excerpt rule (mostly by creating contractions, which I don't normally use. I marked them all with square bracketes. I still don't have formal approval from the paper to post full versions here, because we are working through the new free-lance contract agreement.
It would be unfair if none of the candidates were able enough to meet the requirements.
Let me ask this. Does any other State require a candidate to get 10,000 signatures in order to get on a ballot?
The Virginia rules were known for over a year, or several years; depending on who you talk to. If any candidate is unable to follow the Virginia rules to make it on the ballot, I do NOT want them to be in charge of the entire nation!
Normally, I dislike when this question is asked, because it’s usually meant to imply something.
But you explicitly said that you do not want, as President, someone who couldn’t make it onto the Virginia ballot.
There are two candidates qualified right now for Virginia. Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul.
Are you supporting one of those three candidates, or are you in fact supporting a candidate who failed to make it on the Virginia ballot?
by the time we get to vote in Va., Romney will have it in the bag, just like McCain in 2008.
That makes no sense. The GOP in every state must insure that the legally candidates for a Federal Election must be on every ballot in every State. This right should never been invested in any State or this is not the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Get it!!!!!!!!
I like the article. Levin mentioned some recent rules changes. Do you know more about that?
I strongly disagree with you on a couple of points though. You write:
“This is not a game. We are picking the leader of the free world.”
I submit that this is in fact a game, and that the world now is essentially unfree. I wish you were right on these points.
“The GOP in every state must insure that the legally candidates for a Federal Election must be on every ballot in every State.”
Not that I disagree with your sentiments but I would say the GOP got precisely the result the GOP wanted. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I agree with the thinking in this article. Remember, it was the DEMOCRAT party legislators and senators that passed this law requiring 10,000 signatures....they passed it in the 1990’s I believe.
So it will require lawmakers to act to overturn these over-burdensome regulations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.