So only McCain during the election has standing according to you?
“Not only to me but to the judiciary as well.”
___________________________________________________________
I don’t believe you. Simple as that. I do not believe a court would make that flat statement. Please find the language you are referring to in a case.
Hollander v McCain, 2008 Link
"Hollander, however, argues that the harm to him from McCain's candidacy transcends simply the right to be governed by a constitutionally qualified President; Hollander claims it also impacts his right to vote, both in the New Hampshire Republican Primary and the general election. This is a difficult theory to understand, but it appears to rest on the premise that McCain's mere status as a presidential candidate or party nominee somehow interferes with the electoral franchise of voters like Hollander who consider McCain ineligible for the office. Presumably, those voters are empowered to address that concern on their own by voting for a different presidential candidate, whose eligibility is unimpeachable. The presence of some allegedly ineligible candidate on the ballot would not seem to impair that right in the least, no matter how the candidat performs in the election.
To be sure, courts have held that a candidate or his political party have standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or the party's own chanced of prevailing in the election. See, e.g., Tex. Dem Party v. Benkiser, 459 F. 3d 582, 586-87 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2006); Schulte v. Williams, 44 F. 3d 48, 53 (2nd Cir. 1994); Fulani v. Hogett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir. 1990). But that notion of "competitive standing" has never been extended to voters challenging the eligibility of a particular candidate."