Posted on 09/01/2004 3:26:02 PM PDT by PlushieWithTeeth
Speaking of deadlines for getting on the ballot, will W be on the Alabama, California, and (I think one more) state ballots? The last I knew the convention was so late that the deadline had passed.
So who you want to replace Kerry? Hillary, Gore, Liberman, Edwards?
No it isn't. It's ridiculous. Something a fool might ponder.
How silly. Both parties depend on a reasonable vote. Your suggestion is not reasonable.
There would be a deadline to have your candidate's name printed on the ballot and requirements to meet beforehand. Write-ins would be possible anytime.
Not true. Lots of states have deadlines for submitting a party's candidate for the state's ballot. In fact, due to the lateness of the Republican convention this year (an artifact of Olympic scheduling), a few states had to pass special bills to extend the deadline.
I know that California and Illinois both passed legislation allowing parties to submit their candidates close to the election than normally permitted. This means the DemocRATS could be in serious trouble if they tried to switch candidates for trivial reasons(anything less than major illness or death of a candidate). I would imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger would veto a bill allowing if the legislature passed one. There's no way the DemocRATS could force the states to change their ballots on short notice.
Personally, I don't want anyone to replace him. The man is a joke and provides me with hours of giggles reading over the witty Freeper comments regarding his various tall tales. When I'm not outraged at his audacity, I'm amused by his delusions of grandeur.
Electors aren't bound to vote for the candidate who won their state.
Not by federal law. But some states do require their electors to vote for the candidate that they were selected to vote for. On the first ballot, anyway.
Enough that simply having all the Rat electors switch isn't a winning option.
And replacing a name on the ballot is something that cannot be done in all states legally or extra-legally.
IMO, the Toricelli option ended when Kerry threw that sloppy salute in Boston the other week.
Still, if Bush carries 40+ states, it won't matter what sort of nonsense the Dems try.
If it's not close, they can't cheat. (Good book!)
If it was strictly a state question, Florida State Supreme court would have picked Gore. But US Supreme Court vacated their opinion.
Yes, I know about the Electoral College. They are free to choose. Period.
But, maybe, just maybe, you haven't heard of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. They have their own rules. Ever hear of Prop 187? They buried it. Something like 67% of California voted for it. They put it in arbitration.
It is still there...
Hmmm...could Governor Schwartzenegger pull it out of arbitration???
Hillary's never going to try to get elected in '04, and she doesn't want Kerry elected in '04 either. She knows she has a much better chance against whoever the pubs run in '08 - Cheney if his ticker lasts, or some leser known pub.
I know this for a fact. She wakes me up in the middle of the night to tell me these things.
Agree, it is an excellent question and I don't know the answer either.
The only close case I can recall is when McGovern replaced Eagleton with Shriver. Of course it's apples and oranges since it was the VP position but my memory is that Eagleton had already been nominated and elected as the candidate at the convension and McGovern just "did it".
But a change at this point would be even worse suicide than the path they're already on; a change at this time would be a McGovern drubbing.
It really doesn't matter....Bush will win who ever he runs against!!!
I don't know about that, but after this week, they would not be able to substitute Hillary's name for Kerry's on the ballot in most states. In general, the states have a deadline, in order to allow them to print the absentee ballots in time.
Now, it would be possible in some states for Kerry's name to be on the ballot, but for the electors to vote for Hilary (in the case that Kerry dropped out). In other states, it is against the law for the electors to cast their votes for anyone other than the candidate on the ballot.
All this scenario would do, at this point, is guarantee a Bush win.
With coat tails.
What do the rules have anything to do with it? Don't forget, we're talking dims here.
Thank you very much for the various answers. I don't think such a scenario is actually plausible, but I was curious as to the conditions and legalities of such an occurrence.
I appreciate your help! :)
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.