Posted on 09/01/2004 3:26:02 PM PDT by PlushieWithTeeth
Question: What are the rules for switching out a candidate for the office of the United States President? As in, is it possible to switch out another candidate when it's apparent the current one is losing badly? What are the deadlines for doing something like this? Any help on this would be very much appreciated :)
You are correct, and September 2 is generally the deadline for registration for appearace on ballots this year (60 days lead time to print ballots). The President just gets under this deadline, which is why the convention was planned as it was. After this date, soem pretty fancy shenanigans will have to be engineered, state-by-state, to change candidacy. And for two reasons, it won't happen: Kerry's humongous ego and Hildabeast.
The electors and alternates are already known, having been chosen at party conventions in each respective state. All set, an elector is on the ballot in each state. Now, the convenience of associating a presidential candidate's name with the party, and with the elector's name, is a real advantage. But is not legally required.
Presidential elections are very different, and the system tolerates surprize changes at any point in the process. Even after the November election, but before the electors cast their ballots in December. Even if the president elect is not available to be sworn in! And, even after swearing in. Agnew, then Nixon resigned, both due to scandal, and the result was Gerald Ford as president, before he ever ran for the office.
Partially true. The states regulate how the electors vote, not the constitution, I think. For example, Maine splits its vote proportionally, and Ohio law awards electorship according to whomever wins the popular vote in the state.
Ahhhhh, BRB
"Hillary ain't gonna swoop in. Fuggheddabadit."
I agree. Too much chance she could lose. More likely it would be Edwards moving up...with Moore added to the ticket for the centrist vote.
Ain't gonna happen, folks. Hillary is preparing for 2008, not 2004.
MM
Wasn't there a Democrat lawyer who was caught trying to influence the Republican electors in 2000? I seem to recall someone trying a blackmail or other such Rat technique...
I've thought of that same thing more than once....
Wouldn't THAT be a cute little soap opera. Kerry feigns illness (he'd be convinced to do so by Don Clintone) and takes to a hospital bed. He's visited daily by Hillary, who puts up a brave front, with daily expressions of best wishes for the "ailing" candidate. McAuliffe goes on TV with charges that the SBVT and Carl Rove have done this to a valiant war veteran.
At the critical hour, it is announced that Kerry will bow down due to irremediable health issues. Hillary makes her finest speech, declaring in faux comraderie how she will take up the banner of so noble a man as John F. Kerry.
Maybe I oughta go into the Soap Opera business...
I know each state has deadlines which have either passed, or will soon pass, but I'm sure they'll try the same tricks they did in NJ
He may have forced her, months ago, to Kill Kerry Now.
Please remember her 'October Surprise' assurance this March.
I think this is a wrong line of reasoning. They may not love john Kerry; they may wish it were Killery; but in the last analysis, they are so arrogant that they still don't know they can't carry it off.
They will get shriller and shriller; tell more outrageous lies; tell them louder and more often because some sheeple will believe if major newsies are spinning it.
Nah! It's 1994 all over again. They're telling themselves they cannot lose. It is impossible that they will not get power back.
Shock and awe will be the day after election.
vaudine
You vote to choose your state's electors. Then they are free to choose whoever they want.
Remember that Reagan got one electoral vote in '76. They can vote as they please. Remember that Bob Beckel was out trying to dig up dirt on Bush electors in 2000 to get them to change their vote.
The Jersey Shuffle. (Don't forget - it wasn't just the two rats - our Supremes said it was OK.)
stop it! You are just TOOOOO funny!
I tried researching what I know to be an historical fact but couldn't find it.....
The US Supreme Court ruled in the middle to late 1800's that in a Federal Election, no state may change the election laws of its state. Any change must apply to the next election. I believe this was the basis for the vacating of the Florida Court ruling, although not identified.
The 1st part was based on the separation of powers decision by Chief Justice John Marshall. There was a subsequent decision that ruled that since each branch was equal, no decision by the court could be agreed to except following an election decision...
Thus, the Florida Supreme Court could not impose itself on a Federal Election except for guidance in the next Federal Election. However, the Constitition leaves it to the State Congresses to determine the terms/means of election. Therefore, and in any case, the Florida Court was wrong!....
I agree.
Thanks for the ping!
Nothing the rats did would surprise me anymore. The rule of law means nothing to them, and when they break it, nothing happens to them.
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.