Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bait and Switch possible?

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 :)

TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: candidate; change; election; tinfoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last
To: So Cal Rocket
Each state has their own rules.

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.

81 posted on 09/01/2004 4:56:02 PM PDT by TheGeezer (If only I had skin as thick as Ann Coulter, and but half her intelligence...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
The states decide who is allowed on the ballot, and when, and they decide how the election results are converted to electoral college representatives ...

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.

82 posted on 09/01/2004 4:56:49 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

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.

83 posted on 09/01/2004 4:59:06 PM PDT by TheGeezer (If only I had skin as thick as Ann Coulter, and but half her intelligence...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Ahhhhh, BRB

84 posted on 09/01/2004 4:59:59 PM PDT by FlyingA (I was spanked by Linda Ronstadt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

"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.

85 posted on 09/01/2004 5:01:40 PM PDT by sayfer bullets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PlushieWithTeeth

Ain't gonna happen, folks. Hillary is preparing for 2008, not 2004.


86 posted on 09/01/2004 5:05:19 PM PDT by MississippiMan (Americans should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege

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...

87 posted on 09/01/2004 5:06:03 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Kerry lied while courageous veterans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
I'm concerned that if SKUMBAG SKERRY drops further in the polls, his prostate cancer may come out of remission, conveniently, and they may try to circumvent laws to get someone else on the ballot.

I've thought of that same thing more than once....

88 posted on 09/01/2004 5:15:53 PM PDT by Judith Anne (Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Grandma is beating off the Indians, and they keep on coming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
An unfortunate illness, or worse, could gain sympathy votes, as it did in Minnesota and Missouri in recent years. Both times in favor of the 'Rats.

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...

89 posted on 09/01/2004 5:22:48 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Kerry lied while courageous veterans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

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

90 posted on 09/01/2004 5:36:50 PM PDT by NYC Republican (Liberals are absolutely evil and despicable. SKerry is their leader, how appropriate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
Well.... Hillary! is going to have to go up against Guiliani in '08.

He may have forced her, months ago, to Kill Kerry Now.

Please remember her 'October Surprise' assurance this March.

91 posted on 09/01/2004 6:31:09 PM PDT by txhurl (You bastard! You killed Kerry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

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.


92 posted on 09/01/2004 6:36:29 PM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
There are no restrictions at all.

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.

93 posted on 09/01/2004 6:46:18 PM PDT by feedback doctor (God is NOT on GW Bush's side, GW Bush is on God's side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PlushieWithTeeth
I believe the long-standing Democrat party rules state that in the case of untimely arkancide demise of the Democrat presidential candidate, he shall be replaced by the junior senator of whichever state hosted the Republican convention that year.
94 posted on 09/01/2004 6:46:41 PM PDT by SFConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer

The Jersey Shuffle. (Don't forget - it wasn't just the two rats - our Supremes said it was OK.)

95 posted on 09/01/2004 6:52:04 PM PDT by Ed_in_NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SFConservative

stop it! You are just TOOOOO funny!

96 posted on 09/01/2004 8:40:36 PM PDT by Future Useless Eater (FreedomLoving_Engineer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Calamari

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!....

97 posted on 09/01/2004 8:49:16 PM PDT by Prost1 (Why isn't Berger in jail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Prost1

I agree.

98 posted on 09/01/2004 8:59:28 PM PDT by Calamari (Pass enough laws and everyone is guilty of something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Thanks for the ping!

99 posted on 09/01/2004 9:12:17 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PlushieWithTeeth

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.

100 posted on 09/01/2004 9:14:26 PM PDT by ladyinred (John Kerry reporting for "SPITBALL" duty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson