Posted on 10/24/2014 3:41:51 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
No news article to post-- the only article so far is in the Clarion-Ledger, which we can't post. But the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling that Chris McDaniel's challenge to Thad Cochran's primary win was filed too late. The Court's decision is here.
Sorry, it’s McDaniel’s fault.
You don’t miss court deadlines.
Well, I’m not going to vote for a Rat. I’ll vote for the token Libertarian (Batson).
If the man can’t file on time he can’t do well as Senator.
They set this system up to make sure no one could meet the deadline. He literally had people fighting in court in many counties for access to records.
The establishment fought him every step of the way.
The issue is a little complicated, which is probably why McDaniel blew it. The Mississippi Election Code sets a 20-day deadline to challenge county-wide elections, but no deadline to challenge state-wide elections. Way back in 1959, the Mississippi Supreme Court said that it would be absurd to have no deadline for state-wide elections, so the Legislature must have meant for the 20-day deadline to apply to both. Yesterday's decision was that the 1959 precedent still has to be followed. But if you didn't know about the 1959 case and just read the statute, you could easily make a fatal mistake.
An aside here: Election law in every state is astonishingly complex and full of short deadlines and other hyper-technical requirements. This is true for both good reasons (the need to decide challenges before ballots are printed and candidates campaign) and bad reasons (the more complex the laws, the easier for entrenched elites to defeat challenges by underfunded underdogs). I have practiced law for more than 35 years, and have handled cases involving everything from antitrust to zoning, but I would never take an election case-- if you're not an expert on the local laws, you are very likely to miss something. (The catch is that lawyers who specialize in election law are either under permanent retainer by the party elites, or fantastically expensive [because they can only use their expertise for a month or so every two years]).
Is there anythinq in MS statute which says what is to be done when election fraud has altered the result of an election? Any penalty for certification of a known-fraudulent result?
I don't know; I assume there are criminal penalties for fraud. As to setting aside an election after it's been certified, I don't know if Mississippi law allows this for state offices; for federal House and Senate elections, the Constitution provides (Art. I, sec. 5) that "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members," meaning that the Senate is free to ignore anything a state court decides.
Bingo. Also divorce judges. Also corporate dispute judges.
“Well, I’m not going to vote for a Rat”
What if the Rat loses with 48.95% to 49.05 with the LIB getting 2%? How will you live with yourself? I thought you want the Rat to win?
I never said I wanted the Rat to win. I hate Rats more than I hate RINOS, but that doesn’t mean I have to vote for RINOS.
Worth repeating. And repeating some more.
Once upon a time, we did know that. Our experiment in government "of, by, and for the people" ended 25 years ago. Normalcy bias will probably persist until it is too late.
Sir, you are SOOOOOOOO right about every point!
As a developer in Central Texas, I’ve been litigating with the enviros and regulators for over 43 years. I honestly don’t think there was even one year I wasn’t litigating something. One case went on for 15 years.
Your point about fairness being possible when there’s not a lot of money involved is particularly spot on!
This is an internal state matter. The SC only gets involved in federal matters.
ok, so I think we established that you want the Rat to lose. That you think it is better if the Rat loses.
But on the one ballot you get ... you are not putting a vote against him. Hmmm.
The ballot is going to be used to determine the winner. And there is no vote against the Rat. I guess .... I don’t see the logic. Seems oxymoronic or something.
A < B, but B not > A. Therefore, A = B.
If you want the Rat to lose, it is imperative to vote against him.
I understand if there is only one possibility because the race is already over ... then it doesn’t matter because the ballot isn’t be used to determine the winner. Needs further study.
what about 92 ? Am I making progress?
obviously, I can never prove the truth of advocating for none-of-the-above voting because it is a falsehood. You can disprove a falsehood by trying every conceivable way to prove it is true. When all fail, you have shown that it cannot be proven, all proofs are false. And, therefore, the theory of none-of-the-above voting is false.
I tried to prove the truth of none-of-the-above voting. I could not, because it cannot be proven. Therefore, it is false.
For $15 and probably 20 total minutes of time, you will have get your computer back to normal.
We wil probably write in McDaniel too - we were considering voting for the Dim but don’t know if we can force ourselves to do it. Much as I hate to give up even a fraction of an inch, this betrayal went way over anything I’ve seen most place, much less Mississippi in the last 30 years.
You are correct that, mathematically (and logically), if A < B then B > A. Once a person admits that the Democrat is worse than the Republican in a particular election in which either the Democrat or the Republican might win and no other result is possible, then it would be illogical for such person not to vote for the Republican.
The threshold question is whether the Democrat is indeed worse than the Republican, in the sense that the Republican might do more damage if elected than the Democrat would (because the Republican would give a “bipartisan” veneer to liberal legislation, or the election of that Republican would make it more difficult for a better Republican to be elected the next time than if the Democrat had won, and a few other scenarios. My experience has been that, once it is established that Democrat A is worse than Republican B on the issues, that 99 times out of 100 it is preferable for Republican B to be elected. The tiny boost that Democrats get when a “Republican” endorses a liberal bill is far less than the boost they get by having yet another Democrat in the body. And the theory that it is easier for a better Republican to beat an incumbent Democrat in the general election than it is for a conservative Republican to defeat a liberal Republican in the primary only works in districts that are safely Republican and where a non-incumbent liberal Republican would be disfavored in the primary but an incumbent liberal Republican would be favored in the primary.
And any benefit a strategically minded conservative voter might get by voting for the Democrat over the Republican is inversely proportional to the length of the term for which the candidates are vying. It might be worth it for a conservative voter to elect a Democrat over a liberal Republican for the six months remaining in a term if it would improve the odds of a conservative Republican being elected to the ful term (assuming that the district would be willing to elect a conservative Republican, and that a Democrat incumbent wouldn’t have the advantage in the general); but it would be idiotic to elect a Democrat to a six-year senate term merely because of faint hopes that six years later one might be able to elect a conservative Republican, since after six years the damage might be done (look at Obamcare, judicial confirmations, etc.).
So once a voter has determined that candidate A is worse than candidate B, he should vote for candidate B, almost without exception. And in such a scenario, it makes no sense for a voter ever to leave the ballot blank. (The only exception that I can think of is the TN gubernatorial race, where leaving the gubernatorial ballot blank would reduce the number of votes cast for governor, thus increasing the number of votes needed to adopt a pro-life constitutional amendment, and in any event the Republican governor will be reelected easily over the hapless Democrat nominee.)
I wouldn’t say I’m a constructivist but your “logic” is socially constructed And motivated.
yes
but what is the problem in pro-life circles?
exhibit A
Pro-Life GOP runs vs. LIB DEM in a FEB special election for a vacant State Senate seat. Director of Pro-Life Ministries for the Hartford Archdiocese stays home. As does much of the churchgoing crowd.
Pro-Lifer wins regardless.
exhibit B
Pro-Life GOP runs for re-election vs. LIB Naral DEM in a 2012 general election for the State Senate seat. Director of Pro-Life Ministries for the Hartford Archdiocese shows up. As does much of the churchgoing crowd.
Pro-Lifer loses regardless, 50.25% to 49.75. 200 vote margin of 40,000 voters.
Yet the real results are 46.75 to 46.25 to 7%. Is the 7% a third party soiler? No, it is the undervote. Almost 3000 people in the race leave the vote blank for state Senate ... with a 200 vote margin.
Those people are disproportionately pro=lifers and/or the religious crowd. If they vote wrong, it is a sin. If a liberal votes wrong, it is not a sin. Religion is an impediment on completing the task.
My objective is to prove that blank voter is never logical. SO whenever, somebody comes on here to bash the GOP candidate, I tell them that if such candidate is as bad as they say ... logic would be to vote DEM.
At that point they should either agree to vote DEM or agree to shut up.
Can you imagine going to a black church and urging all to not vote ...? They would see it as an overt suppression effort, a la Ed Rollins. But here, it is tolerated.
voting is a civic matter.
Civics is a “practical affair”, not a religious affair. It involves the virtue of Prudence. A discussion would include the ability to gather information and weigh different factors to come to sound decisions. Informed decisions. With a sober mind. Circumspection. Judicious. Are those catholic words? The mainstream pro-life political cause is often disabled by dissenters who reject a “Faith and Reason” approach.
Voting is not a sacrament. Not a religious exercise.
Thad doesn't know what planet he's on, but I share your sentiments. I just feel them toward Haley and every PoS that participated in this treasonous action. That includes Thad's sister-in-law who actually caused the deed to be done after Haley set it up.
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.