PDA

View Full Version : 3rd party ballot access




crazyfacedjenkins
01-30-2008, 11:22 AM
To run third party, what states require a certain amount of signatures to get on the ballot. Do all states require just a petition?

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-30-2008, 11:25 AM
It's my understanding that Ron could easily get on the ballot in all 50 states, but it would be helpful if someone can post the details here.

Rob
01-30-2008, 11:27 AM
We're already or about to be screwed because many states have "sore loser" laws that prevent you from being on the ballot in the general if you ran in that same state's primary for a different party.

derekjohnson
01-30-2008, 11:30 AM
We're already or about to be screwed because many states have "sore loser" laws that prevent you from being on the ballot in the general if you ran in that same state's primary for a different party.

I don't know if that is true. If you are with a party that ahs already earned ballot access, like the libertarian party, I think you are on the ballot. You probably couldn't be put on as in independent, but if a party has access, they can put any name in that slot.

davidfarrar
01-30-2008, 11:36 AM
We're already or about to be screwed because many states have "sore loser" laws that prevent you from being on the ballot in the general if you ran in that same state's primary for a different party.

Only four states maintain that their “sore loser” laws apply to president: South Dakota, Mississippi, Ohio and Texas. After LaRouche won in court against Ohio in 1992, Ohio amended its “sore loser” law in 1993 to specifically apply to presidential candidates. No precedents have been set in Mississippi or South Dakota. In Texas, unfortunately, in 1996 the Constitution Party filed a lawsuit against Texas to get a ruling that the “sore loser” law doesn’t apply to president. The federal judge who got the case, James Nowlin, refused to enjoin Texas’ interpretation that the “sore loser” law does apply to president. The denial of injunctive relief is reported as US Taxpayers Party v Garza, 924 F

LukeNM
01-30-2008, 11:48 AM
Not going to happen. Ron Paul is a man of his word and he has stated on numerous occasions that he would not run as a third party and I take him at his word.

acptulsa
01-30-2008, 11:50 AM
Only four states maintain that their “sore loser” laws apply to president: South Dakota, Mississippi, Ohio and Texas. After LaRouche won in court against Ohio in 1992, Ohio amended its “sore loser” law in 1993 to specifically apply to presidential candidates. No precedents have been set in Mississippi or South Dakota. In Texas, unfortunately, in 1996 the Constitution Party filed a lawsuit against Texas to get a ruling that the “sore loser” law doesn’t apply to president. The federal judge who got the case, James Nowlin, refused to enjoin Texas’ interpretation that the “sore loser” law does apply to president. The denial of injunctive relief is reported as US Taxpayers Party v Garza, 924 F

If drafted, he will serve--and a lot can go wrong to embarass the powers-that-be by November. Only two of those four have any significant number of delegates to offer--and Texas (being Dr. Paul's home state) would probably be willing to write him in in large numbers!

SovereignMN
01-30-2008, 11:51 AM
In 2004, the Libertarian Party was able to acquire ballot access to 49 states and D.C.

Oklahoma has amazingly tough ballot access laws. I think it was around 50k signatures required or some ungodly amount.

hellsingfan
01-30-2008, 11:53 AM
how many ballot access do they have this year?

acptulsa
01-30-2008, 11:54 AM
In 2004, the Libertarian Party was able to acquire ballot access to 49 states and D.C.

Oklahoma has amazingly tough ballot access laws. I think it was around 50k signatures required or some ungodly amount.

And I've been pushing to suggest we be ready to do this hard as anyone. Look at where I am! If drafted, he will serve! He doesn't need to "run"--we'll do it for him!

rockandrollsouls
01-30-2008, 12:26 PM
See, this is the problem. No one is preparing for a possible future scenario. We all want Doctor Paul to win the republican nomination, however, some people refuse to see a scenario beyond that, and all they can do is insult the people who do. Be ready for anything. No harm in that.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-30-2008, 12:29 PM
Not going to happen. Ron Paul is a man of his word and he has stated on numerous occasions that he would not run as a third party and I take him at his word.

Wrong. Ron has never ruled it out, and in fact recently he's hinted at an independent run.

Jim_Karr
01-30-2008, 12:32 PM
Let us rock the boat. And when they catch on that we want Ron Paul to run 3rd party they might wake up because they know Ron Paul is for what the people want. Get their attention for now.

josh24601
01-30-2008, 12:40 PM
See, this is the problem. No one is preparing for a possible future scenario. We all want Doctor Paul to win the republican nomination, however, some people refuse to see a scenario beyond that, and all they can do is insult the people who do. Be ready for anything. No harm in that.

That's not true.

Ron Paul, along with many of us, wants to create a movement within the GOP long after this election that will be a TRUE conservative force to be reckoned with for years to come, and become THE conscience of the Republican party. This is brilliant especially now because of the moral and philosophical bankruptcy of the GOP - note the other 3 candidates. Many Republicans are just about done holding their noses, Rush Limbaugh himself has said that if the current front runner is nominated it will "destroy" the Republican Party. It is this vacuum that Ron Paul and many of us want to fill.

Others get queasy at the thought of being Republicans and want to be the next Ralph Nader.

It's really a question of which faction of Ron Paul supporters you belong to - the conservative faction or the "Kucinich for VP" faction.

acptulsa
01-30-2008, 12:51 PM
See, this is the problem. No one is preparing for a possible future scenario. We all want Doctor Paul to win the republican nomination, however, some people refuse to see a scenario beyond that, and all they can do is insult the people who do. Be ready for anything. No harm in that.

Look, Josh. If the convention is brokered (and it looks likely), having Ron Paul on the ballot in forty-six states (or having the groundwork in place to get him there) is a strong, strong trump card for Dr. Paul to play.

Don't you want to put the Ace of Spades up our man's sleeve?

josh24601
01-30-2008, 12:58 PM
If the convention is brokered, his trump card is the delegates that he has....

You know, the delegates he's trying to win RIGHT NOW??

Those are all that matter in a brokered convention. Whether they stay home and eat ice cream during the election or vote for somebody on a third party ticket is irrelevant in terms of leverage.

But the point here is to have delegates at the convention, as many as possible.

He. Does. Not. Want. To. Run. Third. Party.

Galileo Galilei
01-30-2008, 01:05 PM
It's my understanding that Ron could easily get on the ballot in all 50 states, but it would be helpful if someone can post the details here.

Ron Paul can get on the ballot in 49 states (all but Oklahoma) and DC with the Libertarian Party.

He can also get on about 40 states with the Constitution Party. He can be on the ballot under both parties.

Getting on the ballot as an independent would be a waste of time and money. Ross Perot spent $11 million just to get on 50 ballots in 1992.

If he teamed up with Cythia McKinney as VP, RP could be on the ballot in about 45 more states as a Green Party candidate. In addition, he could pick up the endorsements of whats left of the Reform party and a few other minor Third parties.

This would be the way to go, unite all the Third parties and make a go of it.

THIRD PARTY RON PAUL POLLING

Will Michael Bloomberg, Ron Paul Run Third Party Campaigns in 2008?

"In a McCain-Obama poll, the Democrat leads by five. That grows to seven points with the third party options—Obama 40% McCain 33% Paul 11% Bloomberg 5%."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_michael_bloomberg_ron_paul_run_third_party_ca mpaigns_in_2008

THIRD PARTY INFO

http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/

http://www.thirdpartynews.net/

http://www.ballot-access.org/

As a third party candidate w/ McKinney, RP could grab the pro-life vote and the anti-war vote, a deadly combination. Some people might even figure out that being anti-war is pro-life.

dannno
01-30-2008, 01:11 PM
Not going to happen. Ron Paul is a man of his word and he has stated on numerous occasions that he would not run as a third party and I take him at his word.

No he didn't. He said 99.9% and that is clearly not giving his word.

josh24601
01-30-2008, 01:13 PM
Ron Paul can get on the ballot in 49 states (all but Oklahoma) and DC with the Libertarian Party.

He can also get on about 40 states with the Constitution Party. He can be on the ballot under both parties.

Getting on the ballot as an independent would be a waste of time and money. Ross Perot spent $11 million just to get on 50 ballots in 1992.

If he teamed up with Cythia McKinney as VP, RP could be on the ballot in about 45 more states as a Green Party candidate. In addition, he could pick up the endorsements of whats left of the Reform party and a few other minor Third parties.

This would be the way to go, unite all the Third parties and make a go of it.

THIRD PARTY RON PAUL POLLING

Will Michael Bloomberg, Ron Paul Run Third Party Campaigns in 2008?

"In a McCain-Obama poll, the Democrat leads by five. That grows to seven points with the third party options—Obama 40% McCain 33% Paul 11% Bloomberg 5%."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_michael_bloomberg_ron_paul_run_third_party_ca mpaigns_in_2008

THIRD PARTY INFO

http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/

http://www.thirdpartynews.net/

http://www.ballot-access.org/

As a third party candidate w/ McKinney, RP could grab the pro-life vote and the anti-war vote, a deadly combination. Some people might even figure out that being anti-war is pro-life.

See what I mean? This is a "unite the third parties" agenda. Not a Ron Paul agenda. They've infiltrated this campaign and are trying to commandeer it for their own interests.

I'm surprised there isn't more anger about this.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-30-2008, 01:14 PM
Not going to happen. Ron Paul is a man of his word and he has stated on numerous occasions that he would not run as a third party and I take him at his word.

He has stated on just as many occasions that he's not ruling anything out. He understood the corner they were trying to paint him into.

josh24601
01-30-2008, 01:14 PM
No he didn't. He said 99.9% and that is clearly not giving his word.

Okay, you spend your time on the .1%, I'll concentrate on the 99.9%.

josh24601
01-30-2008, 01:16 PM
He has stated on just as many occasions that he's not ruling anything out. He understood the corner they were trying to paint him into.

He said he does not want to. Verbatim quote, Glenn Beck show.

So he's either going to be lying and really does want to, or you are trying to make him do something he does not want to do.

Either way, it's not worth the energy people are spending on it.

werdd
01-30-2008, 01:16 PM
In 2004, the Libertarian Party was able to acquire ballot access to 49 states and D.C.

Oklahoma has amazingly tough ballot access laws. I think it was around 50k signatures required or some ungodly amount.

proof that oklahoma sucks. Worst state in the US. 3 Point beers, red dirt, and high cigarette taxes. Also about 500 f'ing toll roads.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-30-2008, 01:22 PM
He said he does not want to. Verbatim quote, Glenn Beck show.

So he's either going to be lying and really does want to, or you are trying to make him do something he does not want to do.

Either way, it's not worth the energy people are spending on it.

I wouldn't be making him do anything.

If this process were even remotely fair, there'd be no reason to talk about anything beyond the primaries.

If he had been given anything that even resembled a fair shake, and people didn't like his ideas, then I would concede that most people feel differently and I'm SOL.

Instead, he's endured media smears at every turn. Now, it's just a plain blackout since their smears weren't working for them. If I have until Novemeber to campaign, you bet I will. There might still be a media blackout, but if we have until November, it's a whole new ballgame. I know a lot of people who would have voted for Paul if they didn't have to deal with party change deadlines and such.

josh24601
01-30-2008, 01:28 PM
I wouldn't be making him do anything.

If this process were even remotely fair, there'd be no reason to talk about anything beyond the primaries.

If he had been given anything that even resembled a fair shake, and people didn't like his ideas, then I would concede that most people feel differently and I'm SOL.

Instead, he's endured media smears at every turn. Now, it's just a plain blackout since their smears weren't working for them. If I have until Novemeber to campaign, you bet I will. There might still be a media blackout, but if we have until November, it's a whole new ballgame. I know a lot of people who would have voted for Paul if they didn't have to deal with party change deadlines and such.

If, if, if. I and Dr. Paul agree that things should not be the way they are. He talks about how he wishes third parties were viable. He's tried to go that route, and DOES NOT WANT TO AGAIN.

Instead, he's chosen to charge full-steam into the GOP convention with as many delegates as he can possibly bring under his tent, and make huge waves.

Any long term plans he has after that, beyond the nomination, are of being reelected in his district and maintaining and propelling this movement that he has created to retake the conscience of the GOP. THAT IS WHAT HE SAYS.

The third party agenda is other peoples', not his.

roXet
01-30-2008, 01:29 PM
Not going to happen. Ron Paul is a man of his word and he has stated on numerous occasions that he would not run as a third party and I take him at his word.

He has NEVER said he will not do it. He has, however, said that he *currently* is not planning on doing it. After the National convention, who knows what will happen.

josh24601
01-30-2008, 01:34 PM
He has NEVER said he will not do it. He has, however, said that he *currently* is not planning on doing it. After the National convention, who knows what will happen.

You people miss the point completely.

He hates using absolutes... "never say never" and all of that.

But he has NO intention. He said 99.9% he will not do it.

So we'll worry about the 99.9%, you can fantasize about the .1%.

JS4Pat
01-30-2008, 01:40 PM
See, this is the problem. No one is preparing for a possible future scenario. We all want Doctor Paul to win the republican nomination, however, some people refuse to see a scenario beyond that, and all they can do is insult the people who do. Be ready for anything. No harm in that.

You are exactly correct.

I was the national ballot access coordinator for Pat Buchanan's 2000 REFORM PARTY run. It was an expensive and complicated process that began in February and didn't end until late September of 2000. We managed to get on in all 50 states but keep in mind the Reform Party had already secured access in 19 states from Ross Perot's 1996 run.

It is doable for Ron Paul in 2008 but planning would need to begin very soon (now). We are at an advantage because Parties such as the Constitution, America First, Greens and Libertarians might be willing to allow Ron Paul to use their ballot access in certain states.

Every state has different requirements and different cut-off dates. Some states require as few as 250 signatures and allow you six months to acquire them and some states require 18,000 proportioned among precincts with less than 90 days to collect them. The system is really designed to SCREW those outside the two party system.

If he is leaving any "wiggle" room for a third party run then a plan should be divised NOW!

Maltheus
01-30-2008, 01:41 PM
Hey, I'd like Paul to run third party as much as anybody I was totally convinced that he was going to, after the last debate. But he said on Monday that he's going the brokered convention route. That's an end to any third party bid since there won't be enough time to do it come September. Perhaps if McCain sweeps Super Tuesday, then he might reconsider.

Johncjackson
01-30-2008, 01:50 PM
Look, if the LP can get access in all states ( or at least 47 or so) with it's entire budget way less than the money Ron Paul can raise in a day- Ron Paul can get access.

Do you think no one would volunteer to get Ron Paul or the ballot? Was Michael Badnarik more popular?

Plus everyone uses paid signature gatherers. between paid sigs and volunteers 46-48 states would be cake.

And IF Ron Paul wanted the LP ballot line, the LP and many activists would bend over backwards and pay for him to get on the ballot..Again you think people would spend the money to get Michael Badnarik ( or this year, W.A.R., Kubby, Phillies, whoever) on the ballot but wouldnt help Ron Paul?

The whole "ballot access" barrier is exagerated. If you have money and/or supporters its a piece of cake- except the 3-4 really tough states and the 1 impossible one.

The real access barrier for 3rd party is media blackout and NO DEBATES. There would be no debate invites. Probably get a few interviews on MSNBC and CNN, though, But that's about it.

What I would find interesting is if RP and Bloomberg were both running and polling the same- do you think they would shutout Bloomberg out? And if not, how could they possibly justify shutting out RP. Maybe running IND along with Bloomberg would help a lot with access.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-30-2008, 01:50 PM
If this process were even remotely fair, there'd be no reason to talk about anything beyond the primaries.

If he had been given anything that even resembled a fair shake, and people didn't like his ideas, then I would concede that most people feel differently and I'm SOL.

Instead, he's endured media smears at every turn. Now, it's just a plain blackout since their smears weren't working for them. If I have until Novemeber to campaign, you bet I will. There might still be a media blackout, but if we have until November, it's a whole new ballgame. I know a lot of people who would have voted for Paul if they didn't have to deal with party change deadlines and such.




If, if, if. I and Dr. Paul agree that things should not be the way they are. He talks about how he wishes third parties were viable. He's tried to go that route, and DOES NOT WANT TO AGAIN.

Instead, he's chosen to charge full-steam into the GOP convention with as many delegates as he can possibly bring under his tent, and make huge waves.


If you think those things don't matter, I don't know what to tell you. I'll just say that they matter to me and I'm likely not alone. I'll support whatever he does until I vote for him in November, even if I write him in. Maybe he wouldn't like me writing him in, but he has no choice in that particular matter. (Just as I have no choice regarding his career decisions this year or next.)

josh24601
01-30-2008, 02:02 PM
If you think those things don't matter, I don't know what to tell you. I'll just say that they matter to me and I'm likely not alone. I'll support whatever he does until I vote for him in November, even if I write him in. Maybe he wouldn't like me writing him in, but he has no choice in that particular matter. (Just as I have no choice regarding his career decisions this year or next.)

I'm not worried about what matters to you, I'm concerned with what matters to Dr. Paul and the long-term viability of his message.

Focus less on what matters to you, and more on Dr. Paul.

Nobody says you shouldn't write in whomever you like, that's great. But he is not intent, focused, planning on, or in any way desiring a third party run.

That's something that just matters to you.

JS4Pat
01-30-2008, 02:09 PM
The whole "ballot access" barrier is exagerated.

No it's not, but with this movement it is certainly a hurdle that we can clear with proper planning.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-30-2008, 02:55 PM
I'm not worried about what matters to you, I'm concerned with what matters to Dr. Paul and the long-term viability of his message.

Focus less on what matters to you, and more on Dr. Paul.

Nobody says you shouldn't write in whomever you like, that's great. But he is not intent, focused, planning on, or in any way desiring a third party run.

That's something that just matters to you.

He has full control over that, and he isn't participating in this thread. I am. You are. Unless he's asking you to post on his behalf, you know the same things I know. And if he does decide to run outside of the republican primaries, does that mean we can expect your support? Since it's all about Dr. Paul?

stevedasbach
01-30-2008, 03:21 PM
Ron Paul can get on the ballot in 49 states (all but Oklahoma) and DC with the Libertarian Party.

He can also get on about 40 states with the Constitution Party. He can be on the ballot under both parties.

In the vast majority of states, a candidate can only appear on one party's ballot line.


People interested in ballot access should check out http://www.ballot-access.org and consider subscribing to Ballot Access News. The editor, Richard Winger, knows more about ballot access laws than anyone else in the country.

stevedasbach
01-30-2008, 03:25 PM
We don't need to worry about this for some time. If Ron Paul fails to secure the Republican nomination and is willing to continue the campaign as a 3rd party candidate, there will be plenty of time for him to secure either the Libertarian or Constitution Party nominations. The LP nominates at the end of May, and I believe the CP nominates even later.

Speculating about it now merely distracts from the effort to win votes and delegates and gives Republicans an additional reason to try to marginalize him.

Lovecraftian4Paul
01-30-2008, 03:56 PM
I think we should look to a combination of the Libertarian, Constitution, and Reform parties to gain ballot access if he decides to run third party. We might also use localized parties in other states. For instance, in my own (Minnesota), the MN Independence Party might be willing to support Ron Paul if Bloomberg isn't running (which seems to be their first choice).

I know almost for certain the Greens wouldn't support Ron Paul. I know Green people. While nice, most of them are ex-Democrats upset that the Dems don't go far enough on socialism and environmental measures. The GP itself is committed to either Cynthia McKinney or running Nader again this year. The Greens could be looked at as allies in the realm of anti-war and third party movements, but they would never endorse Ron Paul.

It doesn't matter though, as there are plenty of third parties who would support our man if it came to it!

josh24601
01-30-2008, 04:03 PM
He has full control over that, and he isn't participating in this thread. I am. You are. Unless he's asking you to post on his behalf, you know the same things I know. And if he does decide to run outside of the republican primaries, does that mean we can expect your support? Since it's all about Dr. Paul?

Of course I'll support him. Will you support him if he never leaves the Republican party for the rest of his life? (He said he is 99.9% more likely to take this route).

He. Does. Not. Want. To. Run. Third. Party. His words, not mine.

I have come to accept that there is a significant movement within his supporters that are more concerned with creating a "viable" third party than they are about anything he has to say, and that there's nothing I can do about it except hope that they don't destroy the movement with the weight of their own selfish intentions and be glad that at least for the immediate future they are giving him their vote, even if they are already preparing to jump ship from course Dr. Paul wants to take the campaign and the movement.

Bradley in DC
01-30-2008, 04:17 PM
We're already or about to be screwed because many states have "sore loser" laws that prevent you from being on the ballot in the general if you ran in that same state's primary for a different party.

The "sore loser" laws do not apply to the presidential electors to the Electoral College and therefore not to presidential races.

Do “Sore Loser” Laws Apply to Presidential Candidates? (http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/07/20/do-sore-loser-laws-apply-to-presidential-candidates/)
July 20th, 2007
Generally speaking, “sore loser laws” (election laws that say someone who failed to be nominated in a party primary, cannot then be independent candidates in the general election) don’t apply to presidential candidates.

We know this, because of precedent. John B. Anderson ran in two-thirds of the Republican presidential primaries in 1980. On April 23, he withdrew from the race for the Republican nomination (since it was obvious Ronald Reagan was going to be the nominee) and declared as an independent candidate. He got on the ballot in all 50 states and D.C.

Other individuals who ran in presidential primaries, and then got on the ballot as an independent presidential candidate, over the years, have been Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Robert La Follette in 1924, David Duke in 1988, and Lyndon LaRouche 1984 through 1992. Thanks to Steve Rankin for reminding me about Roosevelt.

When one combines the precedents set by Anderson and these others, one finds a precedent that sore losers do not apply to presidential candidates, in almost all states. The exceptions are Texas, Ohio, Mississippi and South Dakota (where elections officials have said the sore loser laws do apply), and Pennsylvania (where the law has never been tested).

Even in the four states that say their “sore loser” laws apply to presidential candidates, there are sound reasons why a court might disagree. The true candidates in November are candidates for presidential elector. Presidential candidates’ names appear on the ballot in November, but they are not listed on the ballot in their capacity as candidates, because Article II doesn’t permit the people to vote directly for president. Instead, the voters vote for candidates for presidential elector. Presidential candidates’ names are on the November ballot as labels for competing slates of presidential electors, and not as candidates per se.

Therefore, if a slate of independent or new party electors themselves qualify for the November ballot, and they say they will vote for a “sore loser” in the electoral college (should they win in November), a state would not have authority to refuse to print the name of the person they say they intend to vote for. Presidential electors are free to vote for anyone for president in December, in the electoral college, who meets the constitutional qualifications to hold the office. We know this is true, because Congress has always counted the votes in the electoral college for every elector. The only exception was in 1872, when 3 electors voted in the electoral college for Horace Greeley, who had died in late November 1872. Congress decided that electoral college votes for a deceased person are invalid. But all other electoral votes have always been counted by Congress, no matter whom the elector voted for. Thus Congress counted the one electoral vote for president received by John Edwards in 2004, from Minnesota, even though it was believed that the anonymous presidential elector who voted for John Edwards for president in 2004 had merely made a clerical error. In Minnesota, the electors vote secretly, and the Democratic elector who voted for John Edwards never stepped forward to identify himself or herself and explain why he or she had voted for John Edwards.

Since electors can vote for anyone who meets the constitutional qualifications to be president (age 35, natural-born citizen), it would seem logical that a state has no authority to forbid ballot-listed slates of electors from identifying on the November ballot the name of the person the electors intend to vote for, for president, whether that individual is a “sore loser” or not.

davidfarrar
01-30-2008, 04:19 PM
Of course I'll support him. Will you support him if he never leaves the Republican party for the rest of his life? (He said he is 99.9% more likely to take this route).

He. Does. Not. Want. To. Run. Third. Party. His words, not mine.

I have come to accept that there is a significant movement within his supporters that are more concerned with creating a "viable" third party than they are about anything he has to say, and that there's nothing I can do about it except hope that they don't destroy the movement with the weight of their own selfish intentions and be glad that at least for the immediate future they are giving him their vote, even if they are already preparing to jump ship from course Dr. Paul wants to take the campaign and the movement.


I agree with you, Josh.

Here is the question I posted on this forum a few weeks ago that got me banned, without reason forever:

"If Ron Paul fails to get the Republican Party Presidential nomination, would you still vote for the Republican Party Nominee?"

Do you know, not one of those who posted a response stated that they would. I suspect most of these people will vote for the Democratic nominee. I am sure most are registered Democrats anyway. So much for the support the conservative cause or the Republican Party.

p.s. I was informed a few days ago that my banishment had been a mistake due to a computer crash.

So let's see if we have any so-called ture, Ron Paul supporters here, or are they all just radical, hair-on-fire anarchists.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-30-2008, 04:24 PM
Of course I'll support him. Will you support him if he never leaves the Republican party for the rest of his life? (He said he is 99.9% more likely to take this route).

Sure. I've supported him for years for simply being a lone dissenting voice in congress.


I have come to accept that there is a significant movement within his supporters that are more concerned with creating a "viable" third party than they are about anything he has to say, and that there's nothing I can do about it except hope that they don't destroy the movement with the weight of their own selfish intentions and be glad that at least for the immediate future they are giving him their vote, even if they are already preparing to jump ship from course Dr. Paul wants to take the campaign and the movement.

Some might be concerned about a viable third party, but not me. There's no viable third party in this system. Anything gets absorbed on the way to 51%. At the same time, the GOP has made it completely clear that there's no room for Paul in that party, or anyone who thinks like he does. The media is one thing... local political coordinators are another. As far as GOP candidates go, I've never seen such childishness before.

So, while viable third party talk is dreaming, the GOP, as well as all of their media surrogates, have made it clear that there's no room for Paul or people who support his policies. For people who want things to be different, this is pretty much the last stand.

josh24601
01-30-2008, 04:24 PM
I agree with you, Josh.

Here is the question I posted on this forum a few weeks ago that got me banned, without reason forever:

"If Ron Paul fails to get the Republican Party Presidential nomination, would you still vote for the Republican Party Nominee?"

Do you know, not one of those who posted a response stated that they would. I suspect most of these people will vote for the Democratic nominee. I am sure most are registered Democrats anyway. So much for the support the conservative cause or the Republican Party.

p.s. I was informed a few days ago that my banishment had been a mistake due to a computer crash.

So let's see if we have any so-called ture, Ron Paul supporters here, or are they all just radical, hair-on-fire anarchists.

I wouldn't vote for any of the 3 left if Paul doesn't make it.

Why would I vote for big-government liberals? Just because they have an R next to their name?

I am talking about bringing the Republican party back to where it is supposed to be, not being complicit in its demise.

josh24601
01-30-2008, 04:26 PM
Sure. I've supported him for years for simply being a lone dissenting voice in congress.



Some might be concerned about a viable third party, but not me. There's no viable third party in this system. Anything gets absorbed on the way to 51%. At the same time, the GOP has made it completely clear that there's no room for Paul in that party, or anyone who thinks like he does. The media is one thing... local political coordinators are another. As far as GOP candidates go, I've never seen such childishness before.

So, while viable third party talk is dreaming, the GOP, as well as all of their media surrogates, have made it clear that there's no room for Paul or people who support his policies.

The GOP can't even decide if it is still conservative. Don't think anybody doing the "choosing" right now has much in a say in how the GOP is going to look for the next while.

Rush is right, if McCain gets the nomination, the entire party will implode, and nobody will be shutting anybody out of anything. It's the perfect time in recent history to be influencing the party, not running away from it.

Soccrmastr
01-30-2008, 04:27 PM
If he goes with Libertarian Party he is already on 49 states. They HAVE invited him, but I'm sure the current people seeking its nomination wouldn't be too happy at all.

robert4rp08
01-30-2008, 04:28 PM
I vaguely remember that PA requires 26,000 signatures.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-30-2008, 04:34 PM
It's the perfect time in recent history to be influencing the party, not running away from it.


I think so, but it ain't happening. Not even a little. They'd rather the dems win so they can maintain their own little thing and try again in 4 years. Meanwhile, their biggest, most star powered candidates and media pundits openly mock the only guy who's bringing up real substantive issues.

Thom1776
01-30-2008, 05:00 PM
Ron Paul has said he has "no intention" of running third party or independent.

That leaves the door wide open to either. "No intention" is not the same as "will not".

John P Slevin
01-30-2008, 05:04 PM
It's my understanding that Ron could easily get on the ballot in all 50 states, but it would be helpful if someone can post the details here.

He can get on the ballot in all 50, but it is not "easy". The most likely scenario is for him to qualify as an "independent" in some states and to accept the nomination(s) of one or more third parties.

Parties, like the Libertarian Party, have access already in many states. Some states make it easier to qualify for the ballot without a party designation...so he'd go independent in those states.

The precedent for him is John Anderson's run in 1980, after Anderson had competed in nearly 20 Republican primaries, dropped out, and ran independent. Anderson qualified in all 50.

Bradley in DC
01-30-2008, 05:18 PM
In the vast majority of states, a candidate can only appear on one party's ballot line.

Steve, what would happen if more than one party chose the same people as presidential electors to the electoral college? The votes for "president" under different party lines would still go to the same individuals, right?