PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul/Michael Peroutka is on the Montana Ballot!




Lovecraftian4Paul
09-05-2008, 06:20 PM
Just saw this on Lew Rockwell. Chuck Baldwin has been replaced by a Paul/Peroutka ticket by the Constitution Party of Montana. They will appear together on the ballot in November there. I guess parties substituting candidates on the ballot is possible in some states.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022703.html


Montana Constitution Party Puts Ron Paul on November Ballot for President
Posted by Eric A. Garris at September 5, 2008 06:58 PM

The Montana Constitution Party has removed Chuck Baldwin from the ballot and is putting the ticket of Ron Paul for President and Michael Peroutka on the ballot for Vice-President.

Ron Paul was aware that the party planned to do this, and has said that as long as he can remain passive and silent about the development, and as long as he need not sign any declaration of candidacy, that he does not object.

A group in Louisiana has also filed to have Ron Paul's name on the ballot for President under the "Louisiana Taxpayers Party" label.

For much of the year, activists in both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party asked Ron Paul's permission to run him on the ballot for President in November, but he repeatedly declined.

It is a great shame that he did not agree to this for other states. Ron Paul could have been the candidate of a broad coalition, regardless of how active he would have sought the office. Instead, we have a group of inferior third party candidates competing for the pro-freedom, anti-government vote.

Gertie
09-05-2008, 06:54 PM
whoa! KUdos to them. Wonder what Baldwin thinks though....

Wish I was a citizen of either Montana or Louisiana. Then I wouldn't need to vote for one of Barr/Bald/Nad this november. :(

Razmear
09-05-2008, 06:58 PM
Hmmm, this puts some possibilities back in play for Mondays 'Big Announcement'

eb

idiom
09-05-2008, 07:46 PM
So Ron Paul could carry two states???

Which could then secede?

Micah Dardar
09-05-2008, 08:03 PM
Louisiana is not the best place to be, but I think that we may be headed in the right direction. Our new governor has done a good job so far. After my trip to Minneapolis, I can appreciate my home again some. Hopefully our governor will learn which Old Republican he should pay attention to after this election.

RonPaulFanInGA
09-05-2008, 08:10 PM
Getting the feeling this could have something to do with the Paul and Baldwin September 10th announcement.

It only takes one state I think for Baldwin to drop out and for the Constitution party to put in Ron Paul.

RedLightning
09-05-2008, 08:18 PM
Thats kind of like stabbing Chuck Baldwin in the back.

RonPaulFanInGA
09-05-2008, 08:24 PM
Thats kind of like stabbing Chuck Baldwin in the back.

Oh well. Baldwin's candidacy is doomed to around 200,000 votes in November.

Shake it up: Ron Paul 2008!

Micah Dardar
09-05-2008, 08:26 PM
I really like Chuck Baldwin, but Ron Paul is the man!

Razmear
09-05-2008, 08:28 PM
I'm sure Chuck would get a cabinet post or an ambassadorship, and I think he would gladly step aside for Ron because he's just that kind of guy.

eb

RedLightning
09-05-2008, 08:30 PM
Still...At least put Baldwin on as VP instead of Peroutka.

SovereignMN
09-05-2008, 08:31 PM
Once Baldwin lost California to the neocon Alan Keyes his candidacy had to shift focus. He probably doesn't mind.

SovereignMN
09-05-2008, 08:32 PM
Still...At least put Baldwin on as VP instead of Peroutka.

The CP of MOntana isn't affiliated with the national CP party. They disaffiliated a couple years ago. The parties that disaffiliated view Baldwin as a traitor.

RoamZero
09-05-2008, 08:38 PM
Oh well. Baldwin's candidacy is doomed to around 200,000 votes in November.

Shake it up: Ron Paul 2008!

Barr and Baldwin know they cant win. Hopefully things will shake up and we'll see signs of the LP/CP jumping on the "lets takeover the GOP" train. Just looking at how much the GOP pushed back at our efforts the first round makes it the most worthwhile endeavor if you ask me, even more so than protesting in the streets which IMO does little other than to highlight what kind of police state we live in today.

Bruno
09-05-2008, 08:48 PM
Getting the feeling this could have something to do with the Paul and Baldwin September 10th announcement.

It only takes one state I think for Baldwin to drop out and for the Constitution party to put in Ron Paul.


Is this seriously possible? Would it be possible for then all states to have him on the ballet?

tpreitzel
09-05-2008, 08:52 PM
Thats kind of like stabbing Chuck Baldwin in the back.

Not if Chuck agreed to step aside voluntarily for the greater good.

specsaregood
09-05-2008, 08:57 PM
The CP of MOntana isn't affiliated with the national CP party. They disaffiliated a couple years ago. The parties that disaffiliated view Baldwin as a traitor.

Right, didn't I read recently that their main protest with the national party was because they considered the national party's position on abortion as too lenient or not focused upon enough?

Imperial
09-05-2008, 09:00 PM
I have noticed that Ron Paul has grown increasingly disillusioned with the GOP as of late. I think their limits on his convention access, the roll call steamroller, their bias to his convention, and their general all or nothing sellout has disgusted him.

I am wondering that maybe Barr and Baldwin will drop out and endorse Paul.

Think about this ticket: Paul/Baldwin with Barr in some big position. (or Paul/Barr with Baldwin in some major postion.

Then, Bob Barr is set to be the Libertarian nominee in 2012, with some new cred.

Ballot access issues would be gone, as between the two campaigns I think they have everywhere.

The base would be rallied, and we could push immigration, economy, and foreign policy alternatives that are just not seen in the mainstream candidates.

I look forward to September Tenth.

(NOTE: I used to be against a 3rd Party run, but I think that we can do it and still take over the GOP later- after all, Ron Paul really is only young enough to run this last time. We must not waste our standard bearer!

Besides, it could open up the way for the liberty movement and give Barr a better chance in 2012!)

Knightskye
09-05-2008, 09:06 PM
Man. With Chuck on the ballot, Barr would've gotten votes. But now people will vote for Ron Paul.

If he was actually the nominee, that'd be great, but come on!

thomaspaine23
09-05-2008, 09:09 PM
Just had an interesting thought.

Not that this is what they'll say on the 10th, BUT.....

Every member of the electoral college is in theory free to vote for WHOMEVER they so choose. So, what would happen say if Barr and Baldwin said they would
"free" any electoral votes they got to vote for Paul???

He would not be "on" the ballot and would still be a republican. But no one could do a thing.....

Imperial
09-05-2008, 09:21 PM
Except that both Barr and Baldwin will be on the ballot in about 30 states. Which means neither will get those Electoral College votes to vote for Ron Paul.

No, the tickets would have to merge with RP at the head for it to work.

Shotdown1027
09-05-2008, 09:22 PM
The Montana Constitution Party is not affilliated with the national CP. They never REMOVED Baldwin,they simply didnt put him on.

Ron Paul on the ballot will likely score 5-10%.

Oh--and once Baldwin missed the ballot in CA and PA--the campaign shifted a bit.

Shotdown1027
09-05-2008, 09:23 PM
Imperial,

Barr will be on the ballot in 44-47 states. Baldwin will be on in 37-40.

Bradley in DC
09-05-2008, 09:46 PM
Every member of the electoral college is in theory free to vote for WHOMEVER they so choose.

Um, no.

Many states put restrictions on it:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#popular

Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

thomaspaine23
09-05-2008, 09:54 PM
Um, no.

Many states put restrictions on it:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

Frankly I don't think it could be upheld as it is a federal matter.

Second, what if no-one has a majority? Obviously in that case the electors would need to be free to change their vote.

Finally, what would happen if a candidate withdrew after getting electoral votes,
but before the college convened, or endorsed a different candidate?


Like I said I don't think it will happen, but it would be an interesting angle.....

nate895
09-05-2008, 09:56 PM
Um, no.

Many states put restrictions on it:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#popular

Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

What if a party replaced the nominee with a new person?

Let's say Barr and Baldwin drop out, and the CP and LP endorse Ron Paul. Let's say Bob Barr's slate wins a state, with the people assuming a vote for Barr means a vote for Paul, would that mean that even in a state like Georgia, which binds its electors, they'd still have to vote for Barr?

Shotdown1027
09-05-2008, 10:01 PM
They wouldnt "have to". I dont believe any law in the country imprisons or fines unfaithful electors.

Eric21ND
09-05-2008, 10:14 PM
I have noticed that Ron Paul has grown increasingly disillusioned with the GOP as of late. I think their limits on his convention access, the roll call steamroller, their bias to his convention, and their general all or nothing sellout has disgusted him.

I am wondering that maybe Barr and Baldwin will drop out and endorse Paul.

Think about this ticket: Paul/Baldwin with Barr in some big position. (or Paul/Barr with Baldwin in some major postion.

Then, Bob Barr is set to be the Libertarian nominee in 2012, with some new cred.

Ballot access issues would be gone, as between the two campaigns I think they have everywhere.

The base would be rallied, and we could push immigration, economy, and foreign policy alternatives that are just not seen in the mainstream candidates.

I look forward to September Tenth.

(NOTE: I used to be against a 3rd Party run, but I think that we can do it and still take over the GOP later- after all, Ron Paul really is only young enough to run this last time. We must not waste our standard bearer!

Besides, it could open up the way for the liberty movement and give Barr a better chance in 2012!)
How can you be against 3rd parties? Check out the videos under my post, we need to open the process up if anything.