Sec. 146.023. DECLARATION OF WRITE-IN CANDIDACY REQUIRED. (a) To be entitled to a place on the list of write-in candidates, a candidate must make a declaration of write-in candidacy.
And kilarney, this is not a question about supporting a law, but enacting a law. It is a goddamn law. You may not be happy with it but you still have to follow it. You can't change the rules mid-game just to get an unfair advantage.
And kilarney, this is not a question about supporting a law, but enacting a law.
I would challenge that law in a heartbeat.
Let me make something very clear. I know that you're all giddy like schoolchildren at the prospect of McCain being taken off the ballot in Texas.
But think about what that means... Government gets to decide who you can vote for - not you. Do you honestly support this law? Would you feel the same if we were talking about California?
If you do support governmental controls on who you may vote for, then I shudder to think of what other freedoms you are willing to give up.
No, I don't support the law, but I would still have to follow it, even if it applied to California instead of Texas. If the candidate is to stupid to follow the law it is his own fault. The law has existed now for 22 years. Nobody has challenged it until now.
And the government did not make it impossible to vote for somebody, it was McCain and Obama themselves by not following the election rules. In a manner they said "we don't need the votes in Texas". You could also make an argument how you can trust a president if he can't even follow simple election law.
The government is deciding who you can vote for. You can vote for anyone you want. The government is just saying who can claim those votes. I
What if someone random person called John McCain decided to lay a claim to all the ballots with "John McCain" as a write in? Sorting out who can claim the "John McCain" write in votes in advance is a very sensible idea.
In a perfect world, anyone at all, up to the moment the polls open, could add their name to the ballot. In a world where paperwork and administration exists this just can't happen.
Kilarney, they aren't controlling who you can vote for. They are just preventing you from voting for people who aren't running for office. Everyone in Idaho might write in my mom's name. That doesn't mean she should get any electoral votes. She didn't declare that she's running for office.
Remember, the vote for president is still, technically, based on the electoral college. You aren't voting for a candidate. You are voting for electors who, at least on paper, go to the electoral college and represent your vote. If there are no electors for my mom, a vote for her means nothing. In the interest of making the election actually work, and in the interest of making the votes countable, they only allow you to vote for people who have declared their intent to run, and have electors.
What this amounts to is not that the government is preventing you from voting for whoever you want. It's McCain not declaring his intention to run. You can't vote for someone who doesn't want your vote.
Kilarney, they aren't controlling who you can vote for. They are just preventing you from voting for people who aren't running for office. Everyone in Idaho might write in my mom's name. That doesn't mean she should get any electoral votes. She didn't declare that she's running for office.
That's a fair assessment. Thanks for being logical! I'm still not a fan of the law - but at least that's a valid argument. It's much better than - "But it's the law!"
My concern is that government should not be the gatekeeper. Who is to say that they can't exert control over people registering? I can understand requiring parties to register a candidate, but the people should be able to vote for a candidate without government having the final say. A corrupt government would have too much influence.
My concern is that government should not be the gatekeeper. Who is to say that they can't exert control over people registering?
I would have to know more about the process of registering to become a candidate before I could make a similar concern. If it's just a matter of checking if you are a citizen and getting your paperwork in on time, then I have no problem with the way it's implemented.
But think about what that means... Government gets to decide who you can vote for - not you. Do you honestly support this law? Would you feel the same if we were talking about California?
If you do support governmental controls on who you may vote for, then I shudder to think of what other freedoms you are willing to give up.
The government already controls for whom you may vote. Can I vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger as president? How about someone who's 34 years old?
There are requirements for holding the office of the president, and requirements for how one goes about getting elected. A requirement as to write-in candidates is simply part of that. It's good to have a process in place for that; otherwise, having free write-in candidates sort of makes the entire rest of the system useless.
We also don't have a direct democracy, purposefully. The constitution exists to protect the minority from the majority. If we allowed free write-ins, you could easily establish a tyranny of the majority and bypass the protections of the constitution.
My concern is that government should not be the gatekeeper. Who is to say that they can't exert control over people registering? I can understand requiring parties to register a candidate, but the people should be able to vote for a candidate without government having the final say. A corrupt government would have too much influence.
That is something I'll agree with you on, and it is a huge problem. There are situations in some states where the numbers of signatures required to get on ballots is such that it pushes people off the ballot who should be on it. Really, it should be anyone who applies to be on the ballot gets on. Then just put the top 5-10 signature getters on the actual ballot, and put everyone else as write-ins. Sadly, it doesn't work this way. If I just want to be on the ballot, it's going to take a hell of a lot of work to even be set as a write-in.
Rym.politics.jadedness++ Help me Barack Obama: you're my only hope.
You're counting on the guy who pushed through retroactive telecom' immunity and recently promised to increase defense spending, both of which go back on campaign promises he made during the primaries? Make no mistake: I'm voting for the guy, but don't let him get to your head, dude.
The government already controls for whom you may vote. Can I vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger as president? How about someone who's 34 years old?
That's in the Constitution. So no complaint from me regarding the possibility of denying me my constitutional rights.
One other thought... If Scott's theory is correct, why the time lines? Shouldn't I be able to decide to run right up until the election? It's not like they have to reprint ballots for write-in candidates.
One other thought... If Scott's theory is correct, why the time lines? Shouldn't I be able to decide to run right up until the election? It's not like they have to reprint ballots for write-in candidates.
Kilarney, they aren't controlling who you can vote for. They are just preventing you from voting for people who aren't running for office. Everyone in Idaho might write in my mom's name. That doesn't mean she should get any electoral votes. She didn't declare that she's running for office.
One other thought... If Scott's theory is correct, why the time lines? Shouldn't I be able to decide to run right up until the election? It's not like they have to reprint ballots for write-in candidates.
Because bureaucracy is slow and stupid.
Or maybe it's the fact that we printers have to do work to make all of those ballots, and we need around one month or more of lead time to get all the ballots through design, proofing, printing, finishing, and delivery?
One other thought... If Scott's theory is correct, why the time lines? Shouldn't I be able to decide to run right up until the election? It's not like they have to reprint ballots for write-in candidates.
If you don't want time lines just go to New Jersey. They had no problem removing Torricelli from the ballot a few years back and replacing him with Lautenberg even though it happened after the dealine.
Actually, Sherman was very good to his men. He might have a reputation as being harsh to the South, but they desrrved it. His effectiveness makes him all the more cool.
Comments
Let me make something very clear. I know that you're all giddy like schoolchildren at the prospect of McCain being taken off the ballot in Texas.
But think about what that means... Government gets to decide who you can vote for - not you. Do you honestly support this law? Would you feel the same if we were talking about California?
If you do support governmental controls on who you may vote for, then I shudder to think of what other freedoms you are willing to give up.
And the government did not make it impossible to vote for somebody, it was McCain and Obama themselves by not following the election rules. In a manner they said "we don't need the votes in Texas". You could also make an argument how you can trust a president if he can't even follow simple election law.
What if someone random person called John McCain decided to lay a claim to all the ballots with "John McCain" as a write in? Sorting out who can claim the "John McCain" write in votes in advance is a very sensible idea.
In a perfect world, anyone at all, up to the moment the polls open, could add their name to the ballot. In a world where paperwork and administration exists this just can't happen.
Remember, the vote for president is still, technically, based on the electoral college. You aren't voting for a candidate. You are voting for electors who, at least on paper, go to the electoral college and represent your vote. If there are no electors for my mom, a vote for her means nothing. In the interest of making the election actually work, and in the interest of making the votes countable, they only allow you to vote for people who have declared their intent to run, and have electors.
What this amounts to is not that the government is preventing you from voting for whoever you want. It's McCain not declaring his intention to run. You can't vote for someone who doesn't want your vote.
My concern is that government should not be the gatekeeper. Who is to say that they can't exert control over people registering? I can understand requiring parties to register a candidate, but the people should be able to vote for a candidate without government having the final say. A corrupt government would have too much influence.
There are requirements for holding the office of the president, and requirements for how one goes about getting elected. A requirement as to write-in candidates is simply part of that. It's good to have a process in place for that; otherwise, having free write-in candidates sort of makes the entire rest of the system useless.
We also don't have a direct democracy, purposefully. The constitution exists to protect the minority from the majority. If we allowed free write-ins, you could easily establish a tyranny of the majority and bypass the protections of the constitution.
One other thought... If Scott's theory is correct, why the time lines? Shouldn't I be able to decide to run right up until the election? It's not like they have to reprint ballots for write-in candidates.