Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

918 comments

I hope they're removed, (5, Interesting)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065415)

but I hope they are allowed to run as write-in. Assuming the summary is true.

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

Lallander (968402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065429)

If this is accurate it does sound like he has a valid case.

Re:I hope they're removed, (5, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065517)

If his case is valid, you'll see some true bi-partisan cooperation in Austin as they speedily pass a repeal of the relevant section of the state code.

Re:I hope they're removed, (5, Insightful)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065561)

You know what we need? A federal law mandating that the top six political parties automatically get on the ballot for the Presidential election. The top six would be determined by the top six vote getters, nationally, as of the previous presidential election. This would ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again, but would significantly help third party candidates.

Re:I hope they're removed, (4, Insightful)

MrCreosote (34188) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065609)

Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilised countries have.

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065651)

If America were interested in civilization, we'd be a Commonwealth State and not the United States (with Virginia and Connecticut being Commonwealths in and of themselves).

Re:I hope they're removed, (4, Informative)

QuickSilver_999 (166186) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065823)

(with Virginia and Connecticut being Commonwealths in and of themselves).

I'm hurt... Don't forget us in PA too! And for that matter KY. :)

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065895)

May as well throw in Puerto Rico as well, it'll give Obama an edge.

Re:I hope they're removed, (2, Informative)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065885)

Erm. Connecticut is not a Commonwealth. Massachusetts is.

Re:I hope they're removed, (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066019)

one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run

That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. For no good reason.

maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilised countries have.

Few other countries (civilized or otherwise) are as big as to be a Union of states.

Re:I hope they're removed, (3, Insightful)

NoTheory (580275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066369)

Ensuring fair, reasonable, and standardized elections isn't a good reason? I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the current electoral system is ideal. And the failures, as 2000 showed, are fairly catastrophic (i don't mean Bush's policies. I mean the turmoil, and lack of clarity)

Re:I hope they're removed, (3, Informative)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066437)

But the states elect the president of the union, not the people. If you don't like that, amend the constitution or move.

Re:I hope they're removed, (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066729)

But the states elect the president of the union, not the people.

Indeed: the real problem is that the states are letting the people choose the electors, when it ought to be the state legislature doing it!

Re:I hope they're removed, (1, Insightful)

cnettel (836611) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066553)

Few other countries (civilized or otherwise) are as big as to be a Union of states.

Indeed, Switzerland is huge.

Re:I hope they're removed, (4, Interesting)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066507)

I'd settle for a voting system that isn't as mathematically flawed as multiple-candidate-single-vote/majority-required.

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065613)

THat would require a constitutional amendment, and it leaves election law to the states.

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065643)

Yeah, but would it be a good idea?

An amendment that goes like, "The top six political parties as of the last Presidential election shall be guaranteed ballot access on the following Presidential election. The top six political parties shall be construed to mean the top six parties who get the most votes at the national level, Independent candidates ignored."

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066311)

No it wouldn't. Look up how the process to get on the ballot works today. If there is a "third" party candidate worth anything, they should have no problem getting their state party to get the some thousand signatures for a petition or whatever other way you get on the ballot -- and they usually do not have such a problem.

While we are making an amendment, lets get *rid* of the party system entirely, and just let me cast a vote for multiple people, either approval or preferential voting, say (I think, this too, would need to be done at the state level).

Re:I hope they're removed, (2, Informative)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065641)

Except for the fact that would be unconstitutional. States select their presidential candidates independently, and the political parties of each state independently nominate their candidate to appear on the ballot.

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065693)

How about we just make everyone collect signatures, including the top two parties?

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066069)

How about we just make everyone collect signatures, including the top two parties?

That would disenfranchise the voters, who can't sign their name. There are ought to be more of them, than of those, who simply get confused by the ballots...

Re:I hope they're removed, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066663)

If they get confused by a simple ballot, are they intelligent enough to vote? I mean, most everyone else doesn't get confused.... by something as simple as a ballot.

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066703)

A federal law mandating that the top six political parties...

Why the top six? Why not the top seven? Or eight?

The top six would be determined by the top six vote getters, nationally, as of the previous presidential election.

I thought you were trying to reduce the incumbent parties' advantage, not enhance it!

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066489)

I never understood what ex post facto meant. I want to say they can't do that but FISA went through, so I guess I just don't understand the law or the constitution.

Re:I hope they're removed, (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066587)

Ex post facto applies to criminal law, not civil, and generally only applies when it would criminalize an act or make the punishment more severe. A law may retroactively affect the criminality of an action if it reduces or eliminates the criminality or penalty.

It's a bit more complex than that, but that covers most cases.

Re:I hope they're removed, (3, Insightful)

Manchot (847225) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066675)

I don't know about that. What motivation would the Democrats have to permit passage of the bill? Texas is a guaranteed red state which they have no expectation of winning, and without Texas, McCain essentially loses the election. Now, it's likely that McCain would still win even as a write-in candidate, but if the Dems are represented enough in the Texas legislature, I'd think that they'd try to block passage of the bill using any means at their disposal.

Re:I hope they're removed, (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25065757)

They've also missed the deadline for running as write-ins. They should rightfully face the same penalties Barr would have to if he made the same mistakes.

Re:I hope they're removed, (5, Funny)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066445)

The rule of law would be nice, wouldn't it?

Nothing good out of texas anyways... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25065831)

There isn't anything good coming out of texas anyways. Except mexicans.

Re:I hope they're removed, (0, Flamebait)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066515)

I'd rather they be removed entirely. Texas is a red state, it would be a coup for Obama. Unfortunately as another poster mentioned, it's already been worked around by submitting blank ballots before the deadline, and then amending them afterwards.

Re:I hope they're removed, (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066631)

I totally agree, but they absolutely will be placed on the ballot. Rules mean nothing to these people. The political parties themselves *are* the government, so they are above the law.

Don't worry, theyll set a court date (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25065465)

For two months from now and get this all settled. Oh, what do you mean the election is before then?

Re:Don't worry, theyll set a court date (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066461)

That's why injunctions exist.

try-getting-the-signatures-for-a-3d-party-in (1)

mahsah (1340539) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065467)

I imagine getting signatures for a 3d party are much easier then getting ones for a 2d one, timothy.

Re:try-getting-the-signatures-for-a-3d-party-in (2, Funny)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065653)

I prefer my political parties to be of the third dimension.

Hahaha! (0, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065489)

Oh, I used to love being a Libertarian when it was legal to do so in my state! Those guys are great.

But seriously, since when have politicians, especially Republicans bothered to follow laws? I mean, really. Simple election laws are nothing compared to what's happened during this past administration.

Re:Hahaha! (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065611)

Hey, this is awesome! Screw electronic voting. Screw pre-printed ballots in general! Just think -- if candidates were forced to rely on a write-in only process, voting participation would drop like a stone because the average American couldn't be bothered. Only the activists would show up, and the polls wouldn't be tainted by idiots who know nothing other than the contents of TV ads.

Re:Hahaha! (2, Funny)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065675)

Expect a huge amount of write-ins for "Stephen Colbert."

Re:Hahaha! (3, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065797)

I bet you a dollar that Colbert would beat Bob Barr by an order of magnitude!

Although he might lose to the Mythbuster fans. His picture [bobbarr2008.com] looks like a cross between Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage. :-)

Re:Hahaha! (1)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065945)

Actually I was thinking he looked like a cross between Mel Brooks and a used car salesman.

(And I'm a strongly-libertarian-leaning ex-Republican... Can't imagine what non Libs think of this guy.)

Re:Hahaha! (1)

aldousd666 (640240) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066209)

well I suppose being reasonable about it you have to consider the folks who are swayed by looks, but surely you aren't! (I'm another ex-republican who leans strongly libertarian as well.)

Re:Hahaha! (3, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066263)

Personally I would prefer writing in "None of the Above"

Re:Hahaha! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25065881)

Yeah, because we all know activists aren't idiots who know nothing other than the contents of TV ads.

Re:Hahaha! (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066383)

That's exactly what elections used to be like. You'd come in with a piece of paper, write down your candidate, put it in a box in the middle of the room and leave.

Now we have the 2 party system where the 2 parties do everything in their power to block 3rd party candidates from getting onto the ballot and in debates. That's how we came to get pre-printed ballots and the need for signatures and/or money to be on it (depending on the state).

Obama actually "won" his first race [cnn.com] in 1996 by getting enough signatures scrubbed off of his opponents ballot initiative.

Re:Hahaha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066679)

They do this in Japan (rather, all votes require you to write the candidates' name).

It means that much of the focus of campaigning shifts even further from the issues, to try and simply beat the population over the head with a candidate's name in hopes it will be remembered on election day.

I like the idea of an idiot test to keep the uninformed out of the ballot booths, but I can't think of any ways to do it that wouldn't cause more problems than it solves.

Re:Hahaha! (4, Insightful)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066691)

Just because someone is an activist doesn't mean they're intelligent or well informed.

It just means they have strong opinions, and I have plenty of those about things I haven't even heard of yet.

Re:Hahaha! (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065719)

I think thats the sort of the point here, this is a basic law about elections, about as basic as "be at work by 9:00AM" and the fact that some campaign(s) with hundreds of lawyers, and assorted other people(s) can't even make a simple deadline, that by skimming a previous link [state.tx.us] posted seems to have been around for at least 23 years.

Everyone knows that (most, if not all) politicians are devious little shits that try to circumvent anything that might be in their way, law or otherwise, but now they can't seem to even (metaphorically) show up on time.

Re:Hahaha! (1)

SECProto (790283) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065955)

like most jobs though, when you are the two star workers in the company and you have been on time for all the other workdays, they usually will grant you a fair bit of leniency.

Re:Hahaha! (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066025)

like most jobs though, when you are the two star workers in the company and you have been on time for all the other workdays, they usually will grant you a fair bit of leniency.

But they haven't. This is still the interview, and they both missed that!

Great for Obama (5, Insightful)

RootsLINUX (854452) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065491)

I'm an Obama supporter living in Texas and I think this is actually a great thing to have both McCain and Obama's names removed from the ballot. Texas is a very conservative state, which makes my vote here virtually worthless. But if neither is on the ballot, then the chances of Obama winning the state because of write-ins or Barr (or another 3rd party candidate) winning because their name is on the ballot increases. Basically if John McCain doesn't win Texas, its a very deep blow for him and this lawsuit is pretty much the only shot we have at it.

When will we abolish this stupid electoral college?

Re: electoral college (2, Interesting)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065607)

I am in favour of the electoral college. I think I'd rather secede than to abolish it. Then again, I am for states' rights.

Re: electoral college (5, Funny)

vthokiestm (691839) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065703)

"Favour"? You seem to have already seceded.

Re: electoral college (4, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066711)

Maybe he is one of the people you guys refer to as "You Aussies", or one of those British folks. Them and us and our whacky spelling. I mean, we should be telling the English how to spell in English right?

Personally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25065781)

> Then again, I am for states' rights.

With the Electoral College, some votes are worth more than others and some are worth almost nothing.

So, I guess you could say I'm for human rights, but that's just me.

Re:Personally... (1)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065911)

Yes, because strong centralized power has ever been the protector of human rights.

Re:Personally... (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066719)

Yes, because strong decentralised power has ever been the protector of human rights.

Re: electoral college (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065803)

Ok, I'll bite.

What the frack does states' rights have to do with the electoral college?

Re: electoral college (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065971)

The electoral college gives states the right to select the President any way they wish. Sure, at the moment, it's done by ballot in every state, but there's no dictate that it *has* to be done that way.

Re: electoral college (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066377)

I thought some states, like Florida, made it a crime for electoral college voters to do other than the voting majority.

Re: electoral college (2, Informative)

Onan (25162) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065863)

And by "states", I'm guessing you mean the 6 or so states that presidents bother to woo, at the expense of the 44 that they permanently ignore? This is a good deal for states how, exactly?

Usually when people say "states' rights", they're talking about the championing the rights of states over the rights of the federal government. But to say it in the context of the electoral college, you're championing the rights of states over the rights of voters. That seems like a much harder stance to defend.

Re: electoral college (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066279)

And if the electoral college was removed, would this change? The 6 or states would be different, but there would still only be a few states in which each candidate would campaign.

You don't have a constitutional right to vote for the president. The states do have a constitutional right to pick electors for the president. Where are you getting these "rights of voters" in a presidential election? Such rights only exist due to the actions of the individual states.

Certainly the process could be improved, but I think the idea should be to develop a more intelligent voting system, not one even more geared toward mob rule.

Re: electoral college (5, Interesting)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066725)

The current system is worse than mob rule. Why do we have huge subsidies on corn and soy? Iowa is a swing state. Why did we bail out American auto makers in the 70's? Michigan is a swing state. Why do we have steel tariffs? Pennsylvania is a swing state. Why do we have sugar tariffs? Florida is a swing state. Maybe we would have some kind of national urban/metropolitan policy on land use or transportation if anyone cared what people in California or greater New York thought about anything.

Re: electoral college (1, Funny)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065873)

I'm also in favor in Texas seceding. Please, go away on your own, or else we'll give you back to Mexico.

Re: electoral college (1)

carlivar (119811) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066277)

I am also in favor of Texas seceding, so I can move there. Provided Ron Paul is their president, of course.

Re: electoral college (4, Funny)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066363)

Can you talk about 250 million others into thinking the same as you? If you can just convince them to pass a little bit of legislation making it an official right of ours, I'll help lead the charge for us to separate. I think it would be in our best interest, especially if we can gain most favored nation status pending our departure. I'll then propose that we conquer your so called Mexico by force, as the Union forces once did, but we won't give it back. Then we'll be able to sell you oil at open market prices and profit like mad.

Mad I tell you, MAD!!!!!

Bwah hah ha ha ha!

But seriously, only about 250 Million others should swing the vote enough. Start canvassing. I'll start arming our populace. Oh look, I'm nearly done. Your move.

Re: electoral college (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066107)

tbqh, I think we'd be better off without presidential elections at all. Let the public choose their representatives for legislature, and then the House can choose a President for the duration of the session.

Re: electoral college (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066543)

I am in favour of the electoral college. I think I'd rather secede than to abolish it. Then again, I am for small states' rights.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Great for Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25065767)

When will we abolish this stupid electoral college?

Never.

And it's a good thing, too.

Because it makes sure no one can really profit from vote fraud. If a state leans strongly enough one way or the other for vote fraud significant enough to change the popular vote count across the entire nation, that state's electoral votes are already pretty much a lock anyway.

The only time vote fraud could effect a Presidential election is in a close election and in a close state. And such closeness pretty much guarantees a level of scrutiny that vote fraud isn't going to happen much if at all (despite fantasies to the contrary....).

And to top it all off, the entire Presidential election resides in the hands of legislatures, state and federal. Which, because of their size, are the hardest to subvert.

PS - by upending the Florida legislature's plan for how to conduct a Presidential election and challenge, the Florida Supreme Court clearly violated the US Constitution, which states that electors are selected per the legislature, and ONLY the legislature, with no review by ANY court. Given that, it's much more credible to claim that the court that tried to subvert the 2000 election was the FLORIDA Supreme Court. Get over it, and, er, Move ON!

Re:Great for Obama (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065985)

right because stoping a potential threat that can be stopped plenty of other ways is far more important than making peoples votes count (especially for a presidential election where having a week majority dosent matter.

Hell as its never going to happen id also suggest using 2nd preference voting. that way nobody has to avoid voting for their prefered candidate in case they let their least favorite slip in

Re:Great for Obama (2, Interesting)

beaverbrother (586749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065967)

This should be about following the law. If Obama supporters turn this into a partisan thing, then it will be Michigan and Florida all over again.
Obama's stance there was to let the party decide, because the candidates really shouldn't push for election regulations in their favor.
Obama's stance here will likely be to let the state decide, because it is a state matter and candidates can't bend the law to keep a party in power.
Obviously both positions favor him, so he will get flamed for it, but they are also both the right thing to do.
Here the libertarians are right. If parties can bend the rules to keep themselves in power, you don't have a true democracy.

Re:Great for Obama (1)

Artraze (600366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066075)

Hate to burst your bubble, but it is rather well known that Republicans are much more devout voters that Democrats. That is how Rs can win despite the larger quantity of Ds that show up in polls. I would therefore expect that actually this would end up at best a wash, but more likely to cement a McCain victory in Texas. However, I do expect that the 3rd parties on the ballot will be a bit better off for it. At least it'll teach the big two not to expect everyone to lick their boots.

Re:Great for Obama (1)

Zcar (756484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066249)

To me the problem isn't the electoral college. The electoral college is actually a pretty neat technique to protect geographic minorities. It gives a bit of extra weight to low population regions.

No, the problem is the entrenched two party system that makes impractical a real third choice. Just getting rid of the electoral college won't fix that. What we need it a moved away from the outdated first-past-the-post system of voting to something that encourages additional views, such as range voting, approval voting, etc.

Re:Great for Obama (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066345)

Well, I was not even going to vote for president. I'm in Indiana. R's had control and they ran the state in the ground... for 75 years. I'm going straight D (after voting some L and mostly R 2 years ago) except for president. I cant see Barr, Obama, or McCain doing anything positive here.

The Governor-R pissed up off because he sold our roads off, privatized damn near everything, and ignores the citizens. He's going down.

If you vote republican in Texas, Ill vote Obama in Indiana. I of course, have no way of knowing if you will uphold your side, other than honor.

old news (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065511)

I heard about this a couple weeks ago. Anyhow, the texas filing deadline was before the national conventions, but both parties filed paperwork on time with blank names and amended them afterwards (which is allowed by law). I thought this had already been dismissed, but it's going nowhere.

Re:old news (4, Informative)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065737)

The Republicans tried to remove Barr's name from the PA ballots. Except that using a placeholder in Pennsylvania is legal, and not so much in Texas, if I understand correctly. You can get more details on Bob Barr's website. http://www.bobbarr2008.com/ [bobbarr2008.com]

I'm sure they'll weasel their way out of removing Obama and McCain from the TX ballot, but we'll see! In most court cases involving third parties, the judges side against them regardless of the law, so... good luck Bob Barr!

Re:old news (4, Informative)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065751)

Also, for information about this specific case, see here:
http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/18/bob-barr-rides-again-in-texas/ [bobbarr2008.com]

When we missed our deadline in West Virginia (a month before Republicans and Democrats were required to file I might add), we were forced off of the ballot. The law is clear and belonging to the Republican or Democrat party does not exempt you from its rule.

Re:old news (1)

DarkHorseman (1150085) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066697)

wow... blog bob barr, either hard to say, or sounds like a language uttered on an MMO...

Re:old news (1)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066665)

It's not old news. You heard the discussion about doing this a few weeks ago. Barr didn't file the suit until this morning. There was a lot of discussion in the Libertarian inner circles whether it was worth the effort, because it will almost certainly turn out to be wasted effort.

Texas is republican... (0, Flamebait)

doctor_nation (924358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065519)

This is going to be a non-issue. Or McCain's name will magically appear on the ballot but Obama's won't. Texas is strongly republican, so there's no way McCain won't be on the ticket. If Texas has this rule in place, I'm sure there's some other sub-rule or exception that allows for reserving the nominee's spot, or the 70-day rule only applies to non-Dem/GOP people. It doesn't make any sense to have such a rule when both parties nominate their candidates later in the year than that.

This Is NOT News For Nerds!! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25065551)

I don't even see what this is doing on slashdot. There are far more important political events and news in the world going on every day, and this gets posted to slashdot? Why exactly is this news for nerds? Bob Barr is hardly relevant on a site ostensibly about tech and tech relevance. He is of almost no factor in the 2008 election. Why not start posting news about other fringe candidates, including the Communist, and Green parties while you're at it.

Re:This Is NOT News For Nerds!! (3, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065605)

Nerds love seeing news about lawyers screwing up. So this should be classified under entertainment or comedy.

Re:This Is NOT News For Nerds!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066381)

A while back we had a poll here that asked people's political affiliation. I don't remember who won, but it was neck and neck between liberal and libertarian the whole time. The last numbers I remember were over 7000 each. Conservative had less than 2000.

It seems to me that Slashdot cares about libertarians.

Re:This Is NOT News For Nerds!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066443)

I don't know, have they done anything particularly interesting lately, like ensure that they are on almost every state's ballot, and that they have done so with a large percentage of the population supporting them, and that they have done so despite the barricading being done by the judges and the other political parties? No? What a shame...

What a fucking shame. Now, since Bob Barr is a candidate trying to make a difference, and since he has done things that are noteworthy, then perhaps we should take note of him. Sure, he's fringe, but he's got a lot more going for him than against, and on top of that, he's about the only candidate that holds views that seem to align with OUR BELOVED FUCKING CONSTITUTION*. I don't think that the greenies hold the same view.

* No jokes here about how he looks like a constitution, or about how constitutions don't fuck. Grow up.

It's a publicity stunt. (-1, Troll)

Mc_Anthony (181237) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065589)

The ONLY reason Barr is attempting this is to keep his name in the press. Dennis "UFO" Kucinich often uses this technique via his impeachment circus. Welcome to US politics.

Re:It's a publicity stunt. (2, Informative)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065887)

Really? So you don't think it's a valid complaint?

Let's just say, just for grins, that he wasn't trying to keep his name in the press. If you were in his position, wouldn't you point out unfair violations of the law to an advantage whether you wanted press or not?

Re:It's a publicity stunt. (5, Insightful)

Nicholas Evans (731773) | more than 5 years ago | (#25065965)

No, it's not just to keep his name in the press. Ballot access is a huge issue for 3rd party candidates. He's trying to make a point.

Re:It's a publicity stunt. (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066523)

I think he's trying to get votes. Isn't that what you do when you're running for office?

Re:It's a publicity stunt. (3, Insightful)

Mc_Anthony (181237) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066569)

"I think he's trying to get votes. Isn't that what you do when you're running for office?"

Not when you are running as a third party. It's *never* about winning when you are running as a third party.

Re:It's a publicity stunt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066603)

The ONLY reason Barr is attempting this is to keep his name in the press.

Your next post WILL be one of the following:

1. Concrete, incontrovertible, non-speculatory evidence that "keeping his name in the press" is the sole reason for the suit, including systematic eliminations of every other reasonably possible motive.

2. An abject, unconditional confession that your claim is a transparent, incompetent lie.

Those are your ONLY possible choices.

Hahahahahaha! (2, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066645)

A publicity stunt? Hahahahaha.

I don't think I really have to say anything more. The law is right there on the 'net.

Silly Rabbit... (3, Interesting)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066079)

What if Florida or Ohio decided to pass a law saying that the name of the official major party nominees had to be submitted 180 days before the election?

A reasonable advance notice to give time to prepare and print ballots is cool, but if Texas was forced to remove the major party candidates from the ballot, it would be like saying that any state, at a whim, could determine a national nomination deadline by setting a ballot deadline.

IANAL, but I think Obama and McCain could raise a pretty valid constitutional challenge to it that might end up creating a national guideline for ballot deadlines, imposing yet another federal regulation.

Re:Silly Rabbit... (1)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066233)

I don't think that a national guideline for ballot deadlines on federal elections is all that onerous. On the other hand, if there were federal regulations for state and local elections, then that's another story...

Re:Silly Rabbit... (4, Insightful)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066339)

There is no legal guidance on the steps taken by a state in choosing how to cast their electoral votes. They could toss a coin and it'd likely be legal depending on THAT STATE'S constitution.

Re:Silly Rabbit... (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066359)

Selective law abiding, sweet. I personally believe in not obeying illogical laws. But I don't think that the average Texan follows that sentiment. So they should at least follow their own laws.

And you'd be wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066495)

States are allowed to set whatever method they want of selecting a president. There is no *rule* that says a populate vote must be taken.

In the past, state legislators have allocated the states electoral vote.

Seriously, this is civics 1-oh-1.

Re:Silly Rabbit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066497)

IANAL, but I think Obama and McCain could raise a pretty valid constitutional challenge to it...

That's Barr's goal. The Republicans are trying to sue him off the ballot in a few other states. He knows he'll lose this suit, so then he'll have precedent to go to court in the other cases and win his way on the ballot. Plus, it has the potential benefit of a huge court ruling that shoots down a lot of unfair ballot access laws, like Oklahoma's.

Re:Silly Rabbit... (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066555)

it would be like saying that any state, at a whim, could determine a national nomination deadline by setting a ballot deadline.

Um, yes, that's how it works. What's wrong with that? This is not a democracy, it's a republic, and it's a union of states. The states run the federal government, through their senators and representatives, and the process of electing the president.

Way back when, the states also enacted most laws. These days, we've been invaded by an occupying power. We used to fear the USSR coming in and telling us what to do. Now we have the USA coming in and telling our states what to do.

Nope! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25066683)

There are some federal guidelines, but in general states have the Constitutional power to decide how they are going to manage the vote. This is completely legitimate.

Re:Silly Rabbit... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25066721)

What do you mean, "print ballots"? We have all electronic voting here, nothing to print. Makes me gag. I have been living here for a year and, let me tell you, Massachusetts is superior in all respects.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...