1. Why should voters have to sign oaths. It’s bad enough that states like Montana will require electors to sign such oaths. Could there be a law suit?

2. What ??? NO STONE AGE blood oath to a party hack robot ???

   A death penalty if the voter does not *support* the Elephant Prez nominee ???

   See the personal oath given to Hitler after he became killer tyrant in charge in Germany in 1934.

3. I can’t imagine that this oath is legally binding.

4. Is this the only way they can keep members of their party? Seems there’s a fear of losing their party members, so they want an “oath” signed!

5. We have been informed a similar oath was signed by candidates in Alabama’s 1rst congressional district.

6. I swear I will never post to this thread again.

7. 7 –

   Really?

8. 7 –

   Yes, really.

9. #6-7-8, Aw, this blog needs comments. Please reconsider. Did you know any comment to this blog gets picked up on “news.google.com”?

10. Such oath is as non-binding as an oath for Presidential Electors. In other words, is not even worth the paper it is written on.

    Voting is done by secret ballot, so there’s no way to know who cast a particular ballot.

    Presidential electors can vote for any person for President, and any person for Vice President. There are numerous examples of “faithless” electors. The latest was in 2000, when a DC elector pledged to Gore/Lieberman did not vote for anyone.

11. #10 In states like Montana Presidential electors will now have to sign an oath along with other paperwork. It’s the 50’s all over again when people signed oaths saying they were not communist. Instead of the usual 3 electors, now there will be 3 alternate electors, who will also have to sign an oath and have the form notarized. Could these laws be challenged in court? Political parties would have standing but would it have to be after a presidential candidate is selected?

12. #10 How many States make it a FELONY for a robot party hack Electoral College person to NOT vote for the robot party hack Prez/VP candidates — that got that person into the Electoral College for a day ??? — along with an INSTANT replacement of such person by another robot party hack.

    I.E. having NO *faithless* Electors.

    The Fed regime is now spending around 28 percent of the GDP.

    BIG $$$$$$$$ is involved in having a totally controlled robot Electoral College — with NO moron stunt folks — ANY more.
    ———
    Abolish the E.C.
    Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the U.S.A.

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

13. For those who haven’t read the article, or who otherwise question the legality of requiring voters to sign such a pledge, please note the following section from Virginia law:

    “Virginia Code § 24.2-545. Presidential primary.

    A. The duly constituted authorities of the state political party shall have the right to determine the method by which the state party will select its delegates to the national convention to choose the party’s nominees for President and Vice President of the United States including a presidential primary or another method determined by the party. The state chairman shall notify the State Board of the party’s determination at least 90 days before the primary date. If the party has determined that it will hold a presidential primary, each registered voter of the Commonwealth shall be given an opportunity to participate in the presidential primary of the political party, as defined in § 24.2-101, subject to requirements determined by the political party for participation in its presidential primary. The requirements may include, but shall not be limited to, the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party’s candidate when offering to vote in the primary. The requirements applicable to a party’s primary shall be determined at least 90 days prior to the primary date and certified to, and approved by, the State Board.”

14. I am not a Republican, but if the Republican Party wants to allow people to participate in their decision-making process “with conditions” for the general election, they have every right to do so. They are a PRIVATE organization, despite the current p.c. claim that political parties belong to all voters. I see it as a contractual matter; albeit an unenforceable one ­ but to an honest individual, a promise made should be a promise kept, regardless of whether it’s legally enforceable.

    Political parties were formed around the wish to gather numerical strength around a particular set of ideas. If you don’t have any loyalty to the party or its goals, you should not interfere with their process.

    That said, I see government-run primaries as state subsidies for those private organizations, and that’s one subsidy I’d like to see abolished. Political party members should be free to determine who will run under their banner without interference ­ but they should also come to their decision using their own money.

15. 9 –

    Sorry, but I swore I wouldn’t post to this thread again and…D’Oh!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.