On July 12, some Georgia Democratic voters challenged the ballot position of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, Claudia De La Cruz, Jill Stein, and Cornel West. They say the presidential elector candidates for each of these parties or presidential candidates were not properly nominated.
🤡🤡🤡
These anti-democracy assholes deserve to lose in 2024, they must be put in their place.
I am sick of these Democrats challenges. As a independent voter I won’t ever vote for a Democrat again even if its just dog catcher.
One of the points of interrogation from the judge should be “Why do you consider the Libertarian party (and Constitution party?) presidential elector candidates to be properly nominated but not everyone else? Please explain.”
The Democrats must not realize Oliver’s pro child abuse policies will hurt Biden more than Trump.
As I posted before on other spots in this website, I will not assist this effort with details.
Please post who and what forum this claim is being advanced.
Demoncrats wil be DemocRats
So they either view Oliver as less of a threat than the others, or they prefer losing votes to him rather than the others.
In before they nominate him as the their nominee too. Just kiddin’. Or am I?
STATE HACKS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS FROM TOP HACKS IN DEVIL CITY ???
— STOP 3RDS/INDEEES FROM BALLOT ACCESS.
Does it matter? According to Biden Trump is his vice president.
To be fair, he grew up back before the 12th amendment was passed.
WILL BIDEN HAVE A REALLY BAAAADE DAY AND SCREWUP ANY USE OF THE NUKE *FOOTBALL* AND END ALL HUMAN LIFE ???
https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/07/12/voters-worried-biden-trump-age/74367988007/
GRAPHICS ROT — B AND T
Keeping candidates to the left of Biden off the ballot is the only way to save Democracy if we can’t get Trump off the ballot.
Yes, but unironically.
@Occupy DemonRats
For real though, having the runner up in the presidential election become the VP was a better system.
Sure, it presupposed the antiquated notion that the people running for office actual have the country’s best interests at heart even if they disagree about those interests and how to achieve them.
But the modern system has made the VP pretty much an immaterial role, especially since they appear on the ballot as a package deal with the president so voters can’t even mix-and-match tickets.
At that point, just do away with the VP entirely and if the president dies let it go straight to the Speaker of the House, and hold new elections ASAP instead of waiting out the term.
That’s my opinion anyway, for what it’s worth.
That would incentivize political violence and assassination.
Which would? Having a VP being the election opponent of the president, or doing away with the VP and not waiting out presidential terms before holding new elections upon the death of the president?
The former worked well for many years before being sadly amended away – certainly better than the current system, I would argue. But yes, you are correct, if one or both of the top two candidates in the presidential elections do(es) not have the country’s best interests at heart, then it could lead to assassinations. But in that case let them destroy each other. The country will be stronger for it.
Either one. The speaker could be of a different party, which would also incentivize assassination and violence. As would early elections. The prior system, certainly. It worked poorly for a few years and was wisely done away with. It would be far worse today.
The speaker would only be an interim president for a very short time and could be constitutionally limited in their powers. Early elections would go both ways, whenever one side is more likely to win a snap election, they have an incentive to pop off the president and the president has incentive ensure that does not happen and his party gains popularity fast.
The only thing I agree with, is that the prior system would work less well today. But that is not because the system works poorly, but because the quality of (aspiring) leaders has deteriorated woefully. Any system would work far worse in the US today than two centuries ago.
I would also like to point that none of the presidents who died in office, including those assassinated, did so while the prior system was in effect. So what makes you say that it worked poorly?
Adams was a perfect foil to balance Washington and Jefferson. And the closest approximation we had since then, the Lincoln-Johnson National Union Ticket, also were very well with Johnson being by far the best Democrat president in US history.
“president has incentive ensure that does not happen and his party gains popularity fast.”
Much easier said than done. Also, not necessarily a good thing. Things which gain popularity, especially quickly, aren’t necessarily good in the long run.
Popping off the president isn’t necessarily precluded by popularity, either. Assassins don’t have to win elections or popularity contests. In fact, lacking popularity for one’s cause or ideas might be what drives some assassins to take extreme measures.
If assassinations lead to early elections, there’s also an incentive for politicians who might hope to win the primary or convention of a popular president to surreptitiously sponsor an assassination. To some extent that exists now with the VP, and there’s a fairly popular conspiracy theory that LBJ had something to do with JFKs assassination. But under this proposal, multiple people would have such perverse incentives, not just one.
“The only thing I agree with, is that the prior system would work less well today. But that is not because the system works poorly, but because the quality of (aspiring) leaders has deteriorated woefully.”
It didn’t work well then, either. It was done away with for good reason.
“I would also like to point that none of the presidents who died in office, including those assassinated, did so while the prior system was in effect.”
It wasn’t in effect very long. The 12th amendment was passed in 1804. The only contested presidential elections before that were in 1796 and 1800.
The 1800 election resulted in a tie between the p and vp choices of the winning party, which led to a contingent election in the house. That wasn’t resolved until the 36th ballot.
Hence 12th amendment.
“Much easier said than done.”
That’s for the president to worry about 🙂
“Popping off the president isn’t necessarily precluded by popularity, either.”
As someone opposed to the tyranny of the majority, you should love this then.
“But under this proposal, multiple people would have such perverse incentives, not just one.”
Not more so than under the current system.
“It didn’t work well then, either.”
Except that it did work well then. As I said, Adams was a perfect foil to balance Washington and Jefferson. And the closest approximation we have had since then, the Lincoln-Johnson National Union Ticket, also worked very well, with Johnson being by far the best Democrat president in US history.
“It was done away with for good reason.”
No, it was done away with for evil reason, by (prospective) tyrants who realized that it is much easier to control a president and vice-president from the same party than from opposing parties.
In the 1788, 1792 and 1796 elections, each elector casts two votes for different candidates. The candidate who received most votes became president, the candidate who received the second most votes became his VP. There weren’t any tickets or VP-picks or other such nonsense.
In both 1788 and 1792, Washington received a vote from every single elector, i.e. he was elected unanimously; and Adams received more votes than any other candidate. In other words, Washington was the most popular and after him Adams, ahead of the others.
In 1796, Washington refused a third term, and Adams won most votes followed by runner-up Jefferson.
Thus until the 1796 election, the most popular presidential candidate became president, and the second-most popular became his VP. As it should be.
In 1800, under this perfectly good and sensible system, both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans tried to devise a way to control both the presidency and the vice-presidency. The Federalists all voted for Adams, and all but one for Pinckney, and that one for Jay. Meanwhile the Democratic-Republicans whiffed it: they intended to all vote for Jefferson, and all but one for Burr, but they all ended up voting for both.
That needn’t even have created a problem, had there not been slightly more Democratic-Republicans than Federalists, so tough-luck but well-played Federalists, but now Jefferson and Burr are left tied for first place, with 73 electoral votes each. The Constitution stipulated that in such a contingency, if the winners were tied with up to half of the total electoral votes, the outgoing House of Representatives would elect between each of the candidates (I’m not entirely sure of the detailed rules had this been the case, because it wasn’t). But if the winners were tied with more than half of the total electoral votes, the (outgoing) House would elect the winner between the two of them in a head-to-head run-off with each state getting only one single vote and the winner requiring more than half of those votes.
Since the outgoing House (unlike the incoming one) still had a Federalist majority and Jefferson was a staunch anti-Federalist, this ended up being an even bigger problem, as for the first 35 ballots neither Jefferson nor Burr got the required 9 state votes. While this House contingent election, for all its rounds, took less than a week, almost a year had passed between the regular election and the contingent election.
And at that point it was very easy for power-hungry schemers to convince a passing of the 12th amendment. Not because the original system didn’t work well, but because the Democratic-Republicans had the in-coming majority AND failed to execute their plan to take control of both the presidency and vice-presidency; because the Federalist had the out-going majority AND preferred the opposite Democratic-Republican candidates for president and VP from the Democratic-Republicans themselves; and most of all because it took them almost a year to hold a contingent election which itself didn’t take that long!
That is an insanely specific set of circumstances coming together to create a problem with incompetence and sluggishness escalating it to the point where the founding father were easily manipulated into making the poor decision of changing the good old system with a divisive and more easily abusable new one of VP-picks and ticket package-deals where you can’t even vote for a president and VP from different parties. So much worse.
DR. Jill Stein seems to take the view that a new Georgia Law gets her on the George Ballot if she wins the convention of the Green Party next month.
HOW COME? The 2024 statute she is counting on require ballot access in
either “20:other states” or “20 Territories other than the State of Georgia”, because it is one or the other because the use the word “or”
and does not a combination of areas to make the number 20.
What are the 20 other states that Dr.
Jill Stein ir counting on, because it can not including Washington, DC. Washington DC will not get statehood by the November election so that area would be excluded from the list of 20 other states.
I oppose the tyranny of the majority. I also oppose the tyranny of minorities. Political violence and assassination can be a tool of either one, although it can also be a tool against tyranny.
There was nothing about the Burr dilemma that would make it unlikely to have happened again without the 12th amendment.
Mark Seidenberg,
Scroll down for map
https://www.jillstein2024ballotaccess.com/
The best Democratic president in history was Andrew Jackson. He rooted out corruption, drained the swamp by firing a lot of bureaucrats, signed a manor tariff reduction (then the only major federal tax), paid off the national debt, and shut down the bank of the united States – that era’s equivalent of the federal reserve. He was also great at cutting deals with foreign countries.
Grover Cleveland was another excellent Democratic president.
NUNA. 344 PM
SEPARATE NONPARTISAN ELECTION OF ALL ELECTED EXEC OFFICERS —
WITH POWER OF EACH TO INVESTIGATE/CHARGE OTHER EXECS
USA REGIME – PREZ / VP / SOS / AG / US MARS / DAS
VP TO BE A DEPT HEAD WHEN NOT ACTING PREZ
PERHAPS REPEAL 22 AMDT — BUT HAVE PREZ NOT ABLE TO BE PREZ IN NEXT TERM OF PREZ
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Xander,
Thank you for the map. I count only 19 states from that map. That was my point she need 20 States. WASHINGTON, District of Columbia is incorporated in the United Statescm because it came for the State of Maryland. However it is a Fedeeal District and not yet a State.
The 2024 law has the word “or” between
“20 States” and the word Territories so it mean States or Territories and not part of some and Parr of thr other.
Again is there 20 States were the Green Party is currently on the ballot. I can not locate the 20th state.
I would like to see Dr.Jill Stein on the ballot, but I see only 19 States and no 20. Can she count to 20?
Learn to count better?
Mark, not Jill. Should learn to count better.
@Xander
“There was nothing about the Burr dilemma that would make it unlikely to have happened again without the 12th amendment.”
The Burr dilemma was the result of bungled scheme and many circumstances coinciding. You can argue that the scheme (which both parties tried on) to control both president and VP was against the spirit of the system – and I think you would be correct – but it was within the rules of the robust system to attempt it. The system was not the problem. And now that the Burr dilemma happened once, it should be easy for repetitions to be dealt with cleaner and especially quicker – it should not take a year to trigger a contingent election – which eliminates the who problem of the dilemma.
“The best Democratic president in history was Andrew Jackson. He rooted out corruption, drained the swamp by firing a lot of bureaucrats, signed a manor tariff reduction (then the only major federal tax), paid off the national debt, and shut down the bank of the united States – that era’s equivalent of the federal reserve. He was also great at cutting deals with foreign countries.”
You could not be more wrong about Jackson. His veto of Congress’ re-authorization of the Second Bank was the only good he ever did. Jackson was a proto-communist and the first US president who tried to destroy the work of the founding fathers with his totalitarian statism.
Andrew JOHNSON was the best Democratic president in history. Andrew JACKSON was the worst of all US presidents (including Confederate president Jefferson Davis!) until Woodrow Wilson, then the second worst until Franklin Roosevelt, then the third worst until Lyndon Johnson.
“Grover Cleveland was another excellent Democratic president.”
Grover Cleveland was far from the worst Democratic president, but that does not make him excellent by any stretch. And he was infinitely worse than Benjamin Harrison, whose presidency he straddled.
And speaking of presidential assassinations already being a phenomenon under the current system, apparently someone just tried to shoot Trump in Waco. Trump hit the deck, but I’m not sure if he was hit, dived or his security detail knocked him out of harms’ way.
BOB,
As best I can tell the map referenced by Xander is in error because GEORGIA is list that the Green Party is on the ballot in Georgia. That is not the case, I only count 19 states the Green Party is qualified in and it needs 20 to get ballot access in Georgia.
These are the states that make up the
19 that I know about. 1 = AR, 2 = AZ,
3 = CA, 4 = CO, 5 = FL, 7 = HI,
8 = ME, 9 = MI, 10 = MS, 11 = MTT,
12 = NM , 13 = NV, 14 = OR, 15 = SC,
16 = TX, 17 = UT, 18 = WI, & WV = 19.
I can not come up with 20 States for Georgia access. I can not see a state I am missing. I note that Washington, D.C. is a federal district and not a state so it can not be counted to make the required 20 States for ballot access.
As I see it the Green Party as of now does not have it 20th State for ballot access in Georgia. It has to get that status by August 23, 2024.
You missed Idaho, Louisiana, North Carolina
Get better glasses?
Bob,
Wiki states that Idaho Green Party is on inactive status so it does not count to the 20 states required.
Bob,
The Louisiana Green Party seems to be just an inactive website with the last posting in 2022. It is not ballot qualified either.
@MS,
The actual Georgia statute says states or territories that have presidential electors. Clearly this is intended to include D.C.
It surely is not intended to include Guam just in case they do get presidential electors this year.
The State of Louisiana recognizes the Green Party.
Jim Riley,
Please post the wording and the statue number in Georgia. The law if I understand it correctly does not incleither ude federal districts, it only includes States or Territories. Washington, DC is a Federal District based on the United States Constitution. Then we have the word “or” that makes it clear that it is
either States or Territories and no combinations of States and Territories. See In Re Cooper (1892)
and Binns v. United States (1904). These are two United States Supreme Court cases that goes into the usage of the Oxford Comma in legal usage.
Jim Riley,
I had a conversation a few days ago about the same issue with Richard Winger on the election for POTUS and VPOTUS in Guam. It however does not elect Presidential Electors.
Yet it is a Territory of the United States. The District of Columbia is a Federal District. The last Federal Distict that was created was the United States District of China and was created early in the 20th Century.
Mark,
https://ballot-access.org/2024/07/05/june-2024-ballot-access-news-print-edition/
Shows Greens on in Louisiana and North Carolina. You’re correct about Idaho – apparently Stein qualified without the Green Party there.
What’s your source(s) about LA & NC?
If you click on political parties at
https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/GetInvolved/RegisterAPoliticalParty/Pages/default.aspx
It says the Green Party is recognized.
Actually,
It looks Mark just skipped over NC even after his initial ommission was pointed out.
They are on in Louisiana and North Carolina, thus they are also on in Georgia.
Even if that was untrue they would still be on in 20 states before long since they’re working on completing petitions in a lot of other states. Mark is acting like all those petition deadlines are past or something.
Drew,
OCGA Section 21-2-172 effective now has (g) which became effective on 1 July 2024. Is it constitutional in light of the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution. The District of Columbia is a Federal District of the
United States. It is not a Territory of the United States such as Guam or the remainder of Hawaii Territory after the bulk of the Territory became a state. If one recall in the 19th Century both Dakota and Michigan Territories had remainder incorporated
Territory that was incorporated Territory.
Washington D.C. is not Territory such as Guam. Yet the 23rd Amendment applies to the District of Columbia and not Guam.
Note the use of the word “or” between
States and Territories
What does that have to do with anything I said?
@MS,
(g) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any political party or political
body which has (***obtained ballot access in no fewer than 20 states or territories for the office
of presidential elector***) shall be allowed to qualify candidates for presidential elector and
receive access to the general election ballot for the purpose of election of the office of
presidential elector.”
Are there any states that do not have presidential electors? Answer: NO
Are there any territories that have presidential electors? Answer: NO
Was the Georgia legislature anticipating a future election in which some states did not have presidential electors? Answer: UNLIKELY
Was the Georgia legislature anticipating a future election in which some territories did have presidential electors? Answer: UNLIKELY
So why did the Georgia legislature include “office of presidential elector” as a modifier? Answer: They knew of the 23rd Amendment. If this bill had been passed before the 23rd Amendment, they would have written “states”. But because of the 23rd Amendment, they decided to include an alternative that recognized the necessity of having presidential electors.
There are 51 polities that have presidential electors. If the Green Party has ballot access for President in 20 of them, then it has ballot access for President in Georgia.
That’s not even relevant since they have ballot access in 20 states without even counting DC or Georgia.
Who cares? I am voting TRUMP!
@Drew,
When you use a pronoun such as “that”, you should make clear what you are referring to.
Jim Riley,
Thank you for your comment about the term “state” and “territory”. That ²ŵ of 51 states makes no sense because the State of Georgia would be excluded.
We do have the issue of Canada under the ar Articlès of Confedation that by
3an Executive Order. That does not require and act of congress as the POtUS has the authority.
²
By states excluding the State of ť That bring ua to either 45 states excluding 4 that have commonwealth dorm of government, or does it mean all 49 states including the for commonwealth for of ì.
We also know that Guam has an election for POtUS and VPOTUS without electing
Presidential Electors.
The act of 1 July 2024 is flawed within (g) of OCGA Section 21-2-172.
To help understand how flawed OCGA Section 21-2-172(g) is, please read this article from vol. 54 of The Hawaiian Journal of History (2020)
“Ne Tentes aut Perfice: Early Hawaiian Diplomacy in the Southwestern Pacific and the Creation of the Hawai’i’s First Royal Order”
It lists some of the dependant states
of the Kingdom of Hawai’i such as “Arossi” and “Marau”.
.