On August 15, the Wisconsin Democratic Party challenged Jill stein’ ballot status, even though the Green Party is a ballot-qualified party in Wisconsin. Democratic objectors say only a party with members in the legislature are permitted to run candidates for presidential elector. Also the objectors say she was late to file her list of elector candidates. See the objection here.
In the past, when parties were late with their list of electors, the mistake has always been forgiven. Even the major parties have sometimes been late.
“only a party with members in the legislature are permitted to run candidates for presidential elector” How would this be remotely constitutional?
I wonder how these objectors feel about the electoral college in general.
The Democrats, I think, are looking to ultimately become the only legal political party in this country.
As we should be.
It’s afraid… IT’S AFRAID!
Democrats know Stein will split the commie vote. Look for an increase of fraud to make up for it.
HOW MANY COMMIE DONKEY MACHINATIONS AGAINST 3RDS/INDEES BALLOT ACCESS – ESP IN 2020 MARGINAL PREZ STATES ???
ALL MORE REASONS TO ABOLISH THE MINORITY RULE EC
APPV – NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS
ARE THE CRITTER/MONSTER THINGS IN THE ALIENS TV MOVIE SERIES ***AFRAID*** OF HUMANS ???
These Challenges get more wacky everyday ! Democrats can sure waste money on silly lawsuits
Just because rules were not previously enforced doesn’t mean they’re not rules. Have you ever had a mistress who had enough and punished you after letting you get away with breaking a rule multiple times?
They know that Kopmala is a weak candidate and that’s why she’s hiding in plain sight aka having literally 0 unscripted moments (without a teleprompter) and not doing press conferences. She is the queen of flip-flopping and she is purposely not telling the American people her current policies.
By the time September BAN comes out, how many more challenges will have happened since August BAN?
For those who don’t subscribe, there were 18 already this year. The previous record was 12, set in 2004, all against Ralph Nader.
In 2004, the word was “spite”. What’s the word in 2024?
@RW,
I think you misunderstand the complaint. In Wisconsin the elector candidates are chosen by a “convention” consisting of the legislative nominees of the party, plus state officers affiliated with the party. Since there are no Green Party nominees for the legislature in 2024, the complaint argues that the October “convention” can not be held, and therefore no elector candidates can be chosen.
It is unknown by me whether this law has been applied consistently in the past. In 2020, Jorgensen and Hawkins were listed as independent presidential candidates, who have a different procedure for naming elector candidates. In 2024, the Green Party may have tripped up by becoming qualified. They had a candidate for Congress in the primary but none for the legislature. Write-in candidates can win nomination in a primary, but they need a minimum number of votes (200).
Wisconsin does not have party registration, and some offices are non-partisan. It is indeterminate at this time whether any persons will show up for the “convention”.
Bradley in D.C.: because what is or isn’t constitutional is defined in the real world by whatever judges say it means and has nothing whatsoever to do with original intent or plain text reading or however things used to be.
Term limits: Most likely, they would prefer to see it abolished in favor of some national popular vote scheme. But it exists, so they’ll weaponize it and anything else they can get their hands on in the political gang turf war.
Oregon and Saving: Both Democrats and Republicans are led by people who would become the only legal political party in the country if they had enough support and control to not counterweigh each other in actually achieving any such thing. And no, it would not be good if either one succeeds at it. The history and present reality of one party dictatorships around the world indicates nothing good would come from it.
Ben: the Democrats believe this regardless of whether it’s true. I tend to think election counts have always been full of systemic fraud of many kinds. Public attention to it increased a lot in this decade because Trump’s ego will not allow him to acknowledge that he ever loses or isn’t the best at anything ever in his whole life, and because his most dedicated supporters follow him quasireligiously and refuse to acknowledge that he may not be infallible or perfect. Also, because ever worsening government overreach, sensation seeking media, mutual brainwashing information bubbles, polarizing social media algorithms, and other such trends increasingly make politics a polarized blood sport. But, that might also be increasing incentives and opportunities to cheat, so maybe 2020 was unusually bad, in which case 2024 will probably be even worse.
AZ: abolishing the electoral college would only make things worse. It further diminishes the importance of states in the federal system, giving more power to the federal government and especially the ever more imperial presidency. It centralizes power further. It nationalizes politics and makes it all or nothing even more than now. It centralizes power in the hands of the largest donors, most organised special interest groups, and largest metropolitan areas/media markets even more than now. None of those things would be good. Big government would get bigger faster.
Approval voting makes election tallying more complicated and thus invites an even higher opportunity for fraud. It’s also easily gamed by those who understand selective, strategic or bullet voting better than most and are the best at manipulating other people. That’s also a way to make big government bigger faster.
Technically nonpartisan elections are actually even more unbalanced in favor of incumbents and the best organized, best funded, most well known and well connected candidates, factions and lobbies than what we have now. The relatively powerless gain a lot more from the past and cumulative work of others in having party names listed together with candidate names on the ballot than those who don’t need the extra help. With power thus tilted and concentrated further, big government would get bigger faster, as would the corrupt influence of those seeking special favor from government to simultaneously concentrate other kinds of power even faster.
All of your proposed solutions run polar opposite of your supposed goals of a more level playing field and limited government. To achieve those goals, the changes made should be in the opposite direction.
Bobby G: it’s only a waste of money if you don’t consider binding opposition that’s already facing long odds up with legal fights, at the cost of the time and money to get their campaigns off the ground, to be a waste of money. And that’s only a waste of money if you don’t believe in winning at all costs, ends justify means and that their side benefits more by further limiting choices. The DP leadership holds all those beliefs, so for them it’s not a waste of money. They figure if they throw enough lawsuit spaghetti at a wall, some of it will stick, and even if not, the time and money it takes to fight these lawsuits costs minor parties and independents more than it does them relatively speaking, so why not? They’re wrong on ethics and quite possibly wrong on who other parties/candidates hurt or help more between the big two on balance, but being wrong has never stopped them before.
Dsd: yes. I’m pretty sure reality will punish me very severely for wasting so much time explaining what should be obvious to people who are dead set on being wrong and would not read anything this long anyway, or at best speed read it. It’s a total waste of time, and Mistress Reality has no tolerance for irrational, counterproductive, time wasting bullshit. Reality is a birch, especially whenever she has finally had enough. But that’s not a good reason to suddenly enforce idiotic rules which were previously ignored. Lawfare is a much more plausible explanation than “rules are rules.”
Progressive leftist: Harris was never a cop. She was a prosecutor and district attorney. Cops have to deal with the ugly reality on the streets. Prosecutors and DAs work primarily in courtrooms and offices. Their involvement with law enforcement takes place in generally safe, sanitized settings. Kamala does not deserve to be called a cop. As a prosecutor and DA, Harris was a woke, soft on crime traitor to law enforcement. She’s much more of an accessory to crimes than she is a cop.
Don’t fool yourself into thinking she can’t be a strong candidate. She’s heavily scripted because she’s a control freak. Her current policies are win at all costs and then do whatever she can get away with to incrementally and dishonesty implement totalitarian Marxist dystopia. She will say or do anything she thinks will help her win, like any successful or competitive politician. Only delusional or hopeless long shots are ever anything except opportunistic flip floppers in politics.
She doesn’t need to tell the American people her current policies, because most voters are lazy, many are stupid, and fear, loathing and manipulation determine election outcomes, if not outright vote counting fraud. Kamala Harris has everything it takes to win, so the only remaining question is whether Trump has even more of it. That remains to be seen.
Adam Cerini: Spite 2: even spiter?