Comments on: LP of Mass. elector withdraws support for substitution, could cost Barr ballot access

By: Coming Back to the LP

Coming Back to the LP — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:22:00 +0000

I think Roger MacBride kept his decision NOT to support Nixon a secret until after Nixon carried the State of Virginia.

The late Roger MacBride was the creator of the Little House on the Prairie TV series and the LP Candidate for President in 1976.

He was driven out of the LP in 1983 by the Berglandistas. He came back into local LP actvity in the early 1990s.

He cast the first Electoral Vote ever cast for a woman. The LP’s Toni Nathan for Vice President in 1972.

By: Ross Levin

Ross Levin — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:11:57 +0000

But wasn’t he a Nixon elector who didn’t want to vote for Nixon? Isn’t that the same situation?

By: G.E.

G.E. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:10:52 +0000

1972. Roger MacBride. That has nothing to do with what Richard is talking about.

By: Ross Levin

Ross Levin — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:47:14 +0000

Richard – what about the Republican elector who voted for the Libertarian candidate? I forget what year it was, but I remember reading that it gave the LP the only electoral vote they ever received.

By: Coming Back to the LP

Coming Back to the LP — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:23:30 +0000

This letter from Art Torrey should actually help Barr/Root and the LP win their substitution case. Since even this disgruntled, sore-loser Elector Candidate agrees that substitution should be allowed and is the right thing to do.

Further, he claims that such substitution was planned on in advance, based on advice from the Secretary of State, and that it should be up to the LP whether or not to make such a substitution.

Of course the LP DID decide to make the substitution legally. And the fact that one disgruntled elector doesn’t like it, he makes a really good case that the substitution should be allowed.

Barr/Root and the LP should win this case. This would be good for the LP, good for ballot access rights, and good for the cause of Liberty – even if a bunch of crybabies can’t see it.

By: richardwinger

richardwinger — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:43:47 +0000

In 2004, a Republican presidential elector candidate in West Virginia named Richard Robb told the press he wouldn’t vote for Bush in the electoral college. He was Mayor of South Charleston and said he would vote for Kerry. No one would have suggested that therefore, Bush shouldn’t have been on the ballot. As it turned out, Robb was elected and he changed his mind and did vote for Bush.

Also, in 1948, two Democratic elector candidates in Tennessee said they wouldn’t vote for Truman if elected. They said they would vote for Thurmond. They were elected. One voted for Thurmond and one voted for Truman. Again, no one would have suggested removing Truman from the ballot just because of two rebelious electors.

By: Lance Brown

Lance Brown — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:04:01 +0000

darolew,

Not in a Torrey-centric universe it wouldn’t, but the world of law it’s hard to imagine a ruling that would only apply to Barr. As I understand it, the issue is whether the party can substitute or not; it’s not about specific candidates per se.

G.E.,

The presidential election is SUPPOSED TO BE about the electors.

That may be, but this isn’t the election, this is ballot access. As I understand it, the elector’s job function pretty much starts on Election Day. They are Electors, not Ballot Access Chieftains.

By: darolew

darolew — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:31:45 +0000

If Barr can’t get substituted, will this have an effect on future third party substitutions?

By: Arthur Torrey

Arthur Torrey — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:31:24 +0000

Well the Court hearing is on Friday, and presumably we won’t find out what the Judge thinks for a few days, but I’m hoping that this will leave Phillies on the ballot, but give us the right to do substitution in the future – IF we choose to…

I am urging George to do all he can to let the RP folks know that he DOES support their 4 basic points (Including the Fed plank – he isn’t thrilled by it, but has no major issues of conflict) and to start gearing up for the campaign in MA and NH – I figure it will be especially sweet if he beats Barr in NH where they are going head to head…

ART
LPMA Presidential elector, NOT substituting Barr!
Speaking for myself

By: G.E.

G.E. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:30:07 +0000

Art is a hero.

The presidential election is SUPPOSED TO BE about the electors.

“Democracy” = socialism.

Two cheers for Torrey and republicanism!

By: Lance Brown

Lance Brown — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:22:18 +0000

Bob Barr’s petulance, Sean? This article is about Arthur Torrey’s petulance.

If Torrey’s letter influences the secretary of state at all (it shouldn’t), it seems the only potential effect is to make it more likely for a ruling against substitution. Which is bad.

If I’m reading the timing of this correctly then Torrey is effectively withdrawing his remaining tiny support for Barr/Root because Barr dissed Ron Paul – who, it’s worth remembering, is a sitting REPUBLICAN.

That’s right, Arthur, this election is all about you, the almighty Elector from MA. Perhaps you should file suit against Barr/Root as well. There must be more ways you can publicly piss on your party’s candidate.

By: Sean Scallon

Sean Scallon — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:40:06 +0000

See what Bob Barr’s petulance has brought him. George Phillies is the LP nominee in Massachusetts

By: G.E.

G.E. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:30:14 +0000

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:27:08 +0000

GE,

Did Darcy send you an email about my suggestion?

By: G.E.

G.E. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:21:52 +0000

thanks.. it’s been a long day! no paid work completed but I’ve — we’ve all — earned the unending hate of the LP criminal gang, and that is something on which a monetary value cannot be placed!

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:16:06 +0000

GE,

“could cause ballot access” in the title should say “could cost ballot access”

By: G.E.

G.E. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:12:17 +0000

Heroic!

When will two Torrey-like heroes from the LNC step up and force a vote on Barr and Root’s removal from the ticket?