Comments on: Sore Loser Laws Don’t Generally Apply to Presidential Candidates

By: Heartburn Home Remedy

Heartburn Home Remedy — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:46:00 +0000

The style of writing is quite familiar . Did you write guest posts for other blogs?

By: Jason Johnson

Jason Johnson — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:40:31 +0000

Can you believe it. Ron Paul just raised another $6 Million dollars and I feel actually has a shot at the Republican Nomination.

Also awesome….his grassroots is getting the assistance of the Libritarian Party via access to their ballotbase.org system and NH lists purchased for Ron Paul supporters to call.

A great time to get involved!

By: kevrob

kevrob — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:38:52 +0000

There is no "second ballot' in the electoral college. If no Presidential candidate gets a majority, the House elects the Pres., with each state delegation casting one vote. It's in the Twelth Amendment.

By: Yvonne Kelly

Yvonne Kelly — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:29:25 +0000

I’m just clarifying Michael Morrison’s comment (#6). It was not Ron Paul who formed the party with the others. It was Howard Phillips.

By: Dan Sullivan

Dan Sullivan — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 06:04:00 +0000

With regard to Texas running Ron Paul, Jr., all electoral college delegates are required to vote for whomever they are pledge to, but only on the first ballot. If no candidate gets a majority on the first ballot, all EC delegates are free to vote for whomever they wish on the second ballot.

Should Ron Paul run as an independent after losing the primary, with his son running as a proxy candidate in Texas and other “sore loser” states, and should he or his son actually win any delegates, the delegates could serve as tie-breakers in the second ballot.

However, unless he and his son got a majority of EC delegates, tie-breaking is the most he could hope for. The R’s and D’s would surely broker a deal with one another before they would consider Ron Paul.

Note: They don’t have to choose someone who was on the ballot. They could legally settle on someone who was totally a middle of the road candidate with little party loyalty, like Liebermann.

I don’t see this as the issue, though. Ron Paul will drive the debate in the Republican Primary, and if he loses and accepts the LP nomination, he would drive the debate in the general election as well.

-ds

By: Ryan Brennan (ThirdPartyNews.net)

Ryan Brennan (ThirdPartyNews.net) — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:20:33 +0000

On January 17, Ron Paul gave his first radio interview since the announcement of his bid for the 2008 presidency. He appeared on the Alex Jones show, interviewed by Jack Blood. You can listen here: http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3

By: Steve Ziemba

Steve Ziemba — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:03:06 +0000

1) Good point on the State laws mandating electors to vote for who they pledged too. However, I would think that whatever legal trouble they would face back in their home state, Congress would accept their vote on the national level. Otherwise, Congress would have to wait months for the results of the state court case to see how they would need to apply the vote.
2) Geez, I think I actually hope he doesn’t get the Republican nod. This could be the best thing to happen to the third parties since Ross Perot.

By: James Babb

James Babb — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 02:32:54 +0000

It’s just an exploratory committee, not a commitment to run from Dr. Paul. Still great news though.

I wonder if he would run for pres and reelection in Congress at the same time.

By: Michael Morrison

Michael Morrison — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 02:02:09 +0000

Ron Paul, along with Aaron Russo and low-carb advocate Dr. Atkins, founded a “Constitution Party” some time around 1994.
It sounded very libertarian but, for whatever reasons, did not last very long.
Does anybody have better memories of that?
Dr. Paul is one of the very few national political figures who seems genuinely guided by a belief system.

By: Jeff Wolfe

Jeff Wolfe — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:22:00 +0000

I believe that in some states, including Ohio, presidential electors are required by law to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Is there any case law on the federal constitutionality of laws that require electors to vote as pledged?