Comments on: Do “Sore Loser” Laws Apply to Presidential Candidates?

By: Starchild

Starchild — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:29:51 +0000

This site could use a feature like YouTube has that lets people mark comments as spam. I see a couple posts here from Aug. 3 and Aug. 5 that are clearly spam.

Regarding the content of the article, I’m glad you put “sore loser” in quotes, but I would suggest using a less prejudicial term for these laws. Just because someone decides to run as an independent after failing to be nominated by a particular party does not mean he or she is necessarily a “sore loser.”

“Minor party” is also troubling, as it may reinforce prejudices that only the Republican and Democrat parties are “major” or worth considering. In a system where those two parties clearly operate what in many ways amounts to a cartel for their own benefit, I like calling them the “establishment parties” or the “two-party cartel” and the other parties “alternative parties.”

While the phrase “alternative parties” can be criticized on some of the same grounds as “minor parties,” I think it’s a little more positive, since people like having “alternatives” or choices, and being an alternative does not necessarily mean insignificant — it just means you aren’t part of the establishment.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 01:36:30 +0000

hi nice post, i enjoyed it

By: Music-Band

Music-Band — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:16:30 +0000

Hey

I was surfing the web and i saw this site, pretty cool.
Currently im running and adult site:Reachton
k, just want to say hi :)
Can i link you from my site? im looking for quality content like yours. If no let me know if i can add u in exchange for a montly fee or something.

By: crestosssa

crestosssa — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:18:27 +0000

Hey

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:10:39 +0000

Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on September 29, 2004, that the law barring independents from being on the ballot if they are minor party nominees in other states, does not apply to presidential and vice-presidential candidates. See In Re Nader, 858 A 2d 1167 (2004, Pa. Supreme Court).

By: Darryl W. Perry

Darryl W. Perry — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:40:39 +0000

Pennsylvania used the “sore-loser” law in addition to invalidating many signatures to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in 2004.
The way the law is written, anyone affiliated with a party at any time during the year cannot run as an “independent” in the general election. So, due to the fact that in OTHER STATES, Nader was a “Reform Party” candidate, he was not allowed to be an “Independent”, if he would have called himself “Nader for President” or anything else, he would have been exempt from the “sore-loser” law. At least according to the State Election Commission.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:30:01 +0000

George Wallace indeed did not run in any primaries in 1968.

If he had not been shot while campaigning in the 1972 Maryland primary, it would have been interesting to see whether Wallace ran again as a third-party candidate.

I’m assuming, to be sure, that he would have failed to win the Democratic nomination.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:39:32 +0000

Many of the “Sore Loser” laws were passed because of Governor Wallace and his efforts as Democrat and then as a possible third party candidate following the primaries. (Paragraph) It has been suggested that the Minnesota elector who voted for Edwards for President and Kerry for Vice President in 2004 just marked the ballot wrong because usually the elector who voted differently steps forward to tell why he voted that way and he never did because he was embarrassed.

By: John Koza

John Koza — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:07:59 +0000

I don’t know if “sore loser” laws were in place in 1912, but the most flagrant instance of a “sore loser” was when Roosevelt failed to get the Republican presidential nomination in 1912, then ran as a third-party candidate, and got more electoral votes than the Republican nominee (Taft).

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:51:51 +0000

You’re obviously making “independent” synonymous with “minor party,” since LaFollette in 1924 and David Duke in 1988 ran, respectively, under the Progressive and Populist labels.

Also, if memory serves, George Wallace ran under the American Independent label in 1968 after first running in some Democratic primaries.

Weren’t there a few presidential primaries in 1912? Theodore Roosevelt contested the GOP nomination all the way to the Chicago convention. After he lost there, he became the nominee of the Progressive Party.