What Should States Do When Presidential Candidates Don't Meet Deadlines?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
January 15, 2012 6:32pm CST
Republican Presidential Hopefulls John Huntsman and Newt Gingrich failed to meet the requirements for getting on the ballot in Virginia. Gingrich has turned to the courts to force himself on it.
What do you think should happen if candidates don't meet simply state requirements?
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/obama-mccain-fail-to-qualify-for-texas-ballot
3 people like this
10 responses
@RebeccaScarlett (2532)
• Canada
16 Jan 12
My response would be: too bad for them. How on earth does a person think he or she could be president of the USA if he or she can't even get some paperwork in on time?
3 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
16 Jan 12
So neither Obama or McCain should have been on the ballot last election?
@RebeccaScarlett (2532)
• Canada
17 Jan 12
I wasn't aware that they hadn't done what they were supposed to do on time, but I stand by what I said. Rules are for everyone, and if someone who isn't President yet thinks he or she is too special to pay attention to the rules now (or then, I guess) what do you think he/she is going to be like after all that power is handed to him/her?
I believe in following rules like that, because it shows respect for everyone involved. Not following due process and then stomping your feet to get your way just seems like poor planning, immaturity, and a firm belief that you are special to me. Of course, I don't know about the finer points of these rules, so maybe I'm missing an important fact here.
1 person likes this
@oneidmnster (1384)
• United States
16 Jan 12
If they couldn't meet the requirements to get on the ballot they don't deserve to be President. Getting on a ballot should be pretty simple for a person spending millions on running for President.
3 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jan 12
As long as the rules are the same for all the candidates, anyone who doesn't meet the state requirements should be sh1t out of luck! I guess that would have put Texas in a bit of a fix in 2008, though, wouldn't it? I'm sure they'd love to keep any Democratic nominee off the ballot but when the Republican nominee also messed up their hands were tied.
Annie
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Jan 12
Except they didn't let Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) on the ballot.
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
27 Jan 12
Ok, Annie, not trying to start a fight here, but you will probably think so anyway.....
Your comment:
"I'm sure they'd love to keep any Democratic nominee off the ballot but when the Republican nominee also messed up their hands were tied. "
Is a bit far reaching, and really unfair. I live in Texas and am not a registered member of any party affiliation, though I AM a registered voter, and do take my right and responsibility to vote seriously. While I agree that I am not too thrilled with Obama's policies at this late date in his Presidency, and do not agree with too many things to mention that he has done or not done, you yourself have said in many discussions that there are many things that he has done or not done that you don't like. I actually wish that Hillary had gotten the nomination and the Presidency at this point....I certainly did not want McCain.
Oh, wait, based on your previously mentioned comment, since I LIVE IN TEXAS I am not allowed to say that because I am apparently only ALLOWED to vote Republican!!! Really?? Since when does living in a state, whether they are generally GOP leaning or not, mean that you cannot and will not accept a Dem on the ballot or vote for them? Isn't that a bit biased?
I don't much like any of the GOP candidates, but really am not too happy with what I have seen of Obama either, so really I am still looking and listening, and waiting for at least ONE of them, no matter the party, to convince me that they ACTUALLY DESERVE my vote. In my opinion that is what matters. Come on now, they are the ones campaigning.....so why are you the one slinging the mud?
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
16 Jan 12
Well the only people on the Ballot in Virginia is Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Personally I think it reflects bad when your Campaign can't get 400 something people in every district. As for what I think the Candidates who don't meet those requirements should do well they should either come up with a plan to get on the Ballot (take it to court) or plan on not letting it happen again. I think it reflects on their campaigns over all in a very negative way. I mean if they can't do this now when they aren't going for the president how are they going to fair when having to battle across the Whole nation.
I think this shows that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only serious candidates running right now in the Republican field the rest aren't serious enough to be any real challenge to Obama in 2012.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
16 Jan 12
So you're saying that Obama and McCain weren't real candidates? :~D
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
16 Jan 12
They were put on the ballots even though their campaigns missed the requirements.
1 person likes this
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
16 Jan 12
Weren't they on all the Ballots? This is a case where the others besides Ron Paul and Mitt Romney aren't going to actually be on the Ballots.
Also in many of the States across the country some rules where changed for getting on the Ballots from 2008 so it is slightly different.
2 people like this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
16 Jan 12
If candidates don't meet the requirements they're out of luck and should accept it gracefully. Bringing a lawsuit makes me think less of them, like the sore losers in the Florida election where they were counting chads.
On the other hand, why such stringent requirements? That limits our voting options. I think every candidate should qualify for every caucus and primary no matter how many signatures they get. Did you hear about the ballot, I think it was in Massachusetts, where there were 30 candidates? The people had choices! That's what we need.
But, regardless of that, rules are rules and if they can't meet the requirements they should shrug it off and turn their efforts to other campaigns.
My stepmother and I were talking yesterday after seeing people talking on CNN about how much money is spent on campaigning--people with good ideas can't afford to run for office. This is so true and one of the reasons we have such lousy choices. One super PAC is spending $500 million this month on Gingrich--what could we as people do with money like that to create jobs or new businesses to benefit our communities or put toward the national debt or even reform the election process?! We got very angry at the process as we discussed it.
2 people like this
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
17 Jan 12
The obvious answer does seem to be that its tough luck for them. Of course that would also assume a more ideal election system. We have to consider the electoral college changes the game. Being on the ballot really only matters in a state where the candidate might win the state, and that they are on the ballot in all such states. It really doesn't matter if a republican gets on the ballot ever in a historically democratic state. It might make voters feel better. But in the states where the turnout is always 60% or greater in favor of one party, its really nothing more than a feel good measure to have anyone aside from that parties front runner on the ballot. We could take oboma off several republican state ballots and it would have no change in the outcome of the electoral college.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Jan 12
How can the EC be a "game changer" when it's the way our presidential elections have always been? (and should always be).
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Jan 12
You forget, we don't have any national elections in the US. We have state elections.
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
18 Jan 12
I guess I didn't make that clear enough.
Let me give an example. Had Kerry not been on the 04 general election ballot in both TX and OK, both states which everyone already knew were going heavily in favor of Bush. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of his number of votes in the electoral college. Even had Kerry won the election, he still wouldn't have won these states.
My point is the electoral college basically deems it pointless to have certain parties on the ballot. So, let's say Obama didn't show up on the TX ballot this year. Well Texas has voted R every race since 1980, so even by not being on the ballot he's still going to get the same 0 electoral votes he did in 08. So in the big picture, he can not show up on the ballot of a state with 38 EC votes and still have the same chance of winning as he did last election.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
16 Jan 12
Sp why did Obama get a free pass? I would assume that if there was anotherDEmocrat running, like for instance Mr. Clinton or the vice pres, they would have not gotten a free pass, and I can see if they ran against McCain, both of them would be out.
So perhaps they could not deny McCain a run for president back in 2008 because they already said that not qualifying for the The state of Texas would not hinder Obama's chances.
I wonder if that is similar to the rule in Virginia where Gingrich and the others did not qualify. Does it mean that they only wanted arich moderte on the fence candidate to run against Obama?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
16 Jan 12
Well, McCain also got a free pass last election, so while it is a partisan thing, it isn't a Democrat vs Republican thing.
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
27 Jan 12
While I do live in Texas - as previously mentioned in another comment on this discussion, and YES I am smart enough to realize that we would not have had either parties candidate on the ballot last go round.....I also have to say that if you cannot follow the rules and regulations for the states, in order to get on their ballots, then seriously....How will you be able to run the country? Why as voters should we trust them to be able to complete their duties well and in a TIMELY fashion? I was raised to believe that the laws were there for a reason and were to be followed. But then My opinion differs from yours on this I think, as you keep bringing up our ballots here last go round.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
17 Jan 12
Personally I think some states have requirements that are outright ridiculous and make it extremely difficult for any, but the most well funded, and well staffed candidates to legitimately get on the ballots. That said, the law is the law. Candidates who fail to meet the requirements should not be on the ballot and courts should not be overriding state constitutions and state laws as that is NOT their job.
My recommendation is that people become familiar with their state's election laws and contact their state senators, state congressmen, and governors if they don't like those laws. Candidates like Gingrich and Huntsman should tell their supporters in those states to do so as well.
Personally, I don't think it should be so hard to get on a ballot. Making the requirements that difficult is a way of keeping good, non-establishment candidates out of the race, especially when people like Obama and McCain can get a free pass.
In Florida the requirements are much simpler which is why we had 13 choices for president on our ballots in 2008. One of them didn't meet the minimum qualifications and shouldn't have been there, but at least he was a third party candidate that nobody cared about.
1 person likes this
