States no signature needed from Dr. Paul, write-ins count: AL, IA, WI, PA, CA, VT, NH, DE

[James_Madison_Lives]

AL, IA, WI, PA, CA, VT, NH, DE

Missing from previous lists is Delaware. From this link which cross-checks accurately with my research:

http://www.anamericanvision.com/info/state_certifications_requirements.php...

There are no requirements in the state of Delaware. Voters can just write in the candidate's name, and the vote will be counted.

Seeming to verify this is this Voter Instructions circular from DE Elections, which states:

http://elections.delaware.gov/services/voter/pdfs/how_to_vot...

Once you have finished making ALL your selections, push the GREEN VOTE button on the lower right of the screen to cast your ballot. You may not use the write-in option during a primary election.

I take the bold to say you MAY use the write-in option during a general election.

New Jersey is problematic. You can write in a president but according to the link above (more inquiries needed): "Write-in votes will only be tabulated if there are enough of them to contest the election."

But how do they know if there are enough of them to contest the election? I guess it's like, hmm there seem to be a lot of these maybe we'd better start counting.

In the other states listed, varying levels of activism are required for write-in votes to count, from running a slate of official presidential electors to simply writing in the candidate.

A visual summary of presidential election write-in laws is here:

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I was working on another thread when you posted this.

+rep!

I was tying some of the info from the other write in thread, and added to it with yours.

Electors are a lot harder to win than delegates, and they always go for the party loyal. If it becomes obvious that it's going to be a landslide in Obama's favor, this might be a viable strategy. Have to see what happens in the debates.

Otherwise, we have 12 states that will take write in's, but 3 require Dr. Paul's signature. So only 9 for sure.

With those current 9, anyone know how many electoral college votes that is? What if it's the whole 12 states?

The electoral college:

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/the-electoral-college.aspx

There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. The most recent example of a faithless elector was probably an accident: in 2008, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry. It is not common for an elector to vote for the other party's candidate, however: remember that most electors are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.

Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. None of these laws have been implemented -- no elector has ever been penalized or replaced -- nor have they been fully vetted by the courts. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors:

Alabama W
Alaska
California W
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware W
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Maine W
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan W (5)
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico (4)
North Carolina (2)
Ohio
Oklahoma (1)
Oregon
South Carolina (3)
Tennessee
Utah (5)
Vermont W
Virginia W
Washington (1)
Wisconsin W-RPsig
Wyoming

(W)rite in: not on list: IA, PA (RPsig), NH, NY.

There should be an additional 16 states where the electors are not legally bound, but no write in. OK, here they are: (with the write in's from the above paragraph.)

Iowa W
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire W
New Jersey
New York W
North Dakota
Pennsylvania W-RPsig
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Texas
West Virginia


Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: (1) Oklahoma and Washington impose a civil penalty of $1,000; in (2) North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In (3) South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in (4) New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In (5) Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.

-t

 

[James_Madison_Lives]

I was working on another thread when you posted this.

+rep!

I was tying some of the info from the other write in thread, and added to it with yours.

Electors are a lot harder to win than delegates, and they always go for the party loyal. If it becomes obvious that it's going to be a landslide in Obama's favor, this might be a viable strategy. Have to see what happens in the debates.

Otherwise, we have 12 states that will take write in's, but 3 require Dr. Paul's signature. So only 9 for sure.

With those current 9, anyone know how many electoral college votes that is? What if it's the whole 12 states?

The electoral college:

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/the-electoral-college.aspx

There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. The most recent example of a faithless elector was probably an accident: in 2008, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry. It is not common for an elector to vote for the other party's candidate, however: remember that most electors are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.

Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. None of these laws have been implemented -- no elector has ever been penalized or replaced -- nor have they been fully vetted by the courts. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors:

Alabama W
Alaska
California W-RPsig
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware W
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Maine W
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan W (5)
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico (4)
North Carolina (2)
Ohio
Oklahoma (1)
Oregon
South Carolina (3)
Tennessee
Utah (5)
Vermont W
Virginia W
Washington (1)
Wisconsin W-RPsig
Wyoming

(W)rite in: not on list: IA, PA (RPsig), NH, NY.

There should be an additional 16 states where the electors are not legally bound, but no write in. OK, here they are: (with the write in's from the above paragraph.)

Iowa W
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire W
New Jersey
New York W
North Dakota
Pennsylvania W-RPsig
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Texas
West Virginia


Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: (1) Oklahoma and Washington impose a civil penalty of $1,000; in (2) North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In (3) South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in (4) New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In (5) Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.

-t

This is the second time someone has said CA needs a Ron Paul signature, I don't think it does. That is also what the map in the post indicates. Could you post where in the CA Sec of State info that it says this? Can't find anything. pdf from sec of state in full here:

--------------
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/201...pdf/write-in-presidential-elector-nov2012.pdf

Summary of Qualifications and Requirements for the Office of
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR WRITE-IN CANDIDATE November 6, 2012, General Election

Only those names written on the ballot at the General Election for President of the United States, for which a group of 55 Presidential Electors pledge their votes to that write-in candidate, shall be counted as votes. § 86531

I. QUALIFICATIONS A candidate for Presidential Elector must have a valid voter registration affidavit on file in the county of residence at the time nomination papers are obtained. There are no political affiliation restrictions on electors; they need only be registered voters in California. § 201 In addition to having 55 Presidential Electors pledged to a write-in presidential candidate, the write-in presidential candidate must be: (1) a natural-born citizen of the United States, (2) at least 35 years of age, and (3) a resident of the United States at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1 cl. 5

II. REQUIREMENTS DECLARATION OF WRITE-IN CANDIDACY–PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR 1. Voters in the General Election are technically voting for the 55 Presidential Elector candidates, not directly for the candidates for President and Vice President. Therefore, in order to be a write-in presidential candidate, that candidate must have 55 write-in Presidential Elector candidates file papers pledging themselves to the presidential candidate. 2. The 55 write-in candidates for Presidential Elector who have pledged themselves to vote for a candidate for President and a candidate for Vice President must file a Declaration of Write-In Candidacy, which must be received by the Secretary of State on or before October 23, 2012 (E-14). §§ 8650-8653 1 All code section references are to the California Elections Code unless otherwise stated. 09/02/2011


There are two variations of the declaration form:

a.
Declaration of Write-In Candidacy—Presidential Elector (Multiple Signature Form – this form includes spaces for more than one Presidential Elector write-in candidate to sign).

b.
Declaration of Write-In Candidacy—Presidential Elector (Single Signature Form – this form allows each of the 55 Presidential Elector write-in candidates to sign and submit separate forms).
In addition to the elector candidate’s name, these forms must also include the elector candidate’s residence address, the date of the general election, a statement stating that he or she is a write-in candidate for the office of Presidential Elector, an oath of office which must be signed in front of an officer authorized to administer oaths, such as a county elections official or a notary public, and the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates to whom the elector candidate is pledged. § 8651

The Declaration of Write-In Candidacy must be filed with the Secretary of State in person or by mail. Please send your documents to:

Office of the California Secretary of State Elections Division ATTN: Candidates & Elections 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Please indicate on the envelope “Declaration of Write-In Candidacy.” The Declaration of Write-In Candidacy must be received no later than October 23, 2012 (E-14). § 8652

III. GENERAL INFORMATION

A. The Secretary of State and county elections officials do not supply Declarations of Write-In Candidacy—Presidential Elector. Sample 1 and 2 are suggested formats for a multiple signature form and a single signature form, respectively.

B. Because of the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act, As Amended, candidates for federal office should contact the Federal Election Commission at 999 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20463, or call toll-free (800) 424-9530 for a copy of the Act, related regulations giving the filing requirements for reporting campaign contributions, and the forms on which to file.

C. No filing fee is required to file as an independent Presidential Elector.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/201...pdf/write-in-presidential-elector-nov2012.pdf

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

This is the second time someone has said CA needs a Ron Paul signature, I don't think it does. That is also what the map in the post indicates. Could you post where in the CA Sec of State info that it says this? Can't find anything. pdf from sec of state in full here:

--------------
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/201...pdf/write-in-presidential-elector-nov2012.pdf

I think you are right. Edited my post to reflect that.

I believe I got that from the initial post on write in states.

-t

 

[James_Madison_Lives]

I think you are right. Edited my post to reflect that.

I believe I got that from the initial post on write in states.

-t

Okay that's a relief, was hoping I didn't miss something important. Still no final confirmation on those 55 electors though. I'm going to try and look up some delegates.

 

[sailingaway]

CA does NOT need a signature from Ron Paul. Someone is thinking of write in candidates for other offices, not president where the ELECTOR is the candidate. The ELECTORS need to file notarized signed forms,designating Ron Paul as the presidential candidate they will vote for in the electoral college when the time comes. You are not voting for Ron but the electors, strictly speaking.

However, I got through to that number the county clerk emailed and they sent me back to the secretary of state's office which is where I started to begin with. so at this point I am going to write a certified or receipt for signature letter asking my question and saying I had previously called and was passed to a voicemail from which I received no response.

edit-

here is the write in candidate list from 2008 - go to the second page. The requirements were the same as now, and Ron was a write in candidate.

http://www.lavote.net/Voter/PDFS/ELECTION_RELATED/11042008_LIST_WRITE_IN_CANDIDATES.pdf

 

[groverblue]

Look, writing in Ron Paul is the worst idea, ever. I'm a huge RP supporter; have been since 2007, but writing in RP as a protest vote doesn't make sense for the long term goals of liberty. If you are going to protest, at least make it count toward having an effort for future elections. The Libertarian Party needs the votes for many reasons, most importantly to break the two party system. You may not agree 100% with Gary Johnson, but a protest vote in his favor will have a lot more impact for the future. I'm not a Gary Johnson guy, but being able to change things means that we have to make decisions to promote the cause of liberty, instead of just steamrolling ahead into a bottomless pit. The biggest threat to freedom is that their is no room for a liberty politician in the two party system. Giving validity to a Libertarian Party is required before disenfranchised voters of the R/D parties will defect. As more and more of our civil and economic freedoms are taken away, people are are going to get pissed. If there is no alternative, those people just won't vote. If there is an alternative in a viable third party, then we have a chance at real change. Ron Paul likes GJ, too, and I suspect that the only reason he didn't endorse GJ is because he is setting up Rand for 2016. We can't, however, simply rely on a Rand 2016 campaign happening, or even Rand getting the nomination/presidency. This election may be our only chance to lay the foundation for a viable and respected third party, and that is a protest vote worth casting.

Please don't equate my above statements with leaving the Republican party. If anything, we should try to change the Republican party, but until that happens we need to support a third party in the general election.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm writing in Ron Paul.

 

[TCE]

This thread is exactly what pisses me off about New Hampshire. They're too free! They allow their citizens to vote for anyone they want and then they turn around and have the audacity to count their votes? It angers me to no end how much freedom one state allows their citizens.

In all seriousness: For everyone looking to make a dent using third parties, this is why it is so hard. Take it from those of us who have tried, these ballot-access laws make it extremely difficult to make any progress. Then, once you get on the ballot, the real work begins because then one has to convince a majority of voters of both legitimacy and electability along with the information that the candidate on this ticket is the best one. It is downright exhausting, time-consuming, and financially prohibitive. All the while, the Democrat and Republican candidate know the laws are in place to solidify their monopoly. Running Third Party successfully is not impossibly, but it's not for the faint of heart.

 

[groverblue]

I'm writing in Ron Paul.

That is tunnel vision. Please reconsider.

 

[TCE]

That is tunnel vision. Please reconsider.

If Sailing wants to, that's cool. I have read many, many posts from Sailing and it seems to be a pretty informed decision. I am also assuming Sailing lives in a state where RP's vote would be counted. Unfortunately, my state, and I am guessing your state, is one where a write-in would be thrown out.

 

[sailingaway]

That is tunnel vision. Please reconsider.

Not hardly. Ron Paul is the one I want for President. I haven't liked this OR the last LP presidential candidate. I don't know that I ever will. I like some PEOPLE that are in LP, but the party has nothing to do with my vote.

 

[sailingaway]

If Sailing wants to, that's cool. I have read many, many posts from Sailing and it seems to be a pretty informed decision. I am also assuming Sailing lives in a state where RP's vote would be counted. Unfortunately, my state, and I am guessing your state, is one where a write-in would be thrown out.

I expect it to be counted, it was in 2008 when I wrote him in, and I'm working on it this time.

However, even if it weren't, the 'none of the above' undervote says much more of my position than a vote for GJ, but that is because GJ simply doesn't do anything for me. If I liked him, 'just liked him a little less' as some seem to feel, it might be different, but for me it would be like voting for Bachmann if she ran third party. He just isn't my candidate.

 

[groverblue]

If Sailing wants to, that's cool. I have read many, many posts from Sailing and it seems to be a pretty informed decision. I am also assuming Sailing lives in a state where RP's vote would be counted. Unfortunately, my state, and I am guessing your state, is one where a write-in would be thrown out.

In my state, a write-in vote does count. But "count" is completely subjective, because even though a RP vote may count in the tallies, it has ZERO impact. If GJ gets that vote, however, then not only is it a protest vote, but it's signaling that a third party is a viable alternative to the policies and politicians. That means that the voters will no longer be locked into a specific party. And THAT is real change.

 

[sailingaway]

'impact' is subjective because if there were a large gap between the number who vote and those who vote for a named candidate WE could spread that. the general public doesn't pay attention to third party candidates, and it would have to be spread in any event. The point for me is that a vote for Gary Johnson would say GJ is a candidate I want, and he isn't.

 

[Yieu]

That is tunnel vision. Please reconsider.

It's not kind to tell people what to do. I don't want Obama/Romney/Johnson/etc. I would prefer to have a principled vote that is not counted than vote for someone that I do not want to win.

 

[BamaAla]

Alabama: I will be writing in Ron Paul!

 

[Pauls' Revere]

I'm writing in Ron Paul.

^^this^^ and waving a big finger to the GOP

 

[low preference guy]

it'll be nice if RP gets more votes than the difference between Obama and Romney in some state.

 

[PierzStyx]

Voting Ron Paul. I have yet to hear a persuasive argument to violate my conscience and vote for anyone else. And that includes Johnson.