What does it mean when they say.....?

There is an option to write in another name on the ballot if the person's name is not on it. But in most states if the person didn't sign up as an official write in candidate the ballot goes straight in the trash and his number will never be counted. It will be like you never voted. Ron Paul is not signing up as a write in candidate so writing him in means absolutely nothing and is the same as not voting at all. You aren't making a statement because nobody will ever know you did it.
 
Alawn said:
There is an option to write in another name on the ballot if the person's name is not on it. But in most states if the person didn't sign up as an official write in candidate the ballot goes straight in the trash and his number will never be counted. It will be like you never voted. Ron Paul is not signing up as a write in candidate so writing him in means absolutely nothing and is the same as not voting at all. You aren't making a statement because nobody will ever know you did it.
Click to expand...

How do you know Ron Paul will not be a sign in Candidate?

So I will not be able to vote for Ron Paul at all?

Is that it? its over?
 
Not only does he have to register as a write-in candidate, everyone would also have to write his name on the ballot exactly as he registered, and that would have to be his full legal name. So writing in "Ron Paul" wouldn't count. You'd have to write in "Ronald Earnest Paul". The cards are stacked against write-ins just a bit.
 
People seem to have no clue that you don't vote for a candidate to be president. You actually vote for a slate of electors who cast the real votes in the Electoral College. If a candidate is on the ballot, it means he has a slate of people who will vote for him in the EC. The number of elector is equal to the state's congressional districts +2.

So if someone wanted to truly write in Paul, they'd actually have to write in an entire slate of legit Paul electors.
 
I thought we supported the constitution here?
The only person authorized by the constitution to vote on a president is an elector at the electoral college.
You are voting on a slate of electors. So a write-in vote is for an elector, not a president.
Write in Ron Paul, and he wins, he "may" get to be a presidential elector if he qualifies for that state as an elector, which usually requires citizenship of that state, and not hold public office.

We should know the process better than most. Please educate yourself before your vote is invalidate due to ignorance of the process.

Write-ins work when you are actually voting on the candidate of that office. Like mayor, governor, etc.
It doesn't work for President. We don't have DIRECT DEMOCRACY in the U.S. You have no right to vote on a presidential candidate. Only their electors.
 
that would be the definition of a wasted vote... write in a candidate that isn't even running and in most state don't even count 'write-in' votes.
 
driller80545 said:
I'm still gonna write in RP. F&%&k em
Click to expand...

Torch is right. This statement is so fucking ironic since our movement and candidate is supposed to be all about the Constitution, common sense, and intelligence.

If you're going to write in someone, you might as well write in Mickey Mouse. It has the exact same effect as writing in Ron Paul and at the same time it doesn't make the rest of his supporters look like fucking idiots.
 
Sorry, I just have no confidence in the alternatives. I have seen and heard too much bullshit out of politicians over the years. If you want to get behind Barr and Baldwin or whoever, be my guest. I have no confidence that they will change anything. I have been waiting since the sixties for a man of true conviction to come along and finally RP did. I don't see the same conviction anywhere else. I hope you are right and I am wrong.
 
driller80545 said:
Sorry, I just have no confidence in the alternatives. I have seen and heard too much bullshit out of politicians over the years. If you want to get behind Barr and Baldwin or whoever, be my guest. I have no confidence that they will change anything. I have been waiting since the sixties for a man of true conviction to come along and finally RP did. I don't see the same conviction anywhere else. I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Have you even looked into becoming a Presidential elector in your state?
With Ron's permission I could have easily filed a slate of electors on his behalf in Louisiana for people to vote on, but he did not want that. SO I didn't do it.
In Louisiana, all it would have taken was about $300 to file it with the state and get it on the ballot.
If you really want to vote for Ron, become an elector. Otherwise, it must not mean that much to you.
 
torchbearer said:
I thought we supported the constitution here?
The only person authorized by the constitution to vote on a president is an elector at the electoral college.
You are voting on a slate of electors. So a write-in vote is for an elector, not a president.
Write in Ron Paul, and he wins, he "may" get to be a presidential elector if he qualifies for that state as an elector, which usually requires citizenship of that state, and not hold public office.

We should know the process better than most. Please educate yourself before your vote is invalidate due to ignorance of the process.

Write-ins work when you are actually voting on the candidate of that office. Like mayor, governor, etc.
It doesn't work for President. We don't have DIRECT DEMOCRACY in the U.S. You have no right to vote on a presidential candidate. Only their electors.
Click to expand...

For over a year on here I have learned to know you are a great thinker. States are pretty much winner take all so it only matters who wins a state not how many votes someone gets.

This was a stroke of genius of the founders. If we hate that candidates only campaign in a few states now if the system was controlled by popular vote there would only be a few states that ever saw the candidates and that would only be in the major urban centers. Why would you care about New Mexico or any industries in the state when there are more people in Brooklyn than the entire state of NM? Our country would be governed by a tiny majority that lives in NY City, Chicago, LA. You think the little people were not represented today just let the popular vote take over the electoral college. Not to mention the only reason the small states agreed to the Union was because of the electoral college. I know that this is difficult for the Algore/Pat Buchanan voters in Florida to understand but you are the very reason why popular vote doesn't rule the day
 
Because of old skeletons in my closet, best for me to lay low. I became cynical during the vietnam bullshit and have never seen a reason to hope of honesty in government until RP. I alienated myself from family and friends years ago over this catastrophe and am worn out. RP was my last attempt and I knew that it was a longshot when I decided to get involved. I see the things you are doing, Torch, and the rest of you, and I am impressed and respect you for it. I hope that you don't end up as burned out as I am.
 
JMann said:
For over a year on here I have learned to know you are a great thinker. States are pretty much winner take all so it only matters who wins a state not how many votes someone gets.

This was a stroke of genius of the founders. If we hate that candidates only campaign in a few states now if the system was controlled by popular vote there would only be a few states that ever saw the candidates and that would only be in the major urban centers. Why would you care about New Mexico or any industries in the state when there are more people in Brooklyn than the entire state of NM? Our country would be governed by a tiny majority that lives in NY City, Chicago, LA. You think the little people were not represented today just let the popular vote take over the electoral college. Not to mention the only reason the small states agreed to the Union was because of the electoral college. I know that this is difficult for the Algore/Pat Buchanan voters in Florida to understand but you are the very reason why popular vote doesn't rule the day
Click to expand...

If only I had that much power... but thanks for the compliment.
To prevent mob rule, our founders thought a republic with an indirect democracy would be safer in protecting minorities. IE, the land owners from a communist democratic take over.
I'd hate to lose my home by a popular vote. How about you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Sharia Law In Syria?
Replies
1
Views
6K
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
J
9/11 Firefighters Trash Official 9/11 Story, Say Obvious Demolition, Documentary "Calling Out
Replies
9
Views
1K
James_Madison_Lives
J
osan
What Is The Public Trust?
Replies
0
Views
502
osan
osan
CaptUSA
Trump is Creating a Sovereign Wealth Fund
Replies
15
Views
1K
unknown
unknown
DamianTV
  • Poll Poll
Will The Decepticrats Try To Steal The Presidential Election AGAIN?
Replies
3
Views
2K
unknown
unknown
Back
Top