Want to write in Ron Paul and be sure your vote is counted?

[straydoglogic]

TweetThe following is edited from wikipedia.com on "Ballot Access".

"Constitutional dimensions of ballot access laws

State ballot access restrictions can affect fundamental constitutional rights, including:

* the right to equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment (when the restrictions involve a discriminatory classification of voters, candidates, or political parties)
* rights of political association under the first amendment (especially when the restrictions burden the rights of political parties and other political associations, but also when they infringe on the rights of a candidate or a voter not to associate with a political party)
* rights of free expression under the first amendment
* rights of voters (which the Supreme Court has said are "inextricably intertwined" with the rights of candidates)
* property interests and liberty interests in candidacy
* other rights to "due process of law"

It has also been argued that ballot access restrictions infringe the following constitutional rights:

* the right to petition the government (this argument is sometimes raised to allege that signature-gathering requirements, or the rules implementing them, are unfairly restrictive)
* freedom of the press (which historically included the right to print ballots containing the name of the candidate of one's choosing);
* the right to a "republican form of government," which is guaranteed to each state (although this clause has been held not to be enforceable in court by individual citizens)

(NB: to be completed)

From a structural point of view, ballot access restrictions affect the most fundamental rights in a democratic society. (NB: to be completed)

The United States Supreme Court has upheld constitutional challenges to ballot access restrictions in a number of important cases, for example:

* Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
* Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)
* Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972)
* Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979)
* U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
* Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974)
* Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992)

Various state courts and lower federal courts have also upheld constitutional challenges to ballot access restrictions, for example:

(NB: to be completed)

On the other hand, a number of court decisions are routinely cited as supporting the principle that states have considerable leeway, if justified by legitimate and compelling interests, to regulate who may appear on the ballot. The Supreme Court case cited most often this effect is Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971), where the Court declined to strike down a very restrictive ballot access law in Georgia. The law in question required third party candidates seeking a nomination petition to obtain signatures no less than 5% of eligible voters in the previous election for that particular office.[12]In most states, the requirement is less than 2%[13]."

The key roadblock here is "legitimate and compelling interests". It could be argued that, since 1971, states have largely abandoned paper ballots in favor of Diebold machines, for which reprogramming is exceptionally simple. Rather than resorting to time consuming and probably futile litigation, contacti your Secretary of State and demand that the votes ALL of ALL candidates who provide a bonifide list of electors should be counted, including write-ins. The letters should be polite, but suggest that picketing of polling places or boycotts could result if this demand is not met. Further, it could be suggested that ALL candidates for federal offices affiliated with political parties already eligible in five or more states (or whatever guideline they use for "nationally recognized political parties") should be posted on the ballot." An INTERNET campaign of this sort would apply intense pressure politicians on states to comply."

Want to vote for Ron Paul and have your ballot counted? This is the way to do it.

[Dzone]

TweetI would seriously consider writing in ron paul. I dunno. I would hate to split the vote w macman and get osama voted in as president

[straydoglogic]

Tweeti just say vote your consciense...not the lesser of 2 evils...(is there one this time around?)...lol

[kite]

TweetAs much as I like Ron Paul, doing this is just throwing your vote away.

[FUZO]

Tweet

As much as I like Ron Paul, doing this is just throwing your vote away.

EXACTLY KITE.

[Merc]

TweetI dont think its throwing away a vote its showing who you think should be president plain and simple. Voting for someone you really dont want as president is a waste imo

[FUZO]

TweetWELL WHEN YOUR VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE IN HELL TO BE PRESIDENT IN 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THATS THROWING AWAY A VOTE.

[straydoglogic]

TweetGOOD CALL MERC!!
its not wasting a vote when youre voting for who you want to be president...thats what this whole process is about...not voting..because i wont vote for mccain or obama....is a waste of a vote...