i know how it ends mostly because it ended a while ago.

Subby: Obama and McCain miss filing deadline for the State of Texas and are sued to be removed from ballot. Obvious tag boots Fail tag because you know how this one ends

"Old News" Tag pleads for shot at fame.

burndtdan: i know how it ends mostly because it ended a while ago.

Well, don't spoil it for the rest of us, Mr. Killjoy.

Does it end with 34 electoral votes for Bob Barr? Because that would be freaking hilarious.

/dude ... wait, what?

Cagey B: Does it end with 34 electoral votes for Bob Barr? Because that would be freaking hilarious.

I would love that.

burndtdan: i know how it ends mostly because it ended a while ago.

If by "a while" you mean "this past Tuesday", then sure.

Cagey B: Does it end with 34 electoral votes for Bob Barr? Because that would be freaking hilarious.

More people would write in Obama or McCain than would ever vote for Barr. However, THAT would be hilarious.

The Republicans and the Democrats are The Big Two™ but that's a stupid-ass reason to grant them special treatment like this.

I think too many people forget that the Republican and Democratic parties aren't government; they are just private organizations that happen to be really, really popular with their choice of candidates.

Who wants Coke or Pepsi when the ballot can have just RC?

stpauler: Who wants Coke or Pepsi when the ballot can have just RC?

Actually, I prefer RC.
Also, I voted Libertarian in the last two Presidential elections.
I guess I'm "that guy".

This phrase jumped out at me:

"if a party's candidate recieves 5%"

It is i before e except after c...

I hate spelling errors in articles.

Oh -- and neither Obama nor McCain followed the rules. They should not be on the ballot in Texas.

downstairs: More people would write in Obama or McCain than would ever vote for Barr. However, THAT would be hilarious.

You also had to be registered by the same date in order to be a valid "write in" candidate.

I guess Texas is serious about not being blamed for the outcome of this election. They still get flak from the last two.

Dammit. I was really pulling for Barr. I heavily favor Obama, but I'd much rather see some third parties, especially the Libertarians, get more mainstream exposure.

The deadline was before both Obama and McCain were officially nominated by their parties.

Considering Texas is a lost cause for the Democrats, I wouldn't mind BOB BARR picking up some electoral votes.

/Of course, I can't say I'd say the same if California was the state in question.

JerseyTim: The deadline was before both Obama and McCain were officially nominated by their parties.

Ah, well that's a conundrum. So should that allow them to break the rules?

Cagey B: Does it end with 34 electoral votes for Bob Barr? Because that would be freaking hilarious.

Ditto.

OMG I <3 OLD NEWS!1!!

Oh gee, the republicrats and the demicans get the rules turned over in their favor. What a shock!

RON PAUL!

downstairs: Cagey B: Does it end with 34 electoral votes for Bob Barr? Because that would be freaking hilarious.

More people would write in Obama or McCain than would ever vote for Barr. However, THAT would be hilarious.

That assumes there are that many people in Texas that know how to write.

Kome: That assumes there are that many people in Texas that know how to write.

Oh come on, there are some illegals who can read.

Bob Barr is the most fascist "libertarian" I've ever seen in my life.

burndtdan: i know how it ends mostly because it ended a while ago.

Apparently submittard doesn't read newspapers or Texas court rulings.

Pete and Repeat were sitting on a fence. Pete fell off. Who was left?

Cagey B: Does it end with 34 electoral votes for Bob Barr? Because that would be freaking hilarious.

More likely that HIV-positive monkeys would fly out of Barr's ass and ass-rape Bush on live TV.

Steed Lankershim: More likely that HIV-positive monkeys would fly out of Barr's ass and ass-rape Bush on live TV.

I'd settle for that.

FTFA:both of the monopoly parties are bound by that legal deadline.

Look up word "Monopoly" in dictionary - Try not to look so retarded.

Ehh, Barr made a good point and no one should be above the law, but i've always favored common sense over follwing the letter of the law.

Barr's legal case was more than solid, including plenty of precedent, which is why the TX Supreme Court issued a one-sentence ruling with no comment.

We don't have two "major parties", we have two government-sponsored parties.

/arguably one

Churchill2004: Barr's legal case was more than solid, including plenty of precedent, which is why the TX Supreme Court issued a one-sentence ruling with no comment.

Which Texas legal precedent are you referring to exactly?

I know!
Let's have a caucus!



//Gobama08

FTA: The only problem with that defense is that Chapter 181 doesn't apply to Democrats or Republicans because that chapter deals with political parties that nominate by convention, like the Libertarian Party.

The Democrats and Republicans nominate by a primary process, which puts them under Chapter 172 of the election code, which has no loophole for five percenters.

-----

Um, just so they know. Both parties nominate via convention, remember those big raves they had a while back? There's a reason both McCain and Obama were referred to as "Presumptive Nominees" until the conventions were held, and why the rumor that Hillary would throw her name into the process during the DNC was actually an interesting one.

Does it suck that they get on the ballot for free? Yes, but they didn't break the law to get there.

dhudd: burndtdan: i know how it ends mostly because it ended a while ago.

Apparently submittard doesn't read newspapers or Texas court rulings.

My bad for not being automatically tuned in to the latest news emanating from all 7 billion sources of news in the world.

/Don't ruin this for me!
//It's my first greenlight!
///That's right I'm....
////Subby

eddyatwork: Oh gee, the republicrats and the demicans get the rules turned over in their favor. What a shock!

RON PAUL!

Ron Paul is a republican. The fact that most people don't see him as one is why the GOP is so fuctup now.

I really wish Paul would have ran as the Libertarian canidate after he lost in the primary, but then he would have no chance getting back into the house this year.

I think Obama will win, then the country will get pinned for the county's problems over the next 4 years if they are his fault or not, and then maybe in 2012 he would have a real chance as a Libertarian.

Crosshair: Kome: That assumes there are that many people in Texas that know how to write.

Oh come on, there are some illegals who can read.

But they can't vote... can they?

Kome: downstairs: Cagey B: Does it end with 34 electoral votes for Bob Barr? Because that would be freaking hilarious.

More people would write in Obama or McCain than would ever vote for Barr. However, THAT would be hilarious.

That assumes there are that many people in Texas that know how to write.

Unfortunately, I live in Texas.

You hurt me, Kome. You hurt me.

/right here.
//GOBAMA

mizchief: Ehh, Barr made a good point and no one should be above the law, but i've always favored common sense over follwing the letter of the law.



Yeah, but he's a libertarian! They're like totally not into laws and stuff!1!!!

Bob Barr with 34 electoral votes, that would make him a history maker in the 3rd Party vote.

Is there really the chance of this happening or is it just dumb news?

It sounds too good to be true.

Surely the power of the GOP with a former Governor could pull enough strings to get McCain on the ticket....no?

Taramoor: Both parties nominate via convention, remember those big raves they had a while back? There's a reason both McCain and Obama were referred to as "Presumptive Nominees" until the conventions were held, and why the rumor that Hillary would throw her name into the process during the DNC was actually an interesting one.

I predict that the response to your post can be summed up as: la la la la, I can't hear you, la la la la.

Yeah baby! Suck my caucus!



Wait... what were we talking about again?

Corvus: Which Texas legal precedent are you referring to exactly?

There have been a couple of cases arising over these deadlines in the past where TX Courts have ruled that they are, per the statute, set in stone with no possible exceptions. It was mentioned in Barr's brief, which I can't for the life of me seem to find anywhere now.

mizchief: Ehh, Barr made a good point and no one should be above the law, but i've always favored common sense over follwing the letter of the law.

So have I, but common sense also says that all of the third party candidates should be included in the debates, but they aren't treated as legitimate candidates. What would happen if they were? They'd throw a wrench in all of the foresight of the candidates, and they'd actually have to be more distinguishable from each other. As it is, all they have to be is NOT the other guy.

I don't blame them for keeping with the strategy of marginalizing the little guy. It's smart. But it certainly doesn't make for "fair" elections to keep pushing them off as arbitrarily and completely unimportant.

Kome: downstairs: Cagey B: Does it end with 34 electoral votes for Bob Barr? Because that would be freaking hilarious.

More people would write in Obama or McCain than would ever vote for Barr. However, THAT would be hilarious.

That assumes there are that many people in Texas that know how to write.

No, it's even better. You have to register to be a write-in vote. Guess when the deadline for that was? The same farking day.

It's too farking funny. If this goes through, Obama and McCain literally CANNOT get a vote in Texas.

/Can't stop laughing.

The main argument of the article is that because they have primaries they don't fall under the 5% rule, but the libertarians do because they have a convention. Not to point out the obvious, but the "primaries" and "caucuses" that happened at the beginning of the year were voting on sending delegates to a convention. Even if a candidate got 100% of the vote in the primaries and caucuses, the convention still could theoretically nominate someone completely different. The possibility is near zero, but it is not zero. This is even more true in the democratic party that has a large number of unelected delegates.

The fact of the matter is no one is the nominee until the votes are cast and tallied at the convention, which is why they would fall under the 5% rule.

That all being said, I wouldn't mind Barr winning, since it would garentee Obama being president.

I don't understand this site.

People submit articles about this way back when it happened and they get denied.

People submit articles about the courts rejection a week ago when it happened and they get denied.

Today I submit a side by side comparison of spending plans for candidates which I admit was kind of bland and it gets denied.

On the same day someone submits week old news that was denied when it was new and it gets greenlit..

if the Democrats were smart, they'd stop denying this, and totally admit both them and the Republicans farked up and only Bob Barr should be allowed to be on the Ballot. In fact, they should air drop their best team of lawyers to the Barr camp, if they actually want to win an election here.