Battle for the US senate. Repeat of 2000 fiasco? NJ SC to intervene.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I think the Dems do have an argument. Is it reasonable to deny voters a choice based on a law stating 51 vs 36 days? What about another number of days? IMO it depends on why the law states that number, whether its arbitrary or whether other voters will be disenfranchised with less than 51 days (someone mentioned the military ballots).

The reason it was set to that time was to strike a balance between giving the major parties the ability to change candidates due to a crises close to an election, and giving the state enough time to properly set up and run the election; as Lincoln just mentioned, military and other absentee ballots figure strongly into this.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I take it the soluction consistent with Constitutional principles is to allow voters to select from one candidate only, but pro forma have two on the list, even though one is not in fact running?

MtG, should the parties then be given carte blanche to change candidates mid-election, because their candidate is losing? That's the precedent I see being set here.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Roland
Has anyone a clue why it takes 51 days to get the military ballots ?

It probably doesn't take 51 days. The point is there has been time provided for printing etc. and there is also the matter of early voting. Once the line has been drawn in is unfair to those who do not have a chance to vote again for the new candidate or to change their vote.

The solution is simple at this late date. They need to have a write in campaign. The option is and was open to all.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

The reason it was set to that time was to strike a balance between giving the major parties the ability to change candidates due to a crises close to an election, and giving the state enough time to properly set up and run the election; as Lincoln just mentioned, military and other absentee ballots figure strongly into this.

Inconvenience to those running the election, and even to absentee voters, is not a good enough reason to choose arbitrary deadlines over the right to choose. There must be legal precedents for a candidate dropping out at a late date. What if Torricelli had died for example?

[Lincoln]

There is a law for that as well but I don't have it handy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I take it the soluction consistent with Constitutional principles is to allow voters to select from one candidate only, but pro forma have two on the list, even though one is not in fact running?

It is the legally correct solution according to the guidelines laid forth by the wisemen in the NJ legistlature.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Inconvenience to those running the election, and even to absentee voters, is not a good enough reason to choose arbitrary deadlines over the right to choose. There must be legal precedents for a candidate dropping out at a late date. What if Torricelli had died for example?

But he didn't die. Nor was he arrested, kidnapped, lost at sea, or any other form of involuntary removal. He resigned voluntarily, because he couldn't win. As to what I think of that, see my reply to MtG.

[rah]

The only thing I care about is that you don't change the rules after the game has begun. There was a reason for the # of days selected. If you don't like it, try to work towards changing it for the next election. Don't try to change it because you've just figured out you're going to lose. Just recently (as mentioned) we had a candidate die. HIS NAME STAYED ON THE BALLOT. And he won.

51 days is not unreasonable. Think of those sailors on Subs at sea. It might take awhile to get them ballots and get them back.

If he wanted to drop out to help the party, he should have done it before. If it's just because he's being slapped around for something that he shouldn't have done, he deserves to lose. Welcome to Politics.

I don't see the people being denied a choice. They can still vote for this loser if they want. He was obviously chosen before.

[Lincoln]

Quote of the day:

10/2/02
This Californian notes:
When Torricelli was "severely admonished"...
...Democrats stood by him.

When Torricelli refused to resign from the Senate...
...Democrats supported his decision.

When Torricelli announced his candidacy...
...Democrats said, "He's the man!"

When Torricelli conducted fundraisers...
...Democrats willfully anted up.

ONLY WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT TORRICELLI WOULD LOSE THE ELECTION...
...did Democrats urge him to resign.
So much for the "Party of Principle." ~by martin_fierro

[Roland]

"The only thing I care about is that you don't change the rules after the game has begun."

Unless the rules are unconstitutional from the beginning.

But while the 51 days is quite long and the rule quite inflexible, I fail to see a reason for that.

What I don't understand is the event behind all that: "improper gifts he accepted from a contributor".

Wtf ?

[Lincoln]

[rah]

Originally posted by Roland
Unless the rules are unconstitutional from the beginning.

But while the 51 days is quite long and the rule quite inflexible, I fail to see a reason for that.

I doubt they'll find it unconstitutional. And I find it funny, since if they didn't want to drop the bum, no one would be questioning the constitutional aspect here. And is anyone really that stupid to think that's the real issue here?

51 days might seem long, but now that campaigns seem to be starting 2 years prior, 51 days is starting to look like real last minute.

[Roland]

"And is anyone really that stupid to think that's the real issue here?"

For politicians the constitution is a political tool. Is that your point, Captain Obvious ?

"but now that campaigns seem to be starting 2 years prior"

True but the hot phase is usually 30-60 days, is it not ?

[Lefty Scaevola]

The idea that a party has a right to switch candidate late in the race just because their nomiee is losing is preposterous. Emergencyb Ballot replacement is for when a candidate becomes non qulified to serve, such as bding dead, covicted of treason, etc.

[rah]

Originally posted by Roland
For politicians the constitution is a political tool. Is that your point, Captain Obvious ?

If you read my post carefully, my point was that I just find it funny. Seeing people pretending to argue the constitutionality of it when they really don't care about the constituionality of it. They're not fooling anybody, but they posture like they are. I find it hilarious. Because it's so OBVIOUS

Originally posted by Roland
"but now that campaigns seem to be starting 2 years prior"
True but the hot phase is usually 30-60 days, is it not ?

Only close elections are hot in the last 60 days. MOST elections are pretty much decided well before then. It's just that more press is given to the close ones so they are the main focus. (more from captain Obvious )