Replies

Using partisan state officials to deny a candidate access to their ballot is potentially a double-edged sword. Enough blue states have sufficiently corrupt officials that they could tie up their ballot long enough to keep conservative candidates off their ballots and potentially skew every future election. As much as I’d like to see Obama exposed we need to take care we don’t manufacture a weapon that will be used against us. An example of this might be Harry Reid’s “nuclear option.” It works fine for the Democrats while they maintain control of the Senate, but how will they fare when they eventually lose and that option is still in place for Republicans to use. (BTW, I fully expect the Republicans will eliminate their advantage at the first opportunity and they may be right in leveling the playing field again as unfair advantage breeds a lot of hard feelings. I just hope we get a chance to undo some damage perpetrated by the Obama administration first.)

I don’t think so. All they are asking is checking the qualifications required. They are all pretty simple: age, residency, etc. All that could be done easily in a day or so and through public records. (Even for the presidency.) They are not asking for any sort of big time investigation. Keep it simple and straight forward and it is less easy to corrupt.

Using partisan state officials to deny a candidate access to their ballot is potentially a double-edged sword.

Just quite the excuses and do what their job requires them to do. If the electorate were more knowledgeable, they would vote the crooked secretaries of state out of office for playing games like you suggest. If we constantly do the the politically correct thing, we are likely not doing the peoples’ bidding.

Oh no, midnight Dec 31 2014, after they lose the majority in the Senate, they will with a simple majority vote, change the rules to be a 60 vote majority on everything for the R’s.