Passing on the word

[netmouse]

from novapsyche

The national party voted to strip Michigan of delegates as a penalty, but party leaders in the electoral-vote rich state have expressed confidence that they will be seated at the convention.

None of the candidates, including Clinton, will be campaigning here, and none have authorized write-in campaigns–-which means that, under state law, their supporters cannot cast write-in votes for any of them.

But if at least 15 percent of the voters in a congressional district opt for the "uncommitted" option rather than voting for Clinton, delegates not bound to any candidate could attend the national convention--a development that could allow Edwards or Obama supporters to play a role in candidate selection there.

Personally I think disallowing write-in capaigns if they are not "authorized" is the biggest clusterfuck part of this. I mean, we're supposed to be able to do write in campaigns for *anyone*, aren't we?

Anyway, I will seriously consider voting for "uncommitted" in the primary on Tuesday.

Comments

[shadowriderhope.livejournal.com]

I think the idea is that since the candidates have explicitly said they do not want to be on the ballot, write-in votes for them will not count. At least, that's what made sense to me.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206

B

[aiela.livejournal.com]

I too will be voting "uncommitted".

I *am* committed, and have been for some time, but I cannot vote for who I want to, so...

[sethb.livejournal.com]

They seem to claim "racism" again Republican voters when it's clear they aren't voting on the basis of race, but rather of supporting the weakest Democratic candidate (which, given the American system that promotes insincere voting, is perfectly acceptable). Then they suggest that Democrats do the same. I support them on the latter, I'd just prefer it with a smaller degree of hypocrisy.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

That is, of course, the other interesting option...

[brendand.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile, I'm voting Republican. Just because I want to screw them up. :)

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Do your duty. We need Romney in the race.

B

Voting Republican

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

B

[knightlygoddess.livejournal.com]

I had fully freaking planned to write-in "Snoopy" for the election, what the hell, how can they deny me my right to write-in any candidate?

[madkingludwig.livejournal.com]

Funny, but I had just posted about this today.
I formally endorse..."Undecided"
I wanna see Hillary lose to nobody.

[nicegeek.livejournal.com]

If you really want to throw the Republican party into chaos, try voting for Ron Paul. He has a snowflake's chance in hell of winning the nomination, and he'd have less than that in the general election, but he has a reasonable chance of giving the Republican Party a serious identity crisis if he does better than expected.

Romney

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

It won't throw the Republican party into chaos, because -- as you say -- he has no chance of winning the nomination. Romney has a chance, and he's throwing everyting into Michigan as a must-win state. We went him to go on. We don't want him to drop out so early; there would be no competition for McCain. Paul, or Huckabee, would be far more fun, but voting for Romney is important.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

They won't deny you your right to write-in a candidate; it just won't be counted. Remember, the party can choose its candidates however it wants to.

B

[davehogg.livejournal.com]

I mean, we're supposed to be able to do write in campaigns for *anyone*, aren't we?

Actually, no. It's S.O.P. that write-in candidates have to file some kind of statement of intent before the election so that poll workers don't have to waste their time tabulating the votes for Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. As part of their deal with the DNC, Obama and Edwards agreed not to authorize write-in campaigns.

I'm leaning more and more towards "uncommitted". Voting for Romney might be the most effective "screw with the Republicans" vote, but I just can't bring myself to do that.

[grimfaire.livejournal.com]

Two-Party system. 'nuff said. In a two party system it's only a matter of time before it becomes in reality a 1 party system. Which is what we have now. :(

[drakenul.livejournal.com]

I am all for this as well. I simply think it would be too funny for Hillary Clinton to lose to literally nobody to pass up on it. But the idea of spiking the GOP did sound pretty good to me for a while too.

[madkingludwig.livejournal.com]

The problem with "spiking the GOP" in the Michigan primary is that, should you manage to get the GOP to nominate the most right-wing creep imaginable, insane, draconian, and mentally retarded, there is no guarantee, between the way the GOP and the Dems run their respective campaigns, that they won't just get the goofy SOB elected. This causes the plan to backfire.

[madkingludwig.livejournal.com]

Besides, voting for a Republican invalidates the promise I made to my Mama when I was but a little boy - I promised I wouldn't go to Hell when I died.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Yep, what he said. The write-in candidate option is supposed to be not just for "write in anybody you think should be president, like your Dad" but for people who file an intent to run too late to have their names printed on the ballot. Works the same for local elections, to.