Democratic Nominee may not make the November ballots in Fla, & Mich

I doubt that would be legal.

 

It might or might not be legal for either or both of the states, depending on their laws, but there would be nothing intrinsically unconstitutional about it. I do think it would be ill-advised, personally.

BTW, since no one has brought this up, that I've seen here, why were the voters in MI and FL 'penalized' by the DNC and the RNC, to begin with? Why are/were the two major political parties playing judge, jury, and executioner, by 'punishing' the two states, solely to keep some pre-set agenda, as to some supposed ideal of a 'political calender'? Last time I looked, neither of these groups were even a 'state entity' let alone the guardians of the Federal Constitution.

It is an absolute falsehood to blame this on the state political parties of MI and FL.

The primary dates for both MI and FL were established by legislation passed and duly enacted by the duly elected legislators, who are subject to the will of the citizens, of the respective legislatures, in the two states in question. The legislation was singed by Governors Granholm and Crist respectively. (FTR, MI has a 'Republican' Senate and a 'Democrat' House and Governor, while FL has a' Republican' Senate, House and Governor. FL may or may not have a "veto-proof" Legislature in one or both houses (I do not know the number required), but MI has a margin of 4 for the Senate, and 6 for the House, hardly 'veto-proof'.)

By contrast, the DNC and RNC 'calenders' were established by the 'party apparatchicks' in each party (with both parties "in cahoots" in some instances), at their whim, who are subject to no one but themselves.

What gives when any unelected entity (save the Judicial branch of government, in some cases), answerable to no one, can override, do an "end-run around", and totally disregard the duly enacted legislation of sovereign states???

Even Federal judges only "hold their offices during good behavior"! (The "good behavior" bit, is probably why one federal judge was impeached, convicted, and removed from office, but was then (improperly and unconstitutionally) elected as a US Representative, where he has now been in office and is now in his 8th term, but I digress.)

I resent the implication that the political parties of MI and FL somehow did this to themselves.

That is nothing less than "a bald-faced lie"!!

Ed

 

Since the delegations from both parties in both states were penalized it would appear that if it is legal for either state to keep presidential nominees off of the ballot, then it would be both major parties' nominees that would be kept off, not just the Democrats' nominee.

But, really, does anyone realistically expect that both major parties' nominees will not be on the November?

The time lag between now and Labor Day when the general election campaigns get in high gear is the political silly season in many respects, but just bear in mind that it is the "silly season".

 

Silly thread.

In spite of the joy it would bring to those like Revmithcell, the democratic candidate will be on the ballot in all fifty states. Just wait and see.

 

We are not on the verge of a War for Southern Independence in 2008.

 

If you don't see the difference between the election of 1860 and 2008, I can't help you.

Hint: Things have changed in the past 148 years!

 

Democrats in MI and Fla could set up an "alternate Democratic slate of electors" in those states and fight at the convention to have that alternate group seated at the convention. This was done back in the days of civil rights demonstrations when there was a black democratic party and the national democratic party who both fought to be recognized for many southern states.

I know for a fact that in the election of 1972 there were two slates of democratic electors that voters could vote for in Alabama. The votes for the two slates were not added together so even if the republicans and democrats split the vote 50/50 the republicans would have won.