Thursday, August 28, 2008

Here's a $100 Wager

(Fishers, IN)- Let's see if there are any takers. Both McCain and Obama apparently have failed to file necessary papers in Texas to qualify for that state's ballot. This is because the filing deadline occurs prior to either of their parties' conventions.

So, does anyone want to take my bet that the law will be overlooked to accommodate McCain and Obama?

As we saw here recently in Marion County, when the slightest error is found on a form submitted by a Libertarian candidate the bi-partisan, ie: Republican and Democratic colluded Elections Board votes to strenuously uphold the letter of the law. As we see across the USA, those same bi-partisan Boards tend to wink at the law when it involves their own candidates.

For now, Bob Barr is on the Texas ballot. It would be pretty cool for Barr to scoop up all 34 of Texas' electoral votes. I think on this basis alone, Barr should now be brought into the debates... if the allegedly non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates would hear of it.

(h/t Advance Indiana)


varangianguard said...

I already saw something, somewhere, this morning to the effect that "oh, yeah, they did file on time, they were just misplaced, or something".

Mike Kole said...

Misplaced? That doesn't speak well of somebody, the Texas SoS, probably.

What I've understood is that they will move for a substitution- a sort of 'dummy' filing is made, with the plan to substitute the real nominee's paperwork once the convention is over.

That's fine, but that's also something McCain has sued in Pennsylvania over, to forbid the Libertarians from doing the exact same thing.

Either way, the premise is the same: Insert the Animal Farm "All are equal..." quote here.

Doug said...

Your propositions would be one of the stupidest bets I can conceive of. There is no way they won't figure out a way for the Republicans and Democrats to be on the ballot for President in Texas.

You would have to give spectacular odds for me to even consider it, and even then I'd have a sense of, "I like Mike and wouldn't mind too much if $100 made its way to his pocket."

varangianguard said...

I don't know, Doug. The way the "bet" is worded, I think Mike might have been saying goodbye to a Ben Franklin.

It appears that the law won't be overlooked, just the "nicieties". As in, "Oh, here they are. Must've missed them, inadvertently".

Mike Kole said...

Doug's got my meaning, which is: I have no doubt that Obama and McCain will be on the ballot, regardless of the law, in either the letter or the spirit.

I could have made it a $1,000 bet, and I wouldn't be the slightest bit worried about it. Bottom line: Republicans and Democrats always have unlimited ballot access. The other parties, not so much.

varangianguard said...

I "got" what you meant. ;)

I just wanted you to be "on record" as justifying your own little mistake as "it's what I meant, not what I wrote, that's important (for you).

Your point in your last post is correct, though.

I have a question. Why are all parties, not Republican or Democrat, called "third" parties?

varangianguard said...

I looked at three Austin, Texas news websites, and guess what? This is not on anybody's "radar" in the Austin MSM. Oh, and no mention on the Texas SOS's site either.

Mike Kole said...

Nope- The MSM isn't covering this at all. Daily Kos has an entry, hell, Indecision 2008 has an entry, but no major media outlet has the story.

The authority on elections in the USA is Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News. He has an entry, naturally: