NC and VA GOP may demand candidates swear off 3rd party run for ballot access

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/state-gop-leaders-plot-to-tie-donald-trumps-hands-121696.html?hp=l3_4

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

GOP disenfranchisement continues.

[Clark Kent]

Disenfranchisement?

This seems completely logical and a good idea.

[Senator Cris]

That rule should be valid nationwide, not only for North Carolina and Virginia, regardless of Trump.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This is playing into Trump's hands. Every time the Republicans lurch in the directory of party control, instead of voter control, Trump's populist schtick gains credibility, while the Republican establishment looses credibility.

[TarHeelDem]

This is only going to help him. If he can't compete in NC/VA, it'll only lead to wins in other places.

[SteveRogers]

That rule should be valid nationwide, not only for North Carolina and Virginia, regardless of Trump.

Lol, it's not like such a declaration would be enforceable later on if the candidate changes their mind and runs 3rd party anyway.

[Skye]

That rule should be valid nationwide, not only for North Carolina and Virginia, regardless of Trump.

Lol, it's not like such a declaration would be enforceable later on if the candidate changes their mind and runs 3rd party anyway.

This, basically.

Plus, why would Trump run as 3rd party anyway? He's leading the GOP pack big time

[Jacobtm]

It's so strange how some people believe that democracy is the absolute best, yet when it serves their interests, have no problem with completely ditching democratic processes to achieve their ends.

---

We want gay marriage!

Well almost 40 states voted to ban it

Too bad, 5/9 people decided it was constitutional! #LoveWins!

---

We don't want Trump!

Well he's the leading candidate in the polls

Too bad, kick him off the ballot! #JebWins!

[Simfan34]

Sore loser restrictions are pure common sense. I would have thought more states already had them.

It's so strange how some people believe that democracy is the absolute best, yet when it serves their interests, have no problem with completely ditching democratic processes to achieve their ends.

---

We want gay marriage!

Well almost 40 states voted to ban it

Too bad, 5/9 people decided it was constitutional! #LoveWins!

---

We don't want Trump!

Well he's the leading candidate in the polls

Too bad, kick him off the ballot! #JebWins!

I agree. We cling to the idea that everything and anything possible must be subjected to popular approval as a doctrine, regardless as to whether it is truly the most practical or suitable method for selection, because we've come to see liberal democracy as some kind of intrinsic good as opposed to a method of governance that (supposedly) allows for the highest degree of accountability.
 
Accountability is often held in contrast to administrative effectiveness/policy implementation, and this is mostly true, but you get a problem when you have a state of affairs where the kind of accountability imposed is poor or low grade. Just as you can have an effective regime implementing bad policy, you can have a system characterised by a high level of accountablity
where those to whom the government is accountable are not invested in actually monitoring the government sufficiently or take bad/uninformed policy positions and thus drive a government in a suboptimal direction.

The problem is that the general public are often not the primary stakeholders, whether that be in determining policy aims or in a party's political success. A better system must provide for accountability, yes, but it must sure that those to whom decision makers and policy makers are responsibly are true stakeholders invested in and able to make informed decisions as to the direction of policy.

In short, not everything is suited to be decided via popular vote. We all knew that. But at times like these it's worth reminding people of this.

[SteveRogers]

Sore loser restrictions are pure common sense. I would have thought more states already had them.

Most states do have either sore loser laws or simultaneous filing deadlines for most elections, but very few state sore loser laws apply to presidential elections, partly because when you vote in the presidential general election you're not really voting for a candidate but rather a slate of electors.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

SC too.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Sore loser restrictions are pure common sense. I would have thought more states already had them.

Most states do have either sore loser laws or simultaneous filing deadlines for most elections, but very few state sore loser laws apply to presidential elections, partly because when you vote in the presidential general election you're not really voting for a candidate but rather a slate of electors.

I know that Gary Johnson ran into issues with Michigan's laws for ballot access. He eventually was recognized as a write-in, but not on his own ballot line.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is completely unenforceable either way, so who cares whatever pinky swears they want to demand.

[SteveRogers]

Sore loser laws are a legislature's way of saying that they are fully aware of the inherent flaws in a first-past-the-post electoral system but refuse to fix them anyway.

[Mr. Morden]

Looks like the South Carolina GOP already requires a similar "loyalty oath" to the eventual nominee:

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/01/npr-3-ways-september-could-be-a-challenging-month-for-trump

We'll see if Trump agrees to it.  The SC filing deadline is Sept. 30.