Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 07:03:32 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  NV: None of these Candidates?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: NV: None of these Candidates?  (Read 1125 times)
TommyC1776
KucinichforPrez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3191


View Profile
« on: April 07, 2007, 12:44:14 pm »
Ignore

How come Nevada has this on their ballot?  It seems like it's always on their.

From,

K4P.
Logged

Tim Russert: "If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press."  Tim, you will be missed.  (1950-2008)..

Quote from Larry Hagman: "[Bush is a] sad figure: not too well educated, who doesn't get out of America much. He's leading the country towards fascism."

"It's all the same to me, he wouldn't understand the word fascism anyway."

Ted Kennedy (1932-2009).
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2007, 12:52:38 pm »
Ignore

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.
Logged

n/c
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4425
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2007, 01:31:58 pm »
Ignore

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.
Logged

Adlai Stevenson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3438
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2007, 02:32:17 pm »
Ignore

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.
[/quote

Yes I read that too.  Nevada has had the law since 1975 - and it always wins a few votes. 
Logged

[img/http://blog.pennlive.com/thrive/2007/08/WINEHOUSE1.jpgimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpJQq8MoR-g
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2007, 09:24:19 pm »
Ignore

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.

I'm only passing along what I've heard.  That seems totally pointless, if that's true.  You're probably right...no wonder we voted it down!
« Last Edit: April 07, 2007, 09:30:02 pm by Alcon »Logged

n/c
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2007, 04:20:41 am »
Ignore

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.

I'm only passing along what I've heard.  That seems totally pointless, if that's true.  You're probably right...no wonder we voted it down!
Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30715
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2007, 08:18:38 am »
Ignore

In 1996, the 'none of these candidates' option won more votes than Clinton's margin of victory in Nevada.
Logged



Real Americans (and Big Sky Bob) demand to know.


I just slept for 11 hours, so I should need a nap today, but we'll see.
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2007, 11:43:51 am »
Ignore

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.

I'm only passing along what I've heard.  That seems totally pointless, if that's true.  You're probably right...no wonder we voted it down!
Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.

Louisiana does.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5809
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2007, 11:50:56 am »
Ignore

Because they voted to.

Washington also voted on it, but they turned it down pretty heavily.

Basically, when None of these Candidates wins, there is a re-vote where none of the listed candidates are eligible.  I believe it once happened in a New York Republican congressional primary.

Are you sure about that Nighthawk?  I'm fairly certain that in Nevada the candidate with the most votes still wins even if "none of the above" receives a majority.

NRS 293.269  Ballots for statewide offices or President and Vice President must permit voter to register opposition to all candidates.

1.  Every ballot upon which appears the names of candidates for any statewide office or for President and Vice President of the United States shall contain for each office an additional line equivalent to the lines on which the candidates’ names appear and placed at the end of the group of lines containing the names of the candidates for that office. Each additional line shall contain a square in which the voter may express his choice of that line in the same manner as he would express his choice of a candidate, and the line shall read “None of these candidates.”

2.  Only votes cast for the named candidates shall be counted in determining nomination or election to any statewide office or presidential nominations or the selection of presidential electors, but for each office the number of ballots on which the additional line was chosen shall be listed following the names of the candidates and the number of their votes in every posting, abstract and proclamation of the results of the election.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5809
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2007, 12:30:33 pm »
Ignore

Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.
Louisiana does.
Louisiana did.

Until 1997, Louisiana held its general election in October, and would only hold runoffs where no candidate had a majority on the November election day.

In Foster v. Love (No. 96-670) this was challenged as being in violation of the date set by Congress for electing representatives and senators.  The USSC ruled that since in the overwhelming majority of cases no election was held in November, that this violated the federal statute.

The federal district court then modified the process specified by Louisiana law to hold the election in November, with any runoffs to follow.  The Louisiana legislature later modified the Louisiana laws to follow the court decision (they have since changed this for future congressional elections).

The group that challenged the Louisiana law, also challenged the Texas early voting law, claiming that since a large share of votes were cast before election day, the voters weren't choosing their representatives on election day.  This case never got to the USSC, with lower courts ruling that early voting was not significantly different from absentee voting by mail; and that since Congress mandates absentee voting by mail for some persons, they couldn't literally mean that all votes must be cast on election day.

I'd guess if Nevada law provided for a new election if NOTC won, it would conform to current federal law.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2007, 03:29:59 pm »
Ignore

Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.
Louisiana does.
Louisiana did.

Until 1997, Louisiana held its general election in October, and would only hold runoffs where no candidate had a majority on the November election day.

In Foster v. Love (No. 96-670) this was challenged as being in violation of the date set by Congress for electing representatives and senators.  The USSC ruled that since in the overwhelming majority of cases no election was held in November, that this violated the federal statute.

The federal district court then modified the process specified by Louisiana law to hold the election in November, with any runoffs to follow.  The Louisiana legislature later modified the Louisiana laws to follow the court decision (they have since changed this for future congressional elections).

The group that challenged the Louisiana law, also challenged the Texas early voting law, claiming that since a large share of votes were cast before election day, the voters weren't choosing their representatives on election day.  This case never got to the USSC, with lower courts ruling that early voting was not significantly different from absentee voting by mail; and that since Congress mandates absentee voting by mail for some persons, they couldn't literally mean that all votes must be cast on election day.

I'd guess if Nevada law provided for a new election if NOTC won, it would conform to current federal law.

The point was that the new election would have to be held on a day other than Election Day--but so too are Louisiana's runoffs.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5809
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2007, 12:26:34 am »
Ignore

Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.
Louisiana does.
Louisiana did.

Until 1997, Louisiana held its general election in October, and would only hold runoffs where no candidate had a majority on the November election day.

In Foster v. Love (No. 96-670) this was challenged as being in violation of the date set by Congress for electing representatives and senators.  The USSC ruled that since in the overwhelming majority of cases no election was held in November, that this violated the federal statute.

The federal district court then modified the process specified by Louisiana law to hold the election in November, with any runoffs to follow.  The Louisiana legislature later modified the Louisiana laws to follow the court decision (they have since changed this for future congressional elections).

The group that challenged the Louisiana law, also challenged the Texas early voting law, claiming that since a large share of votes were cast before election day, the voters weren't choosing their representatives on election day.  This case never got to the USSC, with lower courts ruling that early voting was not significantly different from absentee voting by mail; and that since Congress mandates absentee voting by mail for some persons, they couldn't literally mean that all votes must be cast on election day.

I'd guess if Nevada law provided for a new election if NOTC won, it would conform to current federal law.

The point was that the new election would have to be held on a day other than Election Day--but so too are Louisiana's runoffs.
Louisiana now holds its main election for representatives in November.  Before 1998, it held it in October.

As noted in Foster v Love, 2 USC § 8, does provide for runoff elections:

Quote
Section 8. Vacancies

    The time for holding elections in any State, District, or
    Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy,
    whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time
    prescribed by law
, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a
    person elected, may be prescribed by the laws of the several States
    and Territories respectively

In some instances, Louisiana fails to elect its representative on the November election day.  Similarly, Nevada could hold a new election in the case where None of These Candidates had the most votes.   However, Nevada did not make that choice.


Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines