Even before President Joe Biden’s long-speculated withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, allies of former President Donald Trump floated the possibility of suing to block Democrats from having anyone other than Biden on the ballot in November.
But election administration and legal experts said the timing of Biden’s exit on Sunday makes it unlikely that any Republican ballot access challenges will succeed, with some calling the idea “ridiculous” and “frivolous.” Democrats are on safe legal ground as they identify a new standard-bearer, they say, because the party hasn’t officially chosen its nominee. That typically occurs with a vote of delegates at the party’s convention.
“It’s ridiculous for people to talk about ‘replacing Biden.’ He hasn’t been nominated yet,” said Richard Winger, a leading expert on state ballot access laws and the longtime editor of the “Ballot Access News” newsletter.
The SCOTUS case brought by the Sanders campaign had a ruling that stated the private parties can do whatever they want in their primaries, without regard for fairness or wants of the participants. SCOTUS recommend that if one doesn’t agree with that then they shouldn’t participate. I agree with them.
It also doesn’t matter whom they nominate. The platform and outcomes aren’t changed by the puppet politician, only by the corporate donors writing the legislation. I don’t care who figureheads either major party.
I also don’t care who figureheads the Green Party. The platform and ballot access is their value. If they scale then pressure is exerted on Democrats. If they scale a lot then a solid candidate will jump ship from Democrats.
My dichotomous vote for President also wouldn’t matter. My deep red state will cast all of their electoral votes for Trump. I’ve decided to vote Green POTUS in the general in small hope others also reason out where such is possible and why 5% of the GE vote is quite powerful for the cause, regardless of party affiliation. There’s one other local election where I’ll vote because I believe a viewpoint that I don’t agree with should be voiced for others’ benefit.
There’s much more powerful avenues of change than voting. I spend most of my time on what history says will work.
I’ve decided to vote Green POTUS in the general
So you’re contradicting yourself by telling me you’re not voting and that I’m making flawed assumptions about you in response to my apparently correct inference about you intending to vote Green Party, and then telling AmidFuror you are voting Green. Derpy indeed.
I’m voting two races. And, I don’t spend hardly any time voting relative the time I spend on all the other more effective means of change.
If you want to label two reasoned and explained exceptions bad faith then by all means.
