Hello Bob,

 BA>>> I've been saying for thirty years that what we need is a "none
 BA> of these
 BA>>> crooks" option on the ballot - that counts.  I read that the
 BA> option was

 >> That's ok, but then they will have to hold another election, right?

 >> What do you make of that situation I was in? Only a democrat lady -
 BA> against
 >> nobody - what if only 1 person voted for her? She could have only been
 >> defeated by a write-in.

 BA> Ah, but the Supreme Court ruled - in 1992 - that write-in votes for
 BA> federal elective offices (president, senate, whorehouse) don't have to
 BA> be counted.  They actually said that not counting write-in votes does
 BA> not disenfranchise the voters who do that.

It is up to each individual state to decide what rules to play by,
as this country does not have federal or national elections.

Years ago, in Louisiana, one candidate for governor legally
changed his name to "None of the Above".  The state AG ruled
that his legal name was deceptive and refused to put it on
the ballot.  The courts refused to accept the AG position,
but decided the candidate did not change his name in time,
and thus had to keep his previous name on the ballot rather
than his new legal name.

I wonder what would have happened had he decided to run in
a later election as "None of the Above"?  Would the courts be
forced to accept his legal name as legit?

Lester Knox.  The man nobody knew until he changed his name.

--Lee

-- 
Change Is Cumming

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)