Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask], 24 Sep 2002 10:08:45 -0700431_us-ascii "Well maybe we, those of us here in the United States, should take more time and study the history of our candidates running for political office and encourage other voters to do the same before next November, when we elect the House of Representatives." The truly sad part is that we DID study the history of our candidates and the lot that were elected were probably the LESSER of the evils.48_24Sep200210:08: [log in to unmask] |
Date: | Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:46:47 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Greg writes:
> How this would be handled in real life probably varies greatly. Election
> laws are funny things. Before John Ashcroft lost an election to a widow, a
> small town in Oklahoma had something similar happen. The incumbent won by
> spending. A retiree ran for the nomination of the opposing party, and won
> that. Then he died. The incumbent was confident that the people could not
> elect a dead man, but that did not stop them from doing so. When he took it
> to court, the court read the law as is was written, prohibiting a party
from
> nominating a dead man. There as no law to cover this precise contingency,
so
> the election stood, and had to be handled as though the elected man had
died
> in office. It effectively ended the previous incumbent's political career.
I presume the challenger's as well.
Wirt Atmar
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
|
|