8 votes

Is there any possible way around sore loser laws for a 3rd party run?

After I watched the doug wead chat yesterday, and heard him repeatedly say it's not possible, I started thinking about the 3rd party run and sore loser laws.

If Dr. Paul was to be chosen as the VP for a 3rd party candidate for POTUS (Johnson or any other liberty candidates) that wins the presidency, could the newly elected president just resign from the presidency, and then Ron (the vp) would be president?

I personally don't feel strongly about any 3rd party candidates that I'm aware are running. But if there is one running, or one that could go into the running (Woods, Napolitano, etc) that Ron trusts to execute this properly, then I'm all in if it's possible.

So, would this work, or not? Am I making it more simple than it is or what? Wouldn't he avoid sore loser laws this way? What do you guys think?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


has given Gary Johnson his endorsement. If Ron trusts the Judge and you trust Ron in who he trusts, they why wouldn't you listen the Judge's position? I am.

Corrupt practices on one side

Corrupt practices on one side of the contract voids it. Paul didn't lose. The results have been manipulated since the beginning of the process. He tried to get around it, but only drove them into more and more desperate cheating. There's no contract.

He could run. But there would have to be an exceptional accommodation made to put him first on the ticket. It would mean polling the Libertarians.

I don't think the Libertarian Party would be a bad replacement for the GOP.


Kathleen Gee's picture



"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan

Public Relations Consulting

We've covered this topic several times here on DP.

Use the search bar on the site and do some homework.

Those laws do not apply to presidential elections because:

A. There are no true "primaries" for president.

1.If someone "loses" a primary in a state, they can still be the nominee and thus on the General Election Ballot.
2.The "primary" in a state essentially has ZERO bearing on who will be on the general election ballot.

B. The election for president is NOT the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

1.This date is for the choosing of Representatives and Senators. As well, all 50 States have made this the date for choosing Electors who will LATER vote for President.
2.The ballot in most states, and technically ALL states in November does NOT include the candidates for President and VP, but rather their ELECTORS - your vote isn't technically for the candidate, but rather for their Electors.

C. The election for President has no primary and is held in December.

1.The actual selection of the President (and VP) occurs by Federal Law on December 15th.
2.Only the Electors from each State participate.
3.Technically, they can vote for whomever they want, regardless of the names on the pre-printed forms (if any, some states do this) and without regard to whomever competed in partisan primaries. Seriously, they can vote for ANYONE who is eligible. There are state laws to discourage this behavior, but in over 235 years, NO ONE has been prosecuted for voting their conscious.

D. "sore loser laws" were written for states that have ONE qualifying period for BOTH the primary and general election ballot. This prevents people who lost a primary, who otherwise WOULD NOT BE ON THE GE BALLOT (something that is irrelevant to a presidential race) from then placing their name under another party on the GE ballot.

E. Some states have separate qualifying periods for primaries and GE ballots. Some automatically consider primary winners as qualified. In short, this has NOTHING to do with Presidential elections - NOTHING. Anyone who says otherwise CANNOT read plain, simple law.

Slight correction - the date for the meeting of the EC is

December 17th, 2012. (not 15th)

The actual dates for this and the time of choosing Electors is not a fixed date, but a relative one.

The date for choosing Electors is the "Tuesday next after the first Monday in November..." Or, the first Tuesday in November that follows a Monday in November. The first Tuesday in November in 2012 is the 6th and it follows a Monday in November - the 5th.

The date for the meeting and casting of Electoral votes is the "first Monday after the second Wednesday in December..." Thus that would be December 17th this year.

Interesting. So, if we do an

Interesting. So, if we do an awesome job of waking millions more americans up by dec 15, he could end up in the white house even if he's not on the ballot? This is great, an extremely long shot - but good to know :)

Yes. But really November 6th. December 17th is only decided by

438 people.

Technically, no one is on the ballot for President. But what we commonly refer to when we say one is, we mean their candidates for Electors are on the ballot.

When we vote, we are technically voting for the Electors.

The Electors then cast their votes in December for President.

Generally, they are supposed to vote for whom they were pledged to when YOU voted for them in November. But as I noted, that is not really a requirement. At least no one has been punished for voting otherwise - yet.

In theory, we still have time to get Ron Paul friendly Electors on the ballot in enough States with enough Electoral votes to secure the White House. (with or without a party affiliation, which by this discussion, it is presumed will be neither Democrat nor Republican)

However, some State deadlines have already passed and it is too late there.

Otherwise, it is still possible, technically, but this in most cases requires thousands, if not tens of thousands of verified voter signatures on petitions to make it happen. That isn't cheap. You have to pay petitioners per signature. Ballot access costs smaller parties several millions of dollars each cycle.

Any other party which has easier access already, has chosen their nominee.

Thus the only real avenue left is a "new party" or filing as an independent slate. (pledge to Ron Paul)

It doesn't even have to be the same party name in each state if one is chosen over independent - but it helps. (some 3rd parties don't even use the same name in every state as it is)

The best I can suggest is look into the laws in your state and make it happen.

That's what people in Louisiana and Montana did in 2008. I think Montana ended up removing Dr. Paul at his request, but Louisiana did not. I got to vote for Ron Paul for president that year because of that effort. He didn't have any impact on the race here though. He certainly didn't campaign.

Not only would we have to get his Electors on numerous state ballots in very short order, we'd have to convince Dr. Paul to campaign and make a real race of it. He'd have to generate enough news to get included in opinion polling, he'd certainly have to drop out officially from the GOP and announce his General Election candidacy, and if, BIG IF, he got 15% of the opinion poll results he MIGHT, I stress, MIGHT be allowed into the debates in October.

If ALL of that happens, he stands a snowballs chance of winning the whole thing.

Otherwise, not even.

Sure; in addition to the other comments (these laws don't...

apply to presidential candidates, ONE victory in ONE federal court to overturn ONE sore loser law as "unconstitutional" would invalidate all the rest.

Sure why not.

"In United States politics, a sore-loser law is a law which states that the loser in a primary election can't then run as an independent in the general election.[1] In most states, these laws do not apply to presidential candidates. Many states accomplish the same requirement by having simultaneous registration dates for the primary and the general election; in fact only the states of Connecticut, Iowa, New York and Vermont don't have either a sore-loser law or simultaneous registration deadlines.[2]"


"Only four states maintain that their “sore loser” laws apply to president: South Dakota, Mississippi, Ohio and Texas. After LaRouche won in court against Ohio in 1992, Ohio amended its “sore loser” law in 1993 to specifically apply to presidential candidates. No precedents have been set in Mississippi or South Dakota. In Texas, unfortunately, in 1996 the Constitution Party filed a lawsuit against Texas to get a ruling that the “sore loser” law doesn’t apply to president. The federal judge who got the case, James Nowlin, refused to enjoin Texas’ interpretation that the “sore loser” law does apply to president. The denial of injunctive relief is reported as US Taxpayers Party v Garza, 924 F Supp 71 (1996)."

I believe at least 2 of the 4 States have been resolved possibly maybe more as the article was from 2007 but I cannot find where I read that maybe a year ago.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Yes...but it is not going to

Yes...but it is not going to happen because Ron paul doesn't want to go out with an embarrassing general election loss.

And the act that you think that Gary Johnson would have ANY chance of winning...and then would resign when he did shows taht you are notplaying with a full deck.

For your own safety, seek psychiatric help.

No need to be rude. I never

No need to be rude. I never said Johnson would do that - I was talking in general and mentioned his name as an option.

I don't believe I've ever heard Dr. Paul make any statement that alluded to him worrying about the election ending in embarrassment. Please, enlighten me. See, I thought that what Ron Paul cared about was changing the course of history, restoring America, ending the fed - but who knows, maybe he's afraid the establishment will embarrass him?! Idk, sounds crazy to me. ;)

Seems somebody never learned the Golden Rule.


I was worried that Gary Johnson was a "sore loser," too (although, in fact, I thought his acceptance speech was a model of a gracious winner).

However, the opinion does not discuss the fact that the true candidates in November are running for presidential elector, not president. A presidential candidate’s name is not listed on the November ballot in his or her role as a candidate. Instead, the name is an identifier for specific slates of candidates for presidential elector.

The above, from Ballot Access' Richard Winger (the foremost expert on ballot access) which was linked in this thread, is an interesting thought. I guess we should all be careful not to practice too much law outside our area of expertise. The sad fact is, these types of laws get overlooked all the time, as we've seen with the trashing of the Constitution. Bottom line, it's interesting, but uncertain.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Third Party Run (literally) = Gary Johnson

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, or promote Gary Johnson (go to http://www.thedailyjohnson.com/ for that), but Gary Johnson is literally the Ron Paul third-party run. Ron Paul isn't running third-party himself. (There is a group working on an effort though; http://www.rp2012.org/ ). The Libertarian Party, for better or for worse, nominated Gary Johnson, who is the closest candidate (other than Ron Paul) to Ron Paul.

He is your third-party run.

Otherwise, keep pushing Ron Paul to the convention and nominate him there.

Jack Wagner

Wow, it's a real site! I was

Wow, it's a real site! I was kinda afraid to click on it at first, lol.

Anyway, I will continue to push for the convention - I'm just thinking about any possible plan b's after august. :)

explain this

sore loser "LAW", i've not heard of it.

Many States Prohibit A Candidate Who Loses A Primary Race

to then run as an independent or via another party. Yet another reason why the media's incessant questions to Dr. Paul about running third party were dumb. It's not even possible for him to do so by law in many states.

I only wish Connecticut had a sore loser law that could have prevented Lieberman from running third party after he lost his last Senate primary race.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

"Sore Loser" laws only apply to indepedent candidates.

There is a big difference between running as the candidate of another party and running independent of any party. The idea is to deny a person who lost in primary from running again as an independent. However, if another party wishes to nominate that person, even if he/she is not a member of that party, the party has a first amendment right to nominate whomever they choose to nominate. Remember how LIEberman needed to create his own party to avoid this problem?

"Sore loser" laws don't bar minor parties from choosing whomever they please. What does limit splinter parties are the ballot access laws and early filing deadlines, e.g., Colorado and North Carolina.

Ok, so technically he could

Ok, so technically he could still run as a third party candidate then? As long as he wasn't independent? So, say we don't win the republican nomination, and Ron decided he was open to 3rd party - if Johnson bowed out, could the Libertarian party nominate Dr. Paul in his place? Are there any other established parties on the ballot in all states that would/could nominate him?

Sorry for all of this, but I honestly 10000000000000% want Dr. Ron Paul in the white house for the next four or eight years - I don't care how we do it. It must be done. So, I'm just trying to figure out what our possible options are.

Maybe I'm just not ready to accept what is being sold to us. But I truly believe Ron Paul is going to be the president of this nation - I just know it! Maybe it's pure unadulterated hope, but it feels more like my natural intuition as a woman and a mother. :)

ANY party could nominate Ron Paul

The problem is that the ballot access requirements require the minor parties to make nominations early. In a properly functioning democratic republic, a candidate could be the nominee of more than one party. New York State has permitted this. So one person could be the nominee of the Conservative Party and Republican Party, Green and Democratic Parties, etc. The argument that a candidate can only run for the nomination of one party is a false dilemma without historical precedent.

Liberty in the US ultimately requires that elections serve to restrain government, yet most Americans permit government to restrain competition in elections. In my opinion, deregulating elections is the first step to reclaim liberty.

You are wrong

It Does apply to parties.
In Michigan, one of the few states where this law applies to Presidential elections as well, Gary Johnson was three minutes late to withdraw from the 2012 Republican Primary and was therefore on the ballot. As a result, he was denied ballot access as a Libertarian. The case is currently pending arguments in the Michigan Supreme Court. However, the Libertarian Party stated that since petitioning in Michigan is by party, not by person, a Texas businessman who is also named Gary E. Johnson will stand in and run for president as a Libertarian in Michigan in the event that Governor Johnson is denied access.

That violates a party's right of freedom of association.

That violates a party's right of freedom of association. Interpreting the law like that is done to force the smaller parties into wasteful litigation. It is inconsistent with free elections and can't stand in court.

Thanks, you explained that

Thanks, you explained that much better than I ever could have.

So, what about my thought about him running as VP with a 3rd party candidate, is that legal? could it work if it came down to that?

Don't Know If They Prohibit A VP Candidacy

But it's clear from the video message he released today that Ron Paul wants to influence the Republican party rather than seek office by way of a third party.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Why can't he do both? I think

Why can't he do both? I think he's influencing the entire country (the world even), regardless of if it's on a platform or not. I agree that we should go full force to Tampa, I'm not trying to detract from that at all. I'm talking about after Tampa, if Ron isn't elected as the Republican nominee. :)

The Republican Party Will Not Give Us Any Ground

Without an assurance that Dr. Paul will not run independent. Doug Wead already revealed in his Q&A video that a third party run was never a consideration and was never anything more than an empty threat.

Dr. Paul has done his work on the campaign trail -- around five years of campaigning over three presidential elections.

He lit the flame of liberty and spread it far and wide.

Now it's up to you and me.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

I agree - it is up to you and

I agree - it is up to you and me. It's up to you and me to make every attempt possible to get this man in the white house, and until we have exhausted every option, I really don't think we should concede to anyone or any party. Just my opinion though :)

Doug Wead was talking about

Doug Wead was talking about it on the chats from yesterday (here's the link: http://www.dailypaul.com/240247/doug-wead-full-facebook-chat...)

According to Mr. Wead "sore loser laws" are in place in several states. The point of this law is to keep someone that ran for office from going third party if they lost through another party's nomination process. So like if Dr. Paul loses the republican nomination, the law would keep him from being on the ballot in some states if he were to run third party in the same election cycle.

I personally don't know about these laws, I was just taking doug for his word....