1 vote

I wish the Paul campaign filed a certificate of candidacy with the board of elections for every state allowing write-in votes

I don't know the laws for every state, but in New York it states:

§ 6-153. Certificate of candidacy by write-in candidates for president and vice president.
1. Any person who wishes to be a write-in candidate for president of the United States shall, not later than the third Tuesday before the general election, file a certificate of candidacy with the state board of elections.
2. Such certificate shall be signed by such candidate and shall contain the following:
(a) The name and address of the candidate for president.
(b) The name and address of a candidate for vice president of the United States, if any, and a certificate of acceptance signed by such candidate.
(c) The names and addresses of the candidates for electors pledged to such candidate for president, together with a certificate of acceptance and pledge of support signed by each such candidate for elector.

That's not the same as running Independent a la Ross Perot. All you'd need is enough resources to file the certificates.

Couldn't that have been done simultaneously with Paul's GOP delegate strategy? Wasn't there enough evidence of election fraud at the caucuses before the deadlines for filing certificates in states that allow write-ins? For example, it's still not too late to file in New York: "...not later than the third Tuesday before the general election..."

It seems to me that the Paul campaign gained nothing from not doing this; they gained nothing from not slamming Romney the way they slammed Gingrich and Santorum; they gained nothing from Rand's endorsement. I mean, Rand gained something - the ability to continue fighting the good fight in the Senate (time will tell how much that benefits the liberty movement) - but it didn't do anything for his father's campaign. What am I missing? What would've been the downside of filing certificates? The GOP establishment would've been pissed? Who cares. They hate us and are fighting us every step of the way anyway, and that's not stopping dedicated patriots from making inroads into the GOP on the local and state levels. I ask again, what am I missing here?

Honestly, even if the write-in strategy wouldn't have gotten Dr. Paul the presidency for whatever reasons, it sure would've been great to vote for him in the general election knowing my write-in vote would be counted. And, I venture to say many would've been surprised by the large number of write-in votes he would've received.

If Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination (which is likely short of a mini-miracle), I'm still writing him in out of my own personal sense of honor and integrity. I'm not a big supporter of Johnson, and I don't think he stands a chance anyway. Dr. Paul's fine character and popularity make him competitive against Obamney in the polls despite the media blackout. I believe Johnson would make a better president than Obmaney, but the fact that he lacks Paul's appeal makes him virtually unelectable against the Obamney juggernaut. I understand the desire for some to vote Johnson as a protest vote, to send a message, but omission sends a powerful message, too. I'd rather write-in Dr. Paul, and know in my heart I voted for the best man to be POTUS.