1 vote

(Unconfirmed) Missouri Will Count Ron Paul's Write-In Votes!

Needs one more confirmation by Gilbert but legally nothing is amiss. When a state on its own pleads no contest, no further action is required. Ron Paul would not be required to file any paperwork because that law will not be enforced, as a result of MO in essence agreeing to plaintiff's arguments. Could be enough citizens called and asked, why is something so basic as a write-in vote not counted, if it is clear and legible? Either a political decision was made at SecState MO to back off the lawsuit, or, wow, a person of ethics and integrity in that state government prevailed.

Gilbert's question is ingeniously simple. Why should write-in votes not be counted? What does this have to do with ballot access, which has been upheld as a proper power of states? You are writing in someone exactly because they ARE NOT on the ballot.

It's as if a federal court ordered Obama not to enforce NDAA. Congress would not need to change the law, because a court has declared it unenforceable. But in this case, MO skips that step and says, "Hey you know what? You're right."

Anyway the Facebook exchange between Gilbert and "Chris Rice" is amusing enough to read on its own. Gilbert nicely puts the young 'un in his place.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Want to know about Richard Gilbert? I'll school you.

I'm Chris Rice and I'm not a "young 'un". I voted for Ron Paul in 1988. Richard Gilbert censored me while claiming all the time that he doesn't and he claims that Gary Johnson does.

Richard Gilbert will not show us the paperwork on Missouri:

Richard Gilbert claims credit for that which already was. New Hampshire, Wyoming, Iowa, and Wisconsin, four states that Richard Gilbert says that he reached an agreement with already allowed write in votes. Read about it:

New Hampshire: http://writein2008.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-hampshire.html

Wyoming: http://writein2008.blogspot.com/2008/04/wyoming.html

Iowa: http://writein2008.blogspot.com/2008/04/iowa.html

Wisconsin: http://writein2008.blogspot.com/2008/04/wisconsin.html

Richard Gilbert talks a lot about states not allowing write-ins being unconstitutional and keeps repeating that a law that is unconstitutional is null and void. I want to know what part of the constitution he is looking at that deals with the election of the president that makes it unconstitutional for the states to decide how to conduct their own elections? When I read the Constitution I find this:

From U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors"

According to the Constitution, the states don't have to allow the public to vote at all for president and their Legislature gets to decide how to conduct a vote if that is how they decide to appoint their Electors. Mr. Gilbert confuses what he thinks is fair play with what the Constitution actually says.

Does Richard Gilbert actually have any real success stories? Is he a crazed lunatic? Read this article of some who thought that he was a crazed lunatic back in 2005:

“We’re hoping to use the case in court as a springboard to get a proposition on the ballot that will break up California into two states,” said Richard C. Gilbert, a partner at Gilbert & Marlowe, a law firm with two offices in California.

You are being led into a dead end by someone that is incompetent . . .

Anonymous Libertarians


I've thought the same thing for a few months and I've seen cracks, many have. Glad others are seeing it as well.

I used to follow him on twitter but the FEMA camps info, flirting with girls and then onto Ron Paul lawsuit, he's a joke.

"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton


All Missourians should write in Ron Paul if they have the chance to do the right thing, I know they will.
Missouri is RP country for sure.

No one but PAUL will do!

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016


Votes might be counted as "other", but it would take an army of approved volunteers to actually count the "Ron Paul" votes. Not going to happen on election day or night.

Just like all the other states Suzie is claiming is a done deal.

It is a ridiculous proposition. I have no problem with people voting their conscience for the best candidate and writing him in. Just don't expect there to be a number attached in any way, shape, or form.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I plan on calling Gilbert today

for final confirmation.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Encouraging write-in voting is a bad idea

Even if Missouri does allow them to be counted, at least 40 other states will not. I believe that we can make the biggest impact voting for GJ since he will be on almost every state's ballot. If Johnson gets 5% nationally, the Libertarian Party will get millions in federal funding and automatic ballot access. As I've heard stated before, it would be the beginning of the end of the two-party system in America, which is what we REALLY need. There is no stopping an Obama/Romney Presidency at this point, so I say we do whatever we can to salvage whatever victory we can, and that may be as good as it gets for 2012. Sticking together is in all our best interests. Write-in voting is not.


Personality Cultists won't listen to you.

Jill Stein and the Greens have already qualified for

federal matching funds and I don't see the "beginning of the end" of the two party system. You are representing this as a first time event which it is not, just like all the other twisted specious arguments Johnsonistas use to bottom feel Ron Paul votes.

Stein matching funds:


Release the Sandy Hook video.


this is the only legitimate argument I have heard so far. I wish RP just attached himself as VP. Shame that didn't happen. If by some miracle they won everyone would know the real president was RP. The only reason to vote for GJ is to strengthen the libertarian party and actually start to form the only substantial resistance to the duopoly.

Please Confirm As Soon As You Are 100% Certain.

Please Confirm As Soon As You Are 100% Certain.

I am tracking all this. It is immense work. Hours, every day, but this is seriously IMPORTANT.

Thank You. Keep trying your very best.

We all need to be on the same page here.

And as a funny side note: I have always networked with The Grassroots. I never worked with the "Official Campaign".

Isn't it interesting that it is US - THE TRUE GRASSROOTS RON PAUL R[3]VOLUTION that are pushing with all our might in the final stretch? Why? Because WE ARE THE TRUE RON PAUL R[3]VOLUTION!

It has taken me an immense amount of work and sleepless nights to compile the information I have amassed in this article:

RON PAUL R[3]VOLUTION: The Write-In Campaign:


Wisdom Strategies