[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

JD Vance ENDS CNN Dana Bash’s Career LIVE on Air

Hell Let Loose - MOATS with George Galloway

Important Message: Our Country Our Choice

Israel is getting SLAUGHTERED in Lebanon, Americans are trapped | Redacted

Warren Buffett has said: “I could end the deficit in five minutes.

FBI seizes Diddy tape showing Hillary Clinton killing a child at a 'Freak Off' party

Numbers of dairy cow deaths from bird flu increasing to alarming rates

Elites Just Told Us How They'll SILENCE US!

Reese Report: The 2024 October Surprise?

Americans United in Crisis: Mules Carry Supplies to Neighbors Trapped by Hurricanes Devastation in NC

NC STATE POLICE WILL START ARRESTING FEDS THAT ARE BLOCKING AIDE FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES

France BANS ARMS SALES To Israel & Netanyahu LASHES OUT At Macron | Iran GETS READY

CNN Drops Bomb on Tim Walz, Releases Blistering Segment Over Big Scandals in His Own State

EU concerned it has no influence over Israel FT

How Israels invasion of Lebanon poses risks to Turkiye

Obama's New Home in Dubai?,

Vaccine Skeptics Need To Be Silenced! Bill Gates

Hillary Clinton: We Lose Total Control If Social Media Companies Dont Moderate Content

Cancer Patients Report Miraculous Recoveries from Ivermectin Treatment

Hurricane Aid Stolen By The State Of Tennessee?

The Pentagon requests $1.2bn to continue Red Sea mission

US security officials warn of potential threats within two weeks, ramped-up patrols.

Massive Flooding Coming From Hurricane Milton

How the UK is becoming a ‘third-world’ economy

What Would World War III Really Look Like? It's Already Starting...

The Roots Of The UK Implosion And Why War Is Inevitable

How The Jew Thinks

“In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic summer" John Kerry in 2009

Jewish FEMA disaster relief handbook actually mandates prioritising non-Whites for disaster relief

A Comprehensive Guide To Choosing The Right Protein Powde


(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Virginia GOP Will Require Voters To Sign ‘Loyalty Oath’
Source: OpEd News
URL Source: http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=143491
Published: Jan 1, 2012
Author: Elizabeth Hartfield
Post Date: 2012-01-01 15:13:19 by Original_Intent
Ping List: *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE*     Subscribe to *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE*
Keywords: NAZI Party, UnAmerican, Filthy, Fascists
Views: 286
Comments: 18

Less than a week after announcing that only two GOP presidential candidates qualified to appear on their ballot, the Republican Party of Virginia has adopted a new measure that may leave voters in the state scratching their heads: a loyalty oath.

On Wednesday the Virginia State Board of Elections approved a request from the Virginia GOP that will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the state’s presidential primary on March 6. A spokesman for the state’s election board tells ABC News that although some details are still in the works, voters wishing to cast a ballot must take the pledge.

“We’re still working out the details for how things will work on election day,” says Justin Riemer, spokesman for Virginia’s State Board of Elections, “but the instructions state that they must sign before voting.”

Voters do not register with a party in Virginia; thus the commonwealth’s primary is open to all residents, not just members of the Republican party. The oath, which reads “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican party for president,” is intended to deter non-Republicans from participating in the process unless they are serious about supporting the eventual GOP candidate.

“I think there was a desire to try and keep the Republican party for Republicans,” explains Kyle Kondik, a political analyst for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “It’s the one barrier to entry that the Republican party can put up to try and keep voting limited to people in the club.”

Kondik points out that the oath, however, is not enforceable from a legal standpoint, since voters are guaranteed the right to a private ballot.

“It’s an honor system,” says Kondik. “It doesn’t have any legally binding authority. People can go to the primary, sign the pledge and then vote for their candidate and then vote for Obama or a third-party candidate in the fall.”

Calls to the Republican Party of Virginia for comment were not immediately returned.


Poster Comment:

Of course the real reason for the attempt to limit who votes is that Ron Paul has a lot of support outside of the traditional Country Club NeoCon brainwashed Party Uber Alles crowd. So, what this is is an oblique attempt to cut into the support for Ron Paul and for traditional Constitutional Values.Subscribe to *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

#2. To: Original_Intent (#0)

I dont see how this could effect Ron Paul or anyone.
The pledge is meaningless and unenforceable.

Armadillo  posted on  2012-01-01   17:24:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Armadillo (#2)

I dont see how this could effect Ron Paul or anyone.
The pledge is meaningless and unenforceable.

True that it is not enforceable but it is not meaningless. It is a subtle form of intimidation. Most people are honest and do behave honestly most of the time, and feel bad when they do not. That acts as a natural impediment to an individual who cannot reason around that. Recognizing it as an act of intimidation I would have no moral compunction in acceding to it and then completely ignoring it as a specious attempt to control an election outcome, but that is just me.

Original_Intent  posted on  2012-01-01   17:30:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Original_Intent (#3)

True that it is not enforceable but it is not meaningless. It is a subtle form of intimidation. Most people are honest and do behave honestly most of the time, and feel bad when they do not. That acts as a natural impediment to an individual who cannot reason around that. Recognizing it as an act of intimidation I would have no moral compunction in acceding to it and then completely ignoring it as a specious attempt to control an election outcome, but that is just me.

Mental reservations do come in handy at times, eh?

James Deffenbach  posted on  2012-01-01   19:41:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 10.

#11. To: James Deffenbach (#10)

Mental reservations do come in handy at times, eh?

Well it comes down to a moral and ethical decision. Since the obvious intent of the oath is unethical then the greatest good is to be willing to accept responsibility for signing the unethical prerequisite and then disregarding it as of no weight. Sometimes life presents us with tricky moral questions and how we resolve them is a reflection of our own character. Here the decision is not whether or not to accept the oath but whether or not an oath demanded under what amounts to false pretenses and duress is binding? The obvious intent is to prevent those not already Brainwashed, Kool-Aid drinking, Gut Pardee Mempers from exercising their voice in the decision as to which candidate is best. Therefore what is not at first obvious is resolved - it is more moral and ethical, on balance, to accept the oath while regarding it as a non-binding oath given under duress.

Original_Intent  posted on  2012-01-01 20:09:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]