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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas

Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian

PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars

RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ?

Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion

Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days

Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills

Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole

Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands

Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump

Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia

329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition

Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says

Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive

Which Countries Invest In The US The Most?

The History of Barbecue

‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance

Lawsuit Reveals CDC Has ZERO Evidence Proving Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

Trumps DOJ Reportedly Quietly Looking Into Criminal Charges Against Election Officials

Volcanic Risk and Phreatic (Groundwater) eruptions at Campi Flegrei in Italy

Russia Upgrades AGS-17 Automatic Grenade Launcher!

They told us the chickenpox vaccine was no big deal—just a routine jab to “protect” kids from a mild childhood illness

Pentagon creates new military border zone in Arizona

For over 200 years neurological damage from vaccines has been noted and documented

The killing of cardiologist in Gaza must be Indonesia's wake-up call

Marandi: Israel Prepares Proxies for Next War with Iran?

"Hitler Survived WW2 And I Brought Proof" Norman Ohler STUNS Joe Rogan

CIA Finally Admits a Pyschological Warfare Agent from the Agency “Came into Contact” with Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK’s Assassination

CNN Stunned As Majority Of Americans Back Trump's Mass Deportation Plan

Israeli VS Palestinian Connections to the Land of Israel-Palestine


(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: 450
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]