Democrats try to game the election in Kansas to stop the GOP from taking the Senate

[Grummgug]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5833736.html

To nutshell the situation in Kansas:

1. polls show that in a three way race between the republican, democrat, and independent, the republican wins.
2. polls also show that in a race between the only the republican and independent, the independent wins.
3. the democrat thus has attempted to drop out of the race, in the hopes that the independent wins and caucuses with the democrats, effectively meaning the democrats win that election. He also timed his drop out within days of the ballots being printed, in hopes the clock runs out on state law requirements being enforced.
4. PLOT TWIST! the republican secretary of state argues that state law says it is too late to drop out of the race.
5. the Kansas state Supreme Court says he can drop out.
6. The Secretary of State says that is wrong, and if its not wrong, the democrats must put a replacement on the ballot, and if they refuse, he will get a court order to make the democrats put a name on the ballot.

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — The Republican serving as Kansas' top elections official won't give up on forcing Democrats to field a U.S. Senate candidate even if the state Supreme Court orders the current nominee to be removed from the ballot, in a dispute that could affect which party controls the Senate.

Secretary of State Kris Kobach said Tuesday that state law requires Democratic leaders to pick a new candidate if Chad Taylor is removed from the ballot. Taylor stopped campaigning earlier this month and sent a letter of withdrawal to Kobach's office. Kobach refused to remove Taylor from the Nov. 4 ballot, and the Democrat went to the Supreme Court.

Some Democrats pushed Taylor to drop out of the race against three-term Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, seeing independent candidate Greg Orman as the stronger rival for Roberts. They hoped to avoid splitting the anti-Roberts vote and hinder the GOP's effort to gain six seats and a new Senate majority.

Kobach told reporters afterward that another state law requires parties to fill candidate vacancies, and if he's ordered to remove Taylor from the ballot, he'll direct the Democratic Party to pick a replacement. If the party won't, he's ready to file a petition with the Supreme Court to force the issue.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

That's pretty screwed.

[Thage]

In other words, business as usual for bureaucrats.

[TITAN308]

Democrat apologists in 3...2...1...

Or its Bush's fault. Either or.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

In other words, business as usual for bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats were always fascinating because they produce nothing for the world but take in a lot of money for what they do.

[Kraenen]

Democrat apologists in 3...2...1...

Or its Bush's fault. Either or.

How can you trust this story coming from huffpost? It's the liberal media bias bastion! Left-wing echo-chamber, etc...

[Common Sense]

I have no problem with it. Republicans are the masters of rigging elections, so it's only natural that Democrats follow suit. Godspeed to the Democrats, keep those insane asylum escapees out of the Senate.

[Canpinter]

wait what did he do wrong....he dropped out to give someone he mostly agrees with a better chance at winning?

[icausewipes]

Democrat apologists in 3...2...1...

Or its Bush's fault. Either or.

business as usual for bureaucrats.

All in a day's work.

[Reg]

I fail to see the problem here. It's a smart move to not split up the votes.

[Xeones]

So democrats are trying to find alternate ways to combat conservative rigging of house seats?

[Kasierith]

So why does a secretary of state take precedence over a supreme court in interpreting the law?

[Masark]

So democrats are trying to find alternate ways to combat conservative rigging of house seats?

This is a senate election, not a house election.

- - - Updated - - -

So why does a secretary of state take precedence over a supreme court in interpreting the law?

Because he's a Republican and says he's right, of course.

[Gwiez]

There's nothing unethical about going for a second choice that has a higher chance of winning an election than your first choice. Compromise is necessary for a functioning democracy, and there's nothing guaranteeing an independent will caucus with a party that thinks its owed something (or that he will even win). The secretary of state is clearly playing politics, failing in his duty to uphold election law without bias.

[TITAN308]

And we are off!

[xChurch]

I don't get the problem? Democrats have a plan to beat the Republicans, they don't like it and try to legal action to get their way. Sounds pretty typical for American politics regardless of who's doing what.

[satimy]

Is this the independent guy that is a white supremecist?

[Wells]

I don't see the problem here. They crafted a ticket that had the greatest chance of getting them a desirable outcome.

[Xeones]

Is this the independent guy that is a white supremecist?

Nope, just a quick glance at his wiki page makes him sound like someone I would vote for. He seems like someone in the middle who both republicans and democrats could find positive points for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Orman

[Templar 331]

That's......freaking brilliant! Losing on purpose to make your opponent lose too. LOL!