From Arthur Torrey, anti-Barr Libertarian presidential elector who, until today, said he would go along with “substitution” in Massachusetts, where signatures were collected in George Phillies’s name:
I have sent the following message to the Mass. Secretary of States Office and the attorneys representing our side in the litigation concerning the substitution of Barr/Root for Phillies / Bennet. Essentially it means that if I have anything to say about it, Bob Barr will NOT be on the Ballot in Mass. I am deleting some addresses, otherwise it is as sent…
To whom it may concern;
I am one of the Presidential Elector Candidates for the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts (LPMA). As such I feel that it is necessary and appropriate that I express my feelings concerning the ongoing litigation concerning the right of the LPMA to substitute the names of the National Libertarian Party nominees for President and Vice President for those of George Phillies and Chris Bennet whose names currently appear on the LPMA petitions for the offices.
I wish it to be known that as a Presidential Elector Candidate, while I support the RIGHT of the LPMA and it’s electors to make a substitution, I am no longer willing to do so in the case of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root. I will NOT pledge to vote for Barr / Root in the event that their ticket wins the vote in Mass. and I will NOT sign any agreement to authorize the substitution of their names on for those of Phillies / Bennet on the presidential ballot.
This decision is due to actions taken by the Barr / Root campaign subsequent to this litigation being filed and, in my opinion, does not impact the basic facts of this case. While it is very true that there are considerable differences between Barr / Root and Phillies / Bennet as the Secretary of State alleges in the defense document, this is properly a matter for the members of the Libertarian Party to decide, not the Secretary.
I firmly believe that the basic circumstances of the case, which are that the LPMA initiated its petition drive with Phillies / Bennet under the advice of the Secretary of States Office that *IF* the LPMA desired to make a substitution, then this would be permitted. It is manifestly unfair for the Secretary’s office to change the “rules of the game” in the middle of the petitioning process.
As both a voter and taxpayer I would pray that, while I do not support substitution in THIS instance, the Court will see fit to rule that the electors have the right to substitute a candidate if they so choose, and direct the Secretary of State to develop fair and consistent rules for doing so. This would help to avoid the trouble and expense of future litigation on this topic.
Thank you,
ART
—
Arthur Torrey
LPMA Operations Facilitator
LPMA Presidential Elector, who will NOT vote for Barr!
Town Meeting Representative
Speaking only as myself unless otherwise indicated!
I think Roger MacBride kept his decision NOT to support Nixon a secret until after Nixon carried the State of Virginia.
The late Roger MacBride was the creator of the Little House on the Prairie TV series and the LP Candidate for President in 1976.
He was driven out of the LP in 1983 by the Berglandistas. He came back into local LP actvity in the early 1990s.
He cast the first Electoral Vote ever cast for a woman. The LP’s Toni Nathan for Vice President in 1972.
But wasn’t he a Nixon elector who didn’t want to vote for Nixon? Isn’t that the same situation?
1972. Roger MacBride. That has nothing to do with what Richard is talking about.
Richard – what about the Republican elector who voted for the Libertarian candidate? I forget what year it was, but I remember reading that it gave the LP the only electoral vote they ever received.
This letter from Art Torrey should actually help Barr/Root and the LP win their substitution case. Since even this disgruntled, sore-loser Elector Candidate agrees that substitution should be allowed and is the right thing to do.
Further, he claims that such substitution was planned on in advance, based on advice from the Secretary of State, and that it should be up to the LP whether or not to make such a substitution.
Of course the LP DID decide to make the substitution legally. And the fact that one disgruntled elector doesn’t like it, he makes a really good case that the substitution should be allowed.
Barr/Root and the LP should win this case. This would be good for the LP, good for ballot access rights, and good for the cause of Liberty – even if a bunch of crybabies can’t see it.
In 2004, a Republican presidential elector candidate in West Virginia named Richard Robb told the press he wouldn’t vote for Bush in the electoral college. He was Mayor of South Charleston and said he would vote for Kerry. No one would have suggested that therefore, Bush shouldn’t have been on the ballot. As it turned out, Robb was elected and he changed his mind and did vote for Bush.
Also, in 1948, two Democratic elector candidates in Tennessee said they wouldn’t vote for Truman if elected. They said they would vote for Thurmond. They were elected. One voted for Thurmond and one voted for Truman. Again, no one would have suggested removing Truman from the ballot just because of two rebelious electors.
darolew,
Not in a Torrey-centric universe it wouldn’t, but the world of law it’s hard to imagine a ruling that would only apply to Barr. As I understand it, the issue is whether the party can substitute or not; it’s not about specific candidates per se.
G.E.,
The presidential election is SUPPOSED TO BE about the electors.
That may be, but this isn’t the election, this is ballot access. As I understand it, the elector’s job function pretty much starts on Election Day. They are Electors, not Ballot Access Chieftains.
If Barr can’t get substituted, will this have an effect on future third party substitutions?
Well the Court hearing is on Friday, and presumably we won’t find out what the Judge thinks for a few days, but I’m hoping that this will leave Phillies on the ballot, but give us the right to do substitution in the future – IF we choose to…
I am urging George to do all he can to let the RP folks know that he DOES support their 4 basic points (Including the Fed plank – he isn’t thrilled by it, but has no major issues of conflict) and to start gearing up for the campaign in MA and NH – I figure it will be especially sweet if he beats Barr in NH where they are going head to head…
ART
LPMA Presidential elector, NOT substituting Barr!
Speaking for myself
Art is a hero.
The presidential election is SUPPOSED TO BE about the electors.
“Democracy” = socialism.
Two cheers for Torrey and republicanism!
Bob Barr’s petulance, Sean? This article is about Arthur Torrey’s petulance.
If Torrey’s letter influences the secretary of state at all (it shouldn’t), it seems the only potential effect is to make it more likely for a ruling against substitution. Which is bad.
If I’m reading the timing of this correctly then Torrey is effectively withdrawing his remaining tiny support for Barr/Root because Barr dissed Ron Paul – who, it’s worth remembering, is a sitting REPUBLICAN.
That’s right, Arthur, this election is all about you, the almighty Elector from MA. Perhaps you should file suit against Barr/Root as well. There must be more ways you can publicly piss on your party’s candidate.
See what Bob Barr’s petulance has brought him. George Phillies is the LP nominee in Massachusetts
No
GE,
Did Darcy send you an email about my suggestion?
thanks.. it’s been a long day! no paid work completed but I’ve — we’ve all — earned the unending hate of the LP criminal gang, and that is something on which a monetary value cannot be placed!
GE,
“could cause ballot access” in the title should say “could cost ballot access”
Heroic!
When will two Torrey-like heroes from the LNC step up and force a vote on Barr and Root’s removal from the ticket?