Virgil Goode is Only Presidential Candidate Who Filed for Write-in Status in North Carolina

North Carolina is the only state that requires presidential write-in candidates to file a petition if they wish their write-ins to be counted. The only presidential candidate who collected the needed 500 signatures this year is Virgil Goode, Constitution Party nominee. This is the only the second time that the Constitution Party has had this status. In 1996, the other time, Howard Phillips was credited with 258 write-in votes.

The three presidential candidates who will have their names printed on the ballot in 2012 are the nominees of the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties.

In 2008, the Green Party did obtain write-in status in North Carolina for Cynthia McKinney. She was credited with 158 write-ins.


  1. Craig M. · · Reply

    Like in Indiana, voters will be able to vote FOR the candidate of their choice instead of AGAINST another candidate. Write-in Goode On Nov 6th, it will be easier to sleep at night, as opposed to being timid and voting against your least favorite candidate….

  2. Casual Bystander · · Reply

    I wonder how Jill Stein managed to miss this?

  3. I’m glad to hear it. I plan to write in Mr. Goode. I hope to see a good turn out for him in all of the states.

  4. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    Instead of writing in a name, vote for Gary Johnson. He is the only candidate appearing on the ballot to challenge the two establishment parties.

  5. Dave,are you from NC? If so please email me

  6. @4 YES! Vote for Gary Johnson! I respect Goode for his noble efforts, but he is unfortunately not a viable candidate to beat the duopoly establishment (ballot access wise as well as with respect to his past/positions).

  7. Laurence · · Reply

    I will not vote for Johnson, but I will vote for Goode! Virgil Goode represents my values. If I just wanted to vote for who has the best chance of winning, I should vote for Obama (after all, he’s ahead in the polls). This is not about winning. It’s about conscience and doing what’s right. Johnson is pro-abortion, supports legalizing drugs, supports gay marriage, supports NAFTA, WTO, the UN and other non-constitutional organizations. Yuck! The Constitution Party believes in limited, Constitutional government and sound morals…I’ll vote for that every time! Go Virgil Goode!

  8. give-me-liberty · · Reply

    The Constitution Party believes in limited, Constitutional government and sound morals…

    That’s an oxymoron.

  9. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    “Johnson is pro-abortion, supports legalizing drugs…”

    Johnson is not pro-abortion, he is pro-choice. It is extremely ignorant to use the word “pro-abortion”. That word doesn’t make any sense. If you want to have a civilized debate over policy, please use the word “pro-choice”.

  10. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    “Johnson is pro-abortion, supports legalizing drugs, supports gay marriage…The Constitution Party believes in limited, Constitutional government”

    Where in the constitution does it say people do not have the right to use drugs and marry the person they love? Is in in Article 2? Or was it in Article 5 of the constitution? What about Amendment 16? I can’t find it anywhere in the constitution, but I am sure you did so please tell me where.

  11. Will Fenwick · · Reply

    The constitutional right of the government to regulate drugs does not come from any amendment rather it comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Commonly known as the commerce clause. Congress has the right to regulate any salable good. The right for states to regulate marriage stems from the Tenth Amendment which gives the state governments the right if the wish to regulate anything not mentioned in the constitution.

  12. Richard Winger · · Reply

    #12, if that’s true, why was the 18th amendment needed?

  13. “Johnson is not pro-abortion, he is pro-choice. It is extremely ignorant to use the word “pro-abortion”. That word doesn’t make any sense. If you want to have a civilized debate over policy, please use the word “pro-choice”.”

    Abortion is the murder of a human being. Being “pro-choice” on abortion is like being “pro-choice” on slavery. Both are wrong. Both violate basic human rights.

  14. Will Fenwick · · Reply

    It wasn’t needed. If the government wanted to today there no case law that i am aware of stating that it cannot include alcohol under the controlled substances act. At the time there was no Controlled Substances Act, and during the prohibition era most regulation of drugs was through prohibitive taxes and tariffs that made it virtually impossible for someone to purchase the regulated drugs. The temperance movement felt very strongly about having a pure ban on alcohol and as such went for a constitutional amendment that specifically banned alcohol rather than getting a bill passed by congress that banned it.

  15. Will Fenwick · · Reply

    I also agree that being pro choice is being pro abortion in that pro choice people wish for abortion to exist so people can choose to use it.

  16. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    I never said it was unconstitutional to restrict marriage and drug choices, but it would require viewing the constitution more broadly. I don’t see how a candidate that “believes in limited, Constitutional government” can also be for viewing the constitution in a broad sense.

  17. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    @12, so you obviously believe that ObamaCare is constitutional.

  18. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    The term “pro-abortion” is someone who loves it when women get abortions (I doubt there are many people who are that mentally sick in this country). The term “pro-choice” is someone who thinks it is immoral for abortions to occur, but they also feel that it is not the government’s place to prevent them. Those are two completely different terms. I wish you would use them correctly.

  19. Will Fenwick · · Reply

    I have not read the entire provisions of the Obamacare law. But the government has forced people to buy items in the past through Militia laws that legally required all men over a certain age to own muskets. That provision of the militia act was never tested constitutionally to my knowledge. On the other hand there have been cases where laws were found unconstitutional because “direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government”. There doesn’t really seem to be any well established balancing test within the realm of regulating medical practice at the moment, so its hard to judge where the courts have held the commerce clause to trump the 10th amendment on the matter and so forth.
    It should be noted that the majority opinion of the recent supreme court case concerning Obamacare did constitutionally test any element of Obamacare other than whether the revenues it generated were fee based or tax based.

  20. Will Fenwick · · Reply

    Their are people who label themselves as pro-choice who clearly do not think that abortions are immoral. Political labels often mean different things to different people. For example within the realm of political science labeling someone as a conservative in Europe means something completely different than it does in the united states. True European conservatives (which are rather few in number today) would label virtually all American conservatives as liberals.

  21. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    The suffix “pro-” means “for”. If you are “pro-abortion”, you are “for abortion”. I am pro-choice, but I do not consider myself to be for abortions. I am pro-choice because I do not want the government deciding things that people are capable of deciding.

  22. Ross Perot · · Reply

    Libertarian Leader Launches South Caroline “US Parliament Party” (and more):

    Candidate for Governor of South Carolina in 2014 MP Ralph Beach [Libertarian] Founds US Parliament Party:

  23. Ross Perot · · Reply

    Youngest known female African American write-in US presidential candidate Prime Minister Tiffany Briscoe [Green Tea-Rainbow]:

  24. Michael · · Reply

    The vast majority of people who are pro-choice are like that only with Roe vs Wade. School prayer, the Second Amendment, flying a Confederate flag, using tobacco, opting out of Social Security….guess again.

  25. We need to vote for goode because hes the best guy.
    i vote for whos the best not whos the front runner.

  26. Craig M. · · Reply

    Since the topic got on abortion, if you need a good argument against pro-choice, here is some food for thought. If someone says, “You can’t tell someone what to do with his/her body.” That is true, however, the embryo is not pat of the woman’s body. It is inside of her, and is connected, but the DNA does not match identically. That is why the woman secretes chemicals to harm the embryo and the embryo in turn has a defense mechanism to protect itself from the attack. Hence, it is a miracle for an embryo to make it out alive. Thus, abortion is putting to death a human whose DNA is not identical to that of the person to whom it is connected.

  27. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    @27, but the woman still has to carry it for 9 months. Why should you, a man, tell women that they legally must carry a baby in them for 9 months? It is one thing to say that abortion is morally wrong; it is another thing to say that abortion is legally wrong.

  28. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    My strongest argument in favor of choice is this: Just because something is illegal, doesn’t mean people won’t do it. We seen this in the early 1900s with the prohibition of alcohol. We are seeing it now with the prohibition of weed. Just because something is illegal, doesn’t mean people won’t do it.

    That statement will hold true if abortion is ever made completely illegal. People who wish to get an abortion will either go down to Mexico or up to Canada, or they might give themselves an abortion in their own house. It is better for a procedure like that to happen in an American hospital, rather than a more dangerous place.

  29. Craig M. · · Reply

    It would be interesting to research the history of abortions. Yes, prior to 1973, women still got abortions but with the added difficulty of it not being legal. It seems as if abortion is more of a modern event, or at least publicized more in modern times. Although I was not there, I can only surmise that the thought of aborting a child was unthinkable among a vast majority of American people prior to the 20th century.

  30. citizen1 · · Reply

    The argument that if it is illegal people will still do it so have it legal is stupid. Why not legalize murder (which to some abortion is) and rape and many other things? A child cannot care for itself when it is born and needs to be cared for by another can we still kill it if we do not want to care for it?
    As for the CP position on drugs, there are many members that believe that the states have the right to regulate and even ban them but that the federal government cannot does not have that authority.
    People should vote for the candidate that best reflects their views. I have voted for Libertarian candidates in the past when no candidate from my party was on the ballot or a write-in because a true libertarian will not allow taxpayer money to fund abortion.

  31. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    “As for the CP position on drugs, there are many members that believe that the states have the right to regulate and even ban them but that the federal government cannot does not have that authority.”

    Then why is your nominee for a federal office campaigning on the fact that he will make sure drugs stay illegal?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: