You're right that the data is partial, since it only goes back to 1989. If someone takes the time to cut and paste that much data, I'm not inclined to P&M for not going back further. The only way I know to get data back that old is to hunt and peck through the archived issues of MA.

KE, in Red's defense he didn't say Hoss hasn't been kept off the ballot. Re-read what he said and you'll see that your comment "To say that this set of results demonstrates that Hoss hasnt been keep off the ballot kinda misses the mark.....". What Red said was "Notice how many listed Horrace Cain, so these could be eliminated as keeping him from appearing on the ballot." (Emphasis mine) It's a small but important difference. When you call someone on something you need to make sure you're calling him on what he actually said.

I don't think he was trying to indicate that Horrace hadn't been kept off the ballot. At least I didn't read it that way. If I had I'd have called him on it in my own reply.

It's unclear to me when the bylaws/standing rules pertaining to nominations were put into play, exactly. There is a date of 1982 listed under one of the sections, but it's not the specific section that deals with nominations. It's in the section immediately following. It's possible that the date refers to the entire section of "standing rules" since that's the first date listed, but I'm just speculating. Take a look and you'll see what I mean.

I'm glad you brought up the story of Horrace's successful write-in campaign. I've heard a version of the story, but can't remember the specifics about the ballot. To me, this makes it look like the nominating procedures as listed now date at least back to that incident, if not even earlier. I think the write-in campaign was 1981, but I'm not sure.

Do you know if the circumstances were the same at that point? Max of 3 on the ballot, more than 3 qualified nominations, so someone is odd man out. Assuming that's the case, we now know of at least 2 incidents where the current procedures eliminated a qualified individual from the ballot. As you point out, he was the incumbant, which requires a 3/4 majority, not just a simple majority. It's interesting to note that in both of these cases it was the same individual. I'd still like to know if those are the only two cases, or if the procedure has ever been applied to keep a qualified individual off the ballot when it wasn't necessary to cull someone to meet the max 3 limit. I think that's an important piece of information, but have NO idea how to retrieve it.

The other thing that occurs to me here is that the EC in this case removed a qualified candidate from the ballot that the district membership felt strongly enough about to elect anyway. That's another indication to me that the procedure is fatally flawed.

I've heard the story, KE, and I'm not willing to take it as gospel based on the word of one person who had a huge dog in the fight. If it's true, though, then any number of individuals should have been strung up by their thumbs. I've also got to speculate that if it could have been proven then there would have been legal action undertaken. I believe that such fraud would have been a criminal act, not just liable for civil action. And before anyone jumps in here and accuses me of esssentially calling someone a liar, I'm not. there's just not enough information available to convince me to buy into it.

So....again....back to the beginning. I've made a suggestion of a framework for some possible changes in the procedures. I've seen little comment on that, and no alternative suggestions.

How should things be changed? That's what this thread is about.