Get Rid Of SC “Sore Loser” Law

STATUTE SERVES POLITICAL PARTIES, NOT PALMETTO STATE’S CITIZENS || By FITSNEWS || We’re not especially exercised over the local election which led us to address this issue, but South Carolina’s “sore loser” law desperately needs to be addressed.  In fact it needs to be eliminated – as its existence is…


|| By FITSNEWS || We’re not especially exercised over the local election which led us to address this issue, but South Carolina’s “sore loser” law desperately needs to be addressed.  In fact it needs to be eliminated – as its existence is yet another sop to the Palmetto State’s failed two-party system of government.

The “sore loser” statute holds that any candidate who seeks the GOP or Democratic nomination for a particular office – and does not win that nomination – cannot continue campaigning for the seat.

They are not allowed to run as an independent, as a member of another party or as a write-in candidate.

“The law serves to protect the power of Democratic and Republican parties under our two-party system,” editorial writers at The (Spartanburg, S.C.) Herald-Journal opined in 2010.  “It does not serve the people.  In fact, the law limits the people.”

Indeed.  Taxpayers subsidize GOP and Democratic primary and runoff elections in this state – affairs which usually result in the election of intellectually incurious, glad-handing, fiscally liberal, anti-free market, pro-status quo conformists.

For years it was Democratic one-party rule driving South Carolina in the ground … but in recent history “Republican” rule has made things even worse.

Our state is in desperate need of new options … and doing away with the “sore loser” law is one way to generate such options.

No political party should be given preferential treatment at any level of government.  Candidates for all offices ought to be assessed on their merits, not the labels they affix to themselves.


Related posts


Missing Macaque Captured

Will Folks

Missing Macaque Wanders Walterboro

Will Folks

South Carolina’s Blue Crab Bill On Hold

Dylan Nolan


Politicians Suck June 9, 2015 at 7:23 am

Losers are like bad pennies. They keep turning up!

Will, I agree with you in theory. But we have a loser class that will wear out the pubic and its treasury if it gets a chance–the loser always feels like he/she is a f’ing genius and that the public is awaiting that genius to be delivered to their living room.

I say shoot all the losers at dawn on the day after the election. That would take care of a hell of a lot of trouble all at once.

The Colonel June 9, 2015 at 7:39 am

Let’s just shoot them all and see if we can do without for a year…

shifty henry June 9, 2015 at 8:34 am

Colonel, is that your daughter in the photo — showing us the “sign of the gun”?

The Colonel June 9, 2015 at 8:36 am

No daughters, only sons. I think she’s signaling to the waiter for a latte…

shifty henry June 9, 2015 at 8:56 am

Now I recognize this girl from a couple of weeks ago.

A professor and I were enjoying some drinks at a bar in Five Points when this girl from one of his classes, and wearing a really sexy outfit, sashayed over to him and said, “Like, I want you to totally screw my brains out tonight.”

“Sorry,” he replied, “I’m not into quickies.”

Stupid Twat Twaddle June 9, 2015 at 9:31 am

I bet Taylor was pissed when he told her that.

shifty henry June 9, 2015 at 11:06 am

Taylor doesn’t deserve that….

easterndumbfuckistan June 9, 2015 at 9:21 am

Send them off to Navassa Island for a year. If they can build a functioning society during the year they can come back and assume their office, if they fail the can stay on Navassa Island until they either starve or the build a functioning society. We won’t miss them much.

The Colonel June 9, 2015 at 9:56 am

Why mess up the Gecko’s habitat? Maybe Riker’s island would be a better test?

easterndumbfuckistan June 9, 2015 at 10:08 am

Riker’s is too close to land they might swim back. I’d consider Jarvis Island a suitable home for the politicians resort. Hope they bring lots of water with them though.

The Colonel June 9, 2015 at 10:28 am

Most of them wouldn’t survive the first night in Riker’s and putting them there would save us the trouble of putting them there later when they’re caught and convicted for whatever nefarious deeds the do.

I had never heard of Jarvis Island (and I have a degree in Marine Science…) Interesting place.

easterndumbfuckistan June 9, 2015 at 10:39 am

I like the way you think. Though they pols might corrupt the run of the mill murders, rapists and thieves at Riker’s it’s a chance will have to take.

I once wrote a paper on the Guano Islands Act. After doing so much research I think I have all the islands memorized.

plant city,usa June 9, 2015 at 7:25 am

Hmmm???Tom Ervin ran as a “self-identified former Democrat Independent Republican” or some such in his failed bid for governor last year after failing to secure the Republican Party nomination.Independents and Libertarians elect liberal Democrats when they run for office.


FITS is Pogo's Crack June 9, 2015 at 8:47 am

You couldn’t quit coming here any more than you could quit begging your allah Haley to raise our taxes like the liberal commie you are.

TroubleBaby June 9, 2015 at 8:17 am

Though it would appear on the surface to be a local issue, such a law would very much raise the eyebrows of the Duopoly nationally.

It’s always been a two party system, & it will remain that way as long as the empire remains intact- as it’s critical to “getting things done”/control.

They’ll never allow multiple parties and substantially more gridlock. The duopoly will remain and the Dems & Repubs will work together to make sure of it.

E Norma Scok June 9, 2015 at 3:18 pm

If they ever agree on one thing, it will be to join together to make sure their fiefdom is protected.

You Know My Name June 9, 2015 at 8:22 am

Great idea, Fits!!!! While we’re at it, let’s do away with that stupid “straight party” voting option which only serves to strengthen the big two, especially the Republican Party at present. If someone is too retarded to vote and pick out candidates, they probably don’t need to vote.

Victorious Secret June 9, 2015 at 9:26 am

+10 –> Today’s winner!

Centrist View June 9, 2015 at 12:18 pm

It’s the reason they joined a political party. If they have already made up their mind to vote the party line, why not let them?

E Norma Scok June 9, 2015 at 3:16 pm

I think the point is they can vote for anyone they like, but they have to actually vote for them separately than all at once. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll actually look at who they are voting for.

ELCID June 9, 2015 at 12:27 pm

Great idea. Force people to actually look at the candidates they are putting into office. Plus, get rid of the GOP & DEM’s locks on voters.

Diogenes June 9, 2015 at 4:51 pm

Better yet, do away with party labels on the ballot. Then the voter would actually have to acquaint himself or herself with the candidate’s positions on the issues.

Remembering Bill Clinton June 9, 2015 at 8:27 am

So with multiple candidates, and no one receiving a majority, would we have run offs in theGeneral Election too?

The Colonel June 9, 2015 at 8:47 am

Don’t try to explain why this is a stupid idea, this is just vacation filler to keep us molified till he gets back to town.

Mike at the Beach June 9, 2015 at 10:09 am

Bingo. It’s the nearly-constant conundrum of grownups who read this site. Do we waste minutes of our life that we’ll never get back explaining away every stupid FITS position? We gots to pick our battles, or we turn into GT (working full time as commenter here wouldn’t pay that well, I would imagine).

easterndumbfuckistan June 9, 2015 at 9:19 am

Instant runoff voting.

Better Idea June 9, 2015 at 8:45 am

Pass a law abolishing all parties and primaries. Make everyone run as an independent. No more of this party line voting shit.

Bible Thumper June 9, 2015 at 9:08 am

“Carolina’s “sore loser” election law (which we oppose), Adams is prohibited from doing anything to campaign for the seat.”
That is from the sheriff’s race article. If “Citizens United” protects third party free speech it seems that that the state can’t prevent Adams from campaigning.

easterndumbfuckistan June 9, 2015 at 9:12 am

For congressional, legislative and other representative elections (including presidential electors) I am a strong proponet of mixed member proportional voting.

Mixed member proportional voting (MMP) is a voting system that combines some features of a proportional voting system and some of a first past the post (FPTP) system. It tends to create widely representative parliaments with many parties catering to the preferences of broad sections of the voters. It frequently results in minority governments and governing by consensus. It is currently used in the national parliaments of Germany, Italy, New Zealand and Venezuela.

There are two ways to be elected to parliament under this system, the first is by personally winning a seat (by winning the most votes in a district). The second is through being high enough on a party’s list so as to qualify for election. The list is made up in advance of the election. In general, approximately half of the seats available are electoral seats and half are list seats. Each ballot consists of two votes, one for political parties and one for candidates in the particular electorate the voter resides in. The number of members of parliament (MPs) each party receives is proportional to the number of votes the party gets. The party first appoints those MPs who won their electoral seats, and any shortfall is made up from the list.

easterndumbfuckistan June 9, 2015 at 9:17 am

For governor, constitutional officers, sheriffs, and other executive elections I favor the Alternative Vote also called instant runoff voting.

In IRV, a voter picks not only their first choice for an office, but gives a order of preference for the remaining candidates. When the polls close, if a candidate has 50% “+” of first choice votes, they win. If no candidate has reached this threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is “removed”, or excluded, and their votes are redistributed according to the ballots’ second choice. The votes are re-tallied to see if a candidate has attained 50% “+” threshold. This process continues until one candidate reaches the threshold number of the votes, at which time a winner is declared.

Video Explanation:

FastEddy23 June 9, 2015 at 10:36 am

What! You guys still have “write-in” candidates?

I wish we had that. Taxifornia has dumped any semblance of genuine free for all elections, having adopted a complicated “winner-takes-all” primary scheme that favors incumbents and big party demagoguery.

sclefty June 9, 2015 at 10:44 am

Has the sore loser law ever been challenged in court? On its face, it wouldn’t appear to be constitutional seeing as how campaigning in a form of free speech.

Manray9 June 9, 2015 at 11:11 am

Rather undemocratic, isn’t it? But then again, upholding democratic principles has never been an interest of SC politicians.

ELCID June 9, 2015 at 12:26 pm

This law is clearly UnConstitutional and violates free speech guarantees.
I don’t think it has ever been challenged in court.
It would be interesting to see it done.
A winner would then be able to sue the GOP or DEM’s for damages and probably win big money.

Repubocratependent June 9, 2015 at 2:29 pm

So, you think it’s a good idea that someone can lose in a Dem primary and then run in the same election as an independent/Repub/Green, etc? That’s just plain stupid…
The campaign slogan would be something like “I didn’t win the Dem primary, but vote for me anyway…I’m really an independent. Wink, wink.”

Mike at the Beach June 10, 2015 at 1:35 am

How ’bout just get rid of the sore losers?

Lone Ranger June 10, 2015 at 7:18 pm

South Carolina’s all-day suckers who elect Boehner-loving Joe Wilson and their payday-grubbing legislature need to know
If you follow these felons they’ll lead you straight to Hell but then…that’s where unrepentant sinners are bound to go

You know me girl June 10, 2015 at 9:09 pm

Next time- Run as a Republican and Libertarian.


Leave a Comment