Trump's Coup d'état.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Susheel

I could never understand why the election of a Party nomination for President becomes the responsibility of the government in the US. Shouldn't this be done by the parties themselves internally through whatever mechanism they deem fit?

And that was through choosing representatives to the party conventions with the primary vote. It is fundamentally the parties who set the rules that is why you have primaries and you can have different rules for different parties in a single state. Ultimately the parties decide how many and how the electors at the convention are selected.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

In-party elections, which is what the primaries are, should be entirely separate from actual public elections.

Quoted for emphasis.

But yeah, if your party chooses to elect the leadership through a trial by combat system, that should be OK. Actually, are there even any rules against that?

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

The political parties are not a part of official government. They are a construct that is not even mentioned in the US constitution, I gather. They are effectively clubs or associations of like-minded people. They can have any kind of membership to be "in the party" however they like. And they can ask whomever they want to choose their leaders however they want, debates, hoopla, balloons and all. As long as it is all legal, of course.

If you wish to register with a party as a member and perhaps be active in their political works then by all means do so. But that should have zero bearing on your ability to cast official votes in any elections. You should not have to be a party member, even nominally, to be allowed vote. The party should not be able to enrol you to vote either. None of their business.

Instead, you should be able to register to vote completely independently of any party affiliation or lack thereof. Your name should go on (or stay on) a voters' register, put there by you, solely if you qualify to be able to vote. There should be no need and no space to put down "D" or "R" next to that.

It seems like you are suggesting party affiliation should not be allowed. I'd disagree. I would say it should not be required (in practice that means most would choose to list it). However, I'm guessing that I am describing something similar to the current system? Or is it required in the current system (if you are not listing a party you would be listed as independent)?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Susheel

I could never understand why the election of a Party nomination for President becomes the responsibility of the government in the US. Shouldn't this be done by the parties themselves internally through whatever mechanism they deem fit?

Yeah, that's always struck me as a bit odd. It seems like the system is set up to run a one-party state, but by some historical accident it's ended up with two parties in it. It also seems designed to make it more or less impossible for a third to gain any serious share of the vote.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

It seems like you are suggesting party affiliation should not be allowed. I'd disagree. I would say it should not be required (in practice that means most would choose to list it). However, I'm guessing that I am describing something similar to the current system? Or is it required in the current system (if you are not listing a party you would be listed as independent)?

In the UK, when you're registered to vote, it isn't as a Labour voter, a Conservative voter or an Independent voter; it's as a voter. Party affiliation is completely irrelevant to voter registration. I don't see any reason why it should be listed in the US. What is the justification for it?

Dave

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Yeah, that's always struck me as a bit odd. It seems like the system is set up to run a one-party state, but by some historical accident it's ended up with two parties in it. It also seems designed to make it more or less impossible for a third to gain any serious share of the vote.

Dave

AIUI, FPTP tends to lead towards a two party state - although in some parts of a country the two parties may be different.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by The Don

AIUI, FPTP tends to lead towards a two party state - although in some parts of a country the two parties may be different.

True, but requiring voters to register ab initio as Democrat, Republican or Independent seems to give a strong message that there can only be two legitimate parties.

Dave

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

In-party elections, which is what the primaries are, should be entirely separate from actual public elections.

I think the problem is we call them elections when they aren't.

And yes the fact that we seem to treat the party choosing a candidate and a the populace voting as some singularly linear process is a problem.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Yeah, that's always struck me as a bit odd. It seems like the system is set up to run a one-party state, but by some historical accident it's ended up with two parties in it. It also seems designed to make it more or less impossible for a third to gain any serious share of the vote.

Dave

The existence of partisan primaries isn't what creates that particular problem. The state doesn't dictate that only Republicans and Democrats have state-sponsored party primaries. The candidates who receive a certain level of votes in the previous election have to hold primaries. Of course, there's fifty different sets of rules, but I know that the states I've looked up have some basic commonalities.

So, in the one case I remember looking up once upon a time, if the Libertarian candidate were to receive 5% of the vote in a presidential election in Illinois, four years later there would be a Libertarian primary held in Illinois. However, our election systems basically ensure that no third party candidate ever gets more than 5% of the vote.

By the way, the parties don't have to acknowledge the results of the state primaries. A few years ago there was a controversy where the Michigan delegation wasn't seated at the convention. I can't recall the details, but one of the parties had a rule that only certain states were allowed to hold primaries before a certain date. i.e. They had put in a rule that preserved Iowa, New Hampshire, and the other early bird voters to keep their monopolies. Michigan moved its primary forward, so one of the parties said they wouldn't honor the results by seating the delegates picked. I don't recall how they worked it out.

Maine introduced ranked choice voting this year for President. I expected that would result in the Libertarians and Greens to flood the state, because now voting for one of them as your first choice wouldn't have meant throwing away your vote, but it didn't seem to affect the results very much. There were still very few votes for third party candidates, and both the state and the individual congressional districts were won by absolute majorities, so the instant runoff provisions didn't kick in.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

In the UK, when you're registered to vote, it isn't as a Labour voter, a Conservative voter or an Independent voter; it's as a voter. Party affiliation is completely irrelevant to voter registration. I don't see any reason why it should be listed in the US. What is the justification for it?

Dave

It has to do with our system of primaries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK, the party selects who shows up in a district as the candidate for that party.

"Registering as a Democrat" just means that when primary time rolls around, you get to vote in the Democratic primary. Some states require you to register in advance, but other states just let you walk in and ask for a specific ballot. So, in Michigan, there really isn't any such thing as a "registered Democrat". There is "a voter who voted in the Democratic primary last time". I still hear people use the term "registered Democrat" around here, but in our state, there's no such thing. For four years I was a "registered Republican", because I voted in the Republican primary against Donald Trump. I just showed up at the polling place, they asked me which ballot I wanted, and I said Republican.

Primaries have a populist sort of feel. They grew in popularity because people felt excluded when the parties picked candidates without direct voter input. I think what grew up is a pretty bad system, but I understand why it sounds good to people.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It has to do with our system of primaries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK, the party selects who shows up in a district as the candidate for that party.

Correct, and to join the party costs money and when I was active you had to turn up to a local party meeting to vote to select your candidate.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It has to do with our system of primaries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK, the party selects who shows up in a district as the candidate for that party.

"Registering as a Democrat" just means that when primary time rolls around, you get to vote in the Democratic primary. Some states require you to register in advance, but other states just let you walk in and ask for a specific ballot. So, in Michigan, there really isn't any such thing as a "registered Democrat". There is "a voter who voted in the Democratic primary last time". I still hear people use the term "registered Democrat" around here, but in our state, there's no such thing. For four years I was a "registered Republican", because I voted in the Republican primary against Donald Trump. I just showed up at the polling place, they asked me which ballot I wanted, and I said Republican.

Primaries have a populist sort of feel. They grew in popularity because people felt excluded when the parties picked candidates without direct voter input. I think what grew up is a pretty bad system, but I understand why it sounds good to people.

In Arizona, you still register as Dem, Repub, or Independent. But when the primary rolls around you are asked which ballot you want.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

In the UK, when you're registered to vote, it isn't as a Labour voter, a Conservative voter or an Independent voter; it's as a voter. Party affiliation is completely irrelevant to voter registration. I don't see any reason why it should be listed in the US. What is the justification for it?

Dave

Oh, for the most part, that's the way it works here too. Party affiliation is irrelevant in the general election. Where it matters is in certain states (not all states) when it comes to voting in the primaries (or caucuses, as the case may be) where being registered in a party may be required (but not always).

And yes, every state does it's own thing.

[JoeMorgue]

Because, and everytime I bring this up it starts a fight, America has a very specific mythology (one that makes zero sense if you put even the most basic amount of thought into it) about primaries/caucuses.

Rank and file, street level registered members of America's two major political parties are very, very, very vested in the idea that the primaries are about the party leadership asking them who the candidate should be.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by varwoche

I wonder what Thanksgiving is like for a kid in a detention center who will never be reunited with their parents.

[Tactless Humor]
They don't celebrate Thanksgiving where they come from, so it will just be "Thursday".
[/Tactless Humor]

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

When people vandalize a statue, we must soberly consider every possible eventuality, up to and including the notion that America is teetering on the brink of a hellscape of mob rule.

When people threaten violent rebellion against the government, we laugh at them for being fat.

I'm not sure you really grok the difference between a mob and a person.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by shemp

Sorry, I don't like that because I don't like open primaries. A person should have to declare a political affiliation to vote in a primary. And I believe that declaration should have to be made at least several months in advance of the primary, to prevent "spoiler" voter from crossing parties to try to affect the party primary negatively.

On the other hand, I don't like close primaries. I think that who runs for president should have the backing of the people in general, not just partisans. As an independent, I don't think I should be shut out of the earliest, most crucial stages of considering nominees. Nor do I think I should have to affiliate myself with a party that I don't actually approve of in order to have input.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Yeah, that's always struck me as a bit odd. It seems like the system is set up to run a one-party state, but by some historical accident it's ended up with two parties in it. It also seems designed to make it more or less impossible for a third to gain any serious share of the vote.

Dave

It wasn't set up for a single party by any means. And the two-party situation we've been in for so long now is a natural outcome of having FPTP voting structure.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because, and everytime I bring this up it starts a fight, America has a very specific mythology (one that makes zero sense if you put even the most basic amount of thought into it) about primaries/caucuses.

Rank and file, street level registered members of America's two major political parties are very, very, very vested in the idea that the primaries are about the party leadership asking them who the candidate should be.

I think the parties as entities try to encourage that myth.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Susheel

I could never understand why the election of a Party nomination for President becomes the responsibility of the government in the US. Shouldn't this be done by the parties themselves internally through whatever mechanism they deem fit?

I believe it used to be the method, smoky back rooms or something.

[Skeptic Ginger]

One of the biggest problems with third parties in the US is no one wants to do the work, starting at the local level. Build the party up, put a couple Congressional candidates first.

Instead third parties, in the last half-century anyway, want to put a candidate up for POTUS without the groundwork of building the party up.

Sanders would have run as a third party candidate but he knew it would split the liberal vote, and that is another problem.

The Libertarian Party has something that is hard to fathom. It seemed like they were/are building up a real third party. But their convention in 2016 was bizarre. One candidate pranced around naked on the stage.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

On the other hand, I don't like close primaries. I think that who runs for president should have the backing of the people in general, not just partisans. As an independent, I don't think I should be shut out of the earliest, most crucial stages of considering nominees. Nor do I think I should have to affiliate myself with a party that I don't actually approve of in order to have input.

Your idea makes sense for an independent and no one else:

the general public has a say about who of the chosen candidates of the Parties they prefer.
If they get to vote twice, we might as well do away with all Primaries and just have Ranked Choice for everyone.

[Firestone]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Your idea makes sense for an independent and no one else:

the general public has a say about who of the chosen candidates of the Parties they prefer.
If they get to vote twice, we might as well do away with all Primaries and just have Ranked Choice for everyone.

Not a US citizen, but if I were, and given that some form of proportional representation doesn't look realistic in our lifetime, a 100 time this: "we might as well do away with all Primaries and just have Ranked Choice for everyone".

Maine and now Alaska showed the way (more or less anyway), 48 states to go ...

[dann]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

One candidate pranced around naked on the stage.

Did they elect that candidate?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

the general public has a say about who of the chosen candidates of the Parties they prefer.

That right there is the problem. The public isn't getting to vote for who they think should be president. They only get to vote for which of the party picks they want. And quite often, neither of the party picks is all that appealing.

The people aren't choosing a president. The Party Apparatuses and their Corporate Backers pick the two people that they want, and let the people decide between the giant douche and the **** sandwich.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That right there is the problem. The public isn't getting to vote for who they think should be president. They only get to vote for which of the party picks they want. And quite often, neither of the party picks is all that appealing.

The people aren't choosing a president. The Party Apparatuses and their Corporate Backers pick the two people that they want, and let the people decide between the giant douche and the **** sandwich.

I seem to recall more than 2 candidates in the primaries for the Dems this year, and for the Reps in 2016, and even for the Dems in 2016, and for the Reps in 2012, etc.

[eerok]

Apparently a coup is still possible.

How Trump's Hill allies could take one last shot to overturn the election [politico.com]

Quote:

President Donald Trump's arsenal for overturning the election will soon be down to one final, desperate maneuver: pressing his Republican allies on Capitol Hill to step in and derail Joe Biden’s presidency.

Although the Electoral College casts the official vote for president on Dec. 14, it’s up to Congress to certify the results a few weeks later. And federal law gives individual members of the House and Senate the power to challenge the results from the floor — a rarely used mechanism meant to be the last of all last resorts to safeguard an election.

But several House Republican lawmakers and aides now tell POLITICO they’re considering this option to aid Trump’s quest.

“Nothing is off the table,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

True, but requiring voters to register ab initio as Democrat, Republican or Independent seems to give a strong message that there can only be two legitimate parties.

Dave

You can register in any number of parties. Be careful though, Independent is an actual party. If you don't want to be in a party register as unaffiliated. Most don't have primaries because why bother.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by eerok

Apparently a coup is still possible.

How Trump's Hill allies could take one last shot to overturn the election [politico.com]

Quote:

Gaetz pointed out that in January 2017, a handful of House Democrats took this precise procedural step before their efforts flamed out during a joint session of Congress presided over by none other than Biden, then the outgoing vice president.

I'd be surprised if goes even that far this time, but I've been surprised a few times in the last 5 years.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That right there is the problem. The public isn't getting to vote for who they think should be president. They only get to vote for which of the party picks they want. And quite often, neither of the party picks is all that appealing.

The people aren't choosing a president. The Party Apparatuses and their Corporate Backers pick the two people that they want, and let the people decide between the giant douche and the **** sandwich.

That's a much better description of how parliamentary systems work than the US system.

The primaries allow democratic election of the part's candidates. That almost never happens in Parliamentary systems.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by ahhell

I'd be surprised if goes even that far this time, but I've been surprised a few times in the last 5 years.

For myself, I've been getting pretty tired of all the surprises lately.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by eerok

Apparently a coup is still possible.

How Trump's Hill allies could take one last shot to overturn the election [politico.com]

You posted that as a joke, right?

No one takes Gaetz seriously.

[acbytesla]

I see that AG Barr has now come out and said that the Justice Department has not uncovered widespread fraud.

I guess he goes on the Trumpalos death list.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You posted that as a joke, right?

No one takes Gaetz seriously.

No secret that many GOP house members consider Gaetz to be an idiot.

I have seen no other politcal reporter consider this a realistic possiblity;I call "Click Bait" on that article.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I see that AG Barr has now come out and said that the Justice Department has not uncovered widespread fraud.

I guess he goes on the Trumpalos death list.

Shades of Hitler turning on Himmler in his last days...

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You posted that as a joke, right?

No one takes Gaetz seriously.

When it comes to things Trump is stupid enough to try, there is nothing too ridiculous.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by dann

Did they elect that candidate?

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/13/libertarian-stripper-james-weeks/85818782/

It looks like they banned him from the party. So much for libertarianism!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I seem to recall more than 2 candidates in the primaries for the Dems this year, and for the Reps in 2016, and even for the Dems in 2016, and for the Reps in 2012, etc.

We might be passing in the night here.

Multiple Dem* candidates in the Dem primaries, but only people registered Dem** are allowed to vote, and the candidates are largely determined based on support from within the Dem party apparatus, and heavily influenced by wealthy and corporate interests.

At the end of the day, when we get to the general election, we're not voting on who the best person is for the job. We're making a choice between people who have been pre-selected by political parties, even if that's not representative of what most people want.


* Replace Dem with Rep and repeat the same sentence

**Some states don't require registration as a Dem to vote in the Dem primary, but each person is still only allowed to vote in one primary, not all of them.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/13/libertarian-stripper-james-weeks/85818782/

It looks like they banned him from the party. So much for libertarianism!

Can't blame the LP here. No party likes to be made to look ridiculous.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Firestone

Not a US citizen, but if I were, and given that some form of proportional representation doesn't look realistic in our lifetime, a 100 time this: "we might as well do away with all Primaries and just have Ranked Choice for everyone".

Maine and now Alaska showed the way (more or less anyway), 48 states to go ...

If you think things are muddled and confused now, wait until a series of runoffs join the fray.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

We might be passing in the night here.

Multiple Dem* candidates in the Dem primaries, but only people registered Dem** are allowed to vote, and the candidates are largely determined based on support from within the Dem party apparatus, and heavily influenced by wealthy and corporate interests.

At the end of the day, when we get to the general election, we're not voting on who the best person is for the job. We're making a choice between people who have been pre-selected by political parties, even if that's not representative of what most people want.


* Replace Dem with Rep and repeat the same sentence

**Some states don't require registration as a Dem to vote in the Dem primary, but each person is still only allowed to vote in one primary, not all of them.

I don't think anyone can say that Donald Trump was pre-selected by his political party.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was.