Nope, still Republican Crime Time. Since Dems are basically cowards, it’s pretty much always Republican Crime Time.
8 Likes
3U.S. Code §1 & 3 U.S. Code §7 would need to be enforced/upheld by SCOTUS but since more than half the court arrives at decisions based more on ideology than on points of law, they would try to find a way, in the best interest of the nation, to allow it (hopefully Roberts will be the swing vote the right way). I’m not that optimistic, however.
This is what is weird to a non USian. In the UK this would be like members of the Labour party voting for a new party leader and getting to elect the Mayor of London at the same time. Bonkers.
Why/how did independent political party machinations limited to party members get subsumed into/consumed by public/civic elections at large. Looking for a very brief history lesson here, 'cos it makes no sense at all to an outsider.
5 Likes
Republican politicians installing conservative judges who help steal elections is a big part of it. As explained in detail here regarding the current Wisconsin case, it’s all about stealing elections for the sake of a minority because otherwise, that minority would lose, being, you know, a minority.
5 Likes
Thanks. Yes, I get that bit. What I don’t get is why/how private/internal party elections ever became bound up with more general civic/public elections in the first place.
I get that now they are bound up together, forcing these elections to go ahead is for reasons of evil and deliberate fuckwittery - I just don’t know how the US ever got to this position, as per my UK equivalent nonsense example.
3 Likes
I’m a US citizen, and it makes absolutely no sense to me too.
5 Likes
Because we are a nation of states and not a strictly federalist system. In other words, all powers not expressly granted to the fed are left to the states. In that same vein, it is the states that actually elect federal officers, not the whole of the US population. Because of this, state parties and state governments are left to decide when primaries happen, how representative districts are divided (ie. gerrymandering) and how voter rolls are handled. Of course, in very conservative states, this results in disenfranchisement via redistricting and voter roll purges as well as the current fuckery we’re seeing in Wisconsin. The GOP there knows that their constituency tends to be older, more rural and more well-off than the Democrats, so voter turnout in this kind of situation is bound to swing in their favor. They’re also willing to sacrifice every one of them on the altar of short-term gains because they know that the US electorate is rapidly shifting away from their policies. This has led to state and federal-level strategies of installing sympathetic judges that will ensure the interpretation of law swings in their favor as @milliefink mentions.
And yes, it is completely bonkers.
Also, if you think that’s crazy, see the case of Kemp vs. Abrams. He was the conservative Attorney General of Georgia tasked with overseeing elections. He purged hundreds of thousands of mostly Democratic voters from the rolls just before the election and scraped by with a victory. Of course, he should have recused himself from election oversight, but he didn’t. And that’s all it takes in the USA. One person just says “fuck you” and millions of people look the other way.
7 Likes
Thanks, again. But again the response focuses on the consequences. The sentence above glides over it. How and why did state governments get to dictate how/when/where state parties conduct their internal candidate/leadership elections?
ETA Thought experiment: what happens if/when a third party emerges and decides to hold a single national postal ballot, for paid-up members only, to elect its leader/candidate?
3 Likes
Because they control the respective states and because those rules aren’t specifically laid out by the Constitution or the Federal laws.
Per the 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It’s also worth noting here that every state’s laws are different; some have legislative authority over elections, and some are left to the parties to decide. But in reality, state and party are one and the same. There is nothing even resembling a parliamentary-style coalition government.
They would be crushed. You do see limited, regional parties make some impact, but since the system is built on hegemony, there is basically zero chance of any national third party making any impact, let alone winning.
If that means what I think it means… HA! Even with a pandemic and the prospect of everyone going to the polls as living dead, it will almost certainly not happen here. Again, that would favor poor, urban minorities so it’s almost certainly not going to happen in GOP led states, which means that, because of the electoral college, we are back at square one.
So here’s a thought experiment for you; if trump decides he’s going to suspend the election (which he can’t do, but he hasn’t been checked doing anything else unconstitutional) states will then decide to comply or not to comply. States like NY would certainly go ahead with the election, while states like Mississippi would follow his wishes. That would mean that the electoral college could not certify results, which would mean that, in effect, trump was able to suspend elections. Illegal, but who’s going to stop him?
Does that answer your questions? It’s infuriating and nonsensical, I know.
2 Likes
There are 3rd parties in the U.S., though they don’t have much power to speak of. All parties can (and some still do) choose to have a closed nominating process that’s only open to party members, and there are many different ways they can choose to run that process. Let’s just say it’s complicated. But if you want to take advantage of a statewide election that’s run by the government rather than your party, you give up quite a bit of control over the process.
I think most 3rd parties just nominate candidates via an in-person vote among members attending a statewide party convention.
4 Likes
How does this give them control of PARTIES?
How/why did this come about? Why would a state legislate its own role over a party?
This is like Parliament dictating how the Tory/Labour party leadership elections will be run. There’d be riots in the streets!
But apparently not…
Are you saying that basically the parties CHOSE to abrogate their right to run their own internal elections to State authorities? Presumably purely for convenience/cost reasons? Chickens coming home to roost now, eh?
ETA at this point i think I should just give up and stop asking - it’s obviously a broken system and nonsensical and steeped in history, custom and practice
1 Like
Neither way is ideal, but prior to having an open nomination process these decisions were made entirely by party insiders and power players in the proverbial “smoke-filled back rooms” so that wasn’t always great either.
1 Like
So I guess that makes the Wisconsin and US Supreme Courts in effect “Death Panels,” as they attempt to force citizens de-isolate?
2 Likes
…does not require legal/state authority intervention.
Witness how UK part leader elections have moved from smoke-filled rooms to one-member-one-vote without legal intervention.
Did State legislatures decide smoke-filled rooms were a bad thing and legislate them away? Smoke-filled rooms that presumably put the legislators there to start with?
1 Like
Yep.
Wisconsin Republicans Are Giving Residents of Their State a Choice: Democracy or Disease
5 Likes
I’m curious how votes are physically collected in the U.K.? Is it mail-in to party offices, or are there physical polling stations operated around the country by and for party members? How is the system paid for? Are there fees to join a party?
Thanks
1 Like
In the majority of states the primaries are run by the States through their election boards. The party only controls what they do with the results, which candidates get how many delegates based on what criteria. And to a somewhat lesser (and more varied) extent who ends up on the ballot for/as their party.
The exceptions are the caucus states, who stuck to a weird mutant version of the non-public system. And a few “party primary” states where one or more parties switched to a primary without a change in state law.
A big thrust of electoral reform in the 60’s was removing as much of the election apparatus as possible from party control.
It’s not really. The entire house’s terms expire just like POTUS. So there will be no house and there will be no speaker.
And while Leahy is the most senior member of the caucus and the most recent DNC Pro Tempore, it doesn’t have to be him. The Senate votes to pick and while Leahy is the guy who would ordinarily be picked. In this case that person is going to be president.
You still need 270. There are enough GOP controlled states to make that happen. But doing so involves convincing all states to both not vote, and to rubber stamp their electors. And there’s still the issue of federal law requiring an election.
1 Like
There are fees to join a party (though some exceptions such as some union members whose unions are affiliated to Labour for example) and yes, members post in their ballots (or go online) and the party counts them and declares the result.
No state intervention.
Aren’t there membership fees for US parties? Or does one just ‘register’ (where? how?) with a party or as a party supporter (not member?)?
1 Like
The Labour party leadership election has just finished.
Procedure
The election was conducted under a pure one member, one vote (OMOV) system, using the instant-runoff voting electoral system with preferential balloting to calculate the result.[7][8] Votes were cast using postal ballots and online voting forms. Candidates were elected by members and registered and affiliated supporters, who all received a maximum of one vote, and all votes were weighted equally. This meant that, for example, members of Labour-affiliated trades unions needed to register as affiliated Labour supporters to vote.[9] Members who joined before 20 January were eligible to vote.[8]
To stand, candidates needed to be nominated by at least 10 per cent of the combined membership of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and European Parliamentary Labour Party (EPLP), meaning 22 MPs and MEPs at the time. As a result, a maximum of nine candidates can stand. They also needed to be nominated by at least 5 per cent of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs), meaning at least 33 CLPs, or at least three party affiliates that consist of at least 5 per cent of affiliate members including at least two trades unions.[7][10] Affiliates consist of affiliated trades unions, socialist societies and the Co-operative Party.[10][11]
The timetable for the election was set by the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) on 6 January 2020.[12]
Nominations from the Parliamentary Labour Party and European Parliamentary Labour Party opened on 7 January and closed on 13 January. Between 15 January and 15 February, constituency parties and affiliate organisations could nominate their preferred candidate. Applications to become a registered supporter opened on 14 January and closed on 16 January. Voting in the membership ballot opened on 24 February[13] and closed at midday on 2 April. The result of the leadership election was announced on 4 April.[14] The special conference planned for the announcement of the election result was “scaled-back” on 12 March because of the coronavirus pandemic.[15]
By the party.
Yes, there are fees. There are usually reductions for people on welfare, retirees and students. The Labour Party also has discounts for affiliated union members and anyone in the armed forces.
4 Likes
Thanks, I knew someone would post a more comprehensive version. 
