Trump's Coup d'état.

[ponderingturtle]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.