maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on May 23, 2018 21:04:06 GMT
Surely it is unconstitutional to block someone from running? It violates the first amendment and the equal protection clause at the very least. No, as he ran (and lost). Same reason why the top-two systems (Washington, California, Louisiana) have been upheld.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 23, 2018 21:06:25 GMT
Surely it is unconstitutional to block someone from running? It violates the first amendment and the equal protection clause at the very least. No, as he ran (and lost). Same reason why the top-two systems (Washington, California, Louisiana) have been upheld. But they're a different kettle of fish: it's a whittling down process whereas the primary is purely an election to be the candidate of that party with an implication that you can run as an outsider if you lose, like Lieberman.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on May 23, 2018 21:12:30 GMT
No, as he ran (and lost). Same reason why the top-two systems (Washington, California, Louisiana) have been upheld. But they're a different kettle of fish: it's a whittling down process whereas the primary is purely an election to be the candidate of that party with an implication that you can run as an outsider if you lose, like Lieberman. Only 4 states (including Connecticut and New York) allows losers of primaries to run in the general. Primaries are considered like "phase 1" of the general election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 21:16:18 GMT
No, as he ran (and lost). Same reason why the top-two systems (Washington, California, Louisiana) have been upheld. But they're a different kettle of fish: it's a whittling down process whereas the primary is purely an election to be the candidate of that party with an implication that you can run as an outsider if you lose, like Lieberman. Its the norm. Only four states haven't got either a sore loser law or simultaneous registration dates for the primaries and the general election: New York, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa. The simultaneous registration dates is the more elegant solution imo, but sore loser laws are fully constitutional. The primaries are part of the election process and regulated by the states.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 23, 2018 21:23:35 GMT
Has their constitutionality been tested in court?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 21:25:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 23, 2018 21:57:49 GMT
No, as he ran (and lost). Same reason why the top-two systems (Washington, California, Louisiana) have been upheld. But they're a different kettle of fish: it's a whittling down process whereas the primary is purely an election to be the candidate of that party with an implication that you can run as an outsider if you lose, like Lieberman. But American parties aren't private members organisations in the way that the parties in every (other?) functioning democracy are. In many states, party membership is an aspect of voter registration - you don't join the party by paying your membership dues, you join it by ticking a box when you register to vote. Also, it appears that primary elections are usually run by the state, rather than the party.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 23, 2018 22:48:33 GMT
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 23, 2018 23:10:06 GMT
But they're a different kettle of fish: it's a whittling down process whereas the primary is purely an election to be the candidate of that party with an implication that you can run as an outsider if you lose, like Lieberman. But American parties aren't private members organisations in the way that the parties in every (other?) functioning democracy are. In many states, party membership is an aspect of voter registration - you don't join the party by paying your membership dues, you join it by ticking a box when you register to vote. Also, it appears that primary elections are usually run by the state, rather than the party. That last point is the crucial one - the conduct of elections, except where Congress has specifically legislated (notably the Voting Rights Act), is a matter only for the States. It was the justification SCOTUS used for declining to intervene in Bush v Gore 2000 or in this year’s ruling on Pennsylvania’s partisan gerrymandering.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 31, 2018 8:05:57 GMT
To the relief of the GOP the possibility of a double Senate election in Arizona this year has now passed. In the event that John McCain dies or resigns the special election to replace him would not now take place until November 2020 with the Governor's appointment serving until then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 18:05:28 GMT
This is worrying. Very worrying.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,284
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on May 31, 2018 18:16:41 GMT
It's not nice. But it's important not to give them the relevance they crave.
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on May 31, 2018 18:18:01 GMT
Let them run. Let them lose.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 31, 2018 18:52:50 GMT
This is worrying. Very worrying. Eight candidates in a country the size of the United States? Given Trump's support of the Charlotteville Nazis, I'm surprised it's not higher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 20:04:07 GMT
This is worrying. Very worrying. Eight candidates in a country the size of the United States? Given Trump's support of the Charlotteville Nazis, I'm surprised it's not higher. The problem is that they now feel unencumbered to openly campaign against “Jewish Supremacy” and for segregation. That’s a huge problem IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 31, 2018 20:47:45 GMT
Eight candidates in a country the size of the United States? Given Trump's support of the Charlotteville Nazis, I'm surprised it's not higher. The problem is that they now feel unencumbered to openly campaign against “Jewish Supremacy” and for segregation. That’s a huge problem IMHO. It's a huge problem if doing so gains them substantial amounts of support. In a country with the history that the United States has had, there are always going to be a minority who take that kind of line. it is not a problem that they are admitting their views and putting themselves forward for election - it means that everybody now knows who they are. The problem will be if they manage to get voted into an office where they can take action on those views.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 31, 2018 20:49:29 GMT
The problem is that they now feel unencumbered to openly campaign against “Jewish Supremacy” and for segregation. That’s a huge problem IMHO. It's a huge problem if doing so gains them substantial amounts of support. In a country with the history that the United States has had, there are always going to be a minority who take that kind of line. it is not a problem that they are admitting their views and putting themselves forward for election - it means that everybody now knows who they are. The problem will be if they manage to get voted into an office where they can take action on those views. That, I'm afraid, is the inevitable hazard of democracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 20:53:57 GMT
The problem is that they now feel unencumbered to openly campaign against “Jewish Supremacy” and for segregation. That’s a huge problem IMHO. It's a huge problem if doing so gains them substantial amounts of support. In a country with the history that the United States has had, there are always going to be a minority who take that kind of line. it is not a problem that they are admitting their views and putting themselves forward for election - it means that everybody now knows who they are. The problem will be if they manage to get voted into an office where they can take action on those views. I think they’re all in heavily Democrat areas so there’s next to no chance they’ll win. Still, in many ways it’s like George Wallace 1968 and Lincoln Rockwell all over again.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,842
|
Post by jamie on Jun 1, 2018 18:05:21 GMT
Massachusetts polls
Governor: Baker (R) - 60% Gonzalez/Massie (Ds) - 20% Other + DK - 21%
Senator: Warren (D) - 54/55/56% Diehl/Lindstrom/Kingston (Rs) - 19% Other + DK - 26/26/25%
Up to 50% of Massachusetts voters will be expected to split their ticket between moderate Republican Charlie Baker and progressive Elizabeth Warren. Baker is incredibly popular so it makes sense, but would nonetheless love to see focus groups on these voters.
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jun 2, 2018 10:44:04 GMT
Massachusetts polls Governor: Baker (R) - 60% Gonzalez/Massie (Ds) - 20% Other + DK - 21% Senator: Warren (D) - 54/55/56% Diehl/Lindstrom/Kingston (Rs) - 19% Other + DK - 26/26/25% Up to 50% of Massachusetts voters will be expected to split their ticket between moderate Republican Charlie Baker and progressive Elizabeth Warren. Baker is incredibly popular so it makes sense, but would nonetheless love to see focus groups on these voters. It would be interesting to see the focus groups on this, yes. The split ticketing is very positive, shows that people are actually looking at the candidates rather than simply voting a party line.
|
|