Election Returns

[ecco]

Here in Kentucky we have a voting option for all parties that appear on the ticket that automatically selects those, and you bubble that in if you are hurried or a partisan hack. I'm going to be optimistic and hope that a similar option and/or people who don't pay attention to the race at all are to account for that vote.


You mean like when the party denounced him and did not support his run in any way? There was no method to remove his party affiliation from the ballot or it would have been done. He didn't win a primary, he wasn't selected.

What are Republicans supposed to do? Abandon the party only to have the racists follow them to the new successful conservative party? Abandon their values because despicable people prefer them over the left? Should leftists abandon their values or party because of the despicable people that also support them?

What could they have done? Well, as soon as the Nazi registered his intention to run as a Republican, the Party could have had another person sign up to run. Then there would have been a primary.

They didn't. There wasn't. And 55,000 Republicans went on record as voting for a Nazi.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What could they have done? Well, as soon as the Nazi registered his intention to run as a Republican, the Party could have had another person sign up to run. Then there would have been a primary.

They didn't. There wasn't. And 55,000 Republicans went on record as voting for a Nazi.

It's still bizarre to me that candidates don't need to be endorsed or approved by the party to run as that party's candidate.

 

[Mister Emu]

The racism becomes clear when we consider another valid way to describe it: that you want existing racial inequalities and injustices to remain unaddressed.

The despair really comes into focus when you consider there is no rational way to take that from what I've said.

I come at it from the opposite direction: if someone supports racist policies, or policies with racist effects, then I don't believe them when they say they aren't racist.

Exactly how I see it, though I tend to be more empathetic to the possibility that people can fail to understand how a law that seems facially neutral can be racist. But, if you support policies explicitly designed to officially benefit or disadvantage based on racial categorization, there is no defense, you are a racist.

 

[Mister Emu]

What could they have done? Well, as soon as the Nazi registered his intention to run as a Republican, the Party could have had another person sign up to run. Then there would have been a primary.

Would they even necessarily get notified, at all or in time to get another candidate to prepare a run and sign up?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly how I see it, though I tend to be more empathetic to the possibility that people can fail to understand how a law that seems facially neutral can be racist. But, if you support policies explicitly designed to officially benefit or disadvantage based on racial categorization, there is no defense, you are a racist.

So you think that policies aimed at undoing the harm of racism are racist?

 

[Curious George]

So you think that policies aimed at undoing the harm of racism are racist?

I think they are at least discriminatory. Racism implies a value judgement. In some ways to discriminate based on race does inherently rely on a value judgement. It also creates a social worth that encourages other value judgements. That said, a racially discriminatory policy created to reverse past racial discrimination is not necessarily racist, but often walks a fine line where we can and do see racism.

 

[Mister Emu]

So you think that policies aimed at undoing the harm of racism are racist?

When they are racist.

 

[Stevicus]

It's still bizarre to me that candidates don't need to be endorsed or approved by the party to run as that party's candidate.

Some districts are throwaways where a party won't even try to put up a candidate, leaving the primary open for any yahoo to run. It's like that here in Grijalva's district where the GOP candidate is usually someone from the local fringe who doesn't have a chance in the heavily Democratic district.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some districts are throwaways where a party won't even try to put up a candidate, leaving the primary open for any yahoo to run. It's like that here in Grijalva's district where the GOP candidate is usually someone from the local fringe who doesn't have a chance in the heavily Democratic district.

I get all that. What I don't understand is why you would have or want a system that allows people to run as the "Republican" candidate when they haven't been endorsed or approved by the party.

We have electoral districts here that are locked up by a particular party, too... but if the Conservative Party decides not to run a candidate, then there's no Conservative Party candidate. It's not like some fringe candidate can sneak in and get to run as the Conservative candidate without the party's okay. Fringe candidates here either run as independents or as members of fringe parties. Nobody gets to use a party's name without the party's approval.

 

[Mister Emu]

I get all that. What I don't understand is why you would have or want a system that allows people to run as the "Republican" candidate when they haven't been endorsed or approved by the party.

Our party system is set up to put some limits on the power party heads have over it. Yes, this can create problems, but it also wouldn't do if some legitimate candidate couldn't run because the local party leaders didn't like them for a petty or personal reason.

They failed in this instance, miserably, but it isn't the system necessarily at fault. Just a tad bit of situational awareness would have let them get somebody onto the ticket before the deadlines. Even if they didn't want to run, I would think they could have withdrawn after the primary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Our party system is set up to put some limits on the power party heads have over it. Yes, this can create problems, but it also wouldn't do if some legitimate candidate couldn't run because the local party leaders didn't like them for a petty or personal reason.

Why wouldn't that "do?" A political party is a membership organization; if they don't want a particular candidate, so be it.

Edit: if the local leaders are doing things that the overall membership disapproves of, the party can handle it through their own internal processes. If the membership agrees with what's going on, then there's no issue.

It just seems like unwarranted government interference. I mean, imagine the government stepped in and said "hey, company - because you don't have any sales reps in this territory, we've assigned the territory to some guy without your permission and we've given him the right to say he's your representative." It's nuts.

 

[Shad]

It's still bizarre to me that candidates don't need to be endorsed or approved by the party to run as that party's candidate.

Why is this baffling? Do you think it is a good idea to have party leadership decide who can run or not before the members of the party can vote on any candidate? There are number of hypothetical scenarios which you can play out in your head which shows the flaws of such a system

 

[Stevicus]

I get all that. What I don't understand is why you would have or want a system that allows people to run as the "Republican" candidate when they haven't been endorsed or approved by the party.

We have electoral districts here that are locked up by a particular party, too... but if the Conservative Party decides not to run a candidate, then there's no Conservative Party candidate. It's not like some fringe candidate can sneak in and get to run as the Conservative candidate without the party's okay. Fringe candidates here either run as independents or as members of fringe parties. Nobody gets to use a party's name without the party's approval.

As long as they are duly elected in the primary by registered members of that party, then by definition, they do have approval of the party. The only thing the party leadership can do is refuse to endorse or fund a candidate they don't like, which sometimes happens.

Anything more could be tantamount to barring some people as members, but I don't think the either party would do that.

 

[ecco]

It's still bizarre to me that candidates don't need to be endorsed or approved by the party to run as that party's candidate.

Independent Bernie Sanders ran as a Democrat then was annoyed that the Party supported Democrat Hillary Clinton.

In many State primaries, Republican voters can vote to choose the Democrat candidate (also vice versa).

Nuts!

 

[ecco]

Would they even necessarily get notified, at all or in time to get another candidate to prepare a run and sign up?

Well, you do have to file paperwork. Unless he did it at the very last minute, then - yes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As long as they are duly elected in the primary by registered members of that party, then by definition, they do have approval of the party.

So the Nazi did have party approval?

The only thing the party leadership can do is refuse to endorse or fund a candidate they don't like, which sometimes happens.

Anything more could be tantamount to barring some people as members, but I don't think the either party would do that.

But if they did, what would be wrong with that? Why shouldn't a private organization like a politicial party be able to decide who it does or doesn't want as a candidate... or even as a member?

Any member who gets kicked out can still engage with the political process. They could even start their own party if they wanted.

Independent Bernie Sanders ran as a Democrat then was annoyed that the Party supported Democrat Hillary Clinton.

In many State primaries, Republican voters can vote to choose the Democrat candidate (also vice versa).

Nuts!

It is nuts.

Imagine something like this in any other setting. Imagine the government saying "hey, company - I know this big bunch of people aren't shareholders, but they say that they want to vote in in your board's election, so we're going to just give them the right regardless of how you feel about it."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is this baffling? Do you think it is a good idea to have party leadership decide who can run or not before the members of the party can vote on any candidate? There are number of hypothetical scenarios which you can play out in your head which shows the flaws of such a system

I think it's a good idea for the membership of a political party to put whatever process in place that they want, as long as the process is approved by the members.

The process in Canada generally goes something like this:

- a party sets up riding (like your electoral district) association in a riding.

- the party members - i.e. people who actually applied for membership and are in good standing, not just people who routinely vote for the party - who live in the riding vote to decide on the party's candidate for that riding.

- the vote is held at the time and in the manner of the party's choosing according to its own rules.

- if the riding association doesn't choose anyone, the party has no candidate in that riding.

- if the party has no riding association in the riding at all, the party has no candidate in that riding.

This process seems to work fine the vast majority of the time.

 

[Shad]

I think it's a good idea for the membership of a political party to put whatever process in place that they want, as long as the process is approved by the members.

GOP members didn't want it ergo your previous surprise seems to be moot now.

This process seems to work fine the vast majority of the time.

Drama teacher in chief is what we got from that system.

Parliament is a system the USA was designed to avoid

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

GOP members didn't want it ergo your previous surprise seems to be moot now.

The GOP didn't want to avoid having Nazis run as official Republican candidates?

Drama teacher in chief is what we got from that system.

You certainly didn't get a president from the Canadian system that has no president.

Parliament is a system the USA was designed to avoid

Not sure of your point here. Is your goal good governance or just "not Parliament?"

 

[Stevicus]

So the Nazi did have party approval?

Apparently. If the party membership in that district didn't care enough to offer up someone better, then that's on them. Maybe they'll think about that next time.

But if they did, what would be wrong with that? Why shouldn't a private organization like a politicial party be able to decide who it does or doesn't want as a candidate... or even as a member?

I can't see anything wrong with it, but both parties want as many members and voters they can get. If they start imposing stricter requirements for membership, then they would have fewer members.