U.S. Elections: We're All Qualified To Post Here

[mormont]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree.  Moral obligation aside there is no legal obligation for either the Democrats or Republicans to make their nominating process "fair".  

I can't speak as someone who's ever attended a caucus, or someone qualified to comment on US law, of course. But I think you're simply wrong here, at least in some respects.

I would be very surprised indeed if, for example, publicly funded party nominating processes were allowed to be constructed in such a way as to unfairly limit the participation of ethnic minorities, or voters with disabilities, or women, or to give unequal weight to votes cast, and so on.

The question at issue seems to me to be not whether the parties' processes must be fair, but whether in fact caucuses are fair, or at least meet legal standards. I think you could easily argue that caucuses as a selection process indirectly discriminate against disabled voters, but I don't really know whether that breaks any laws in the US.

[Altherion]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

The question at issue seems to me to be not whether the parties' processes must be fair, but whether in fact caucuses are fair, or at least meet legal standards. I think you could easily argue that caucuses as a selection process indirectly discriminate against disabled voters, but I don't really know whether that breaks any laws in the US.

That's an interesting question. They obviously discriminate against people whose schedules cannot accommodate being at a specific place at a specific time, but that is not a protected class. On the other hand, there is indeed a law (the Americans with Disabilities Act) protecting people with disabilities and a cursory Google search shows that while most states try to make the caucus locations ADA compliant, it is not a strict requirement in some (and in any case, simply getting to the location would be a major pain in the neck for truly disabled people). I wonder how they get away with that -- maybe a private election doesn't count under any of the ADA categories?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I have not forgotten that the parties are semi-private organizations, but just because they are honest about their intention to cater to the privileged* doesn't mean those intentions are democratic. 

*Before anyone gets excited, please mentally replace "privileged" with whatever term least offends you.

I didn't say their intentions were "democratic".  I said their intentions don't have to be "democratic" and they are perfectly entitled to cater to the "priviledged" if they choose to.  I as that as someone who's never had to go to a caucus and who has participated in every publicly funded private party primary I've been legally allowed to participate in.  

Mormont,

I think you are correct but I think that would fall under public accommodations law not election law.  

[Fez]

37 minutes ago, Altherion said:

That's an interesting question. They obviously discriminate against people whose schedules cannot accommodate being at a specific place at a specific time, but that is not a protected class. On the other hand, there is indeed a law (the Americans with Disabilities Act) protecting people with disabilities and a cursory Google search shows that while most states try to make the caucus locations ADA compliant, it is not a strict requirement in some (and in any case, simply getting to the location would be a major pain in the neck for truly disabled people). I wonder how they get away with that -- maybe a private election doesn't count under any of the ADA categories?

I know at least some states allow people who can't attend the caucus to cast a provisional ballot.

Although that's more common I think in states that call it a caucus when it's really closer to a firehouse primary.

[TrackerNeil]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I didn't say their intentions were "democratic".  I said their intentions don't have to be "democratic" and they are perfectly entitled to cater to the "priviledged" if they choose to.  I as that as someone who's never had to go to a caucus and who has participated in every publicly funded private party primary I've been legally allowed to participate in.  

You are correct; neither party seems to have any obligation to be democratic. We'll see how well that plays out with the rank and file this very July, maybe, if the GOP gets Mitt Romney to accept the nomination.

[Shryke]

37 minutes ago, Fez said:

I know at least some states allow people who can't attend the caucus to cast a provisional ballot.

Although that's more common I think in states that call it a caucus when it's really closer to a firehouse primary.

That can still fuck them over though since casting a ballot and leaving/casting a ballot and never showing up doesn't allow you to represent your candidate as a delegate which can and does cost people delegates.

[Shryke]

41 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I didn't say their intentions were "democratic".  I said their intentions don't have to be "democratic" and they are perfectly entitled to cater to the "priviledged" if they choose to.  I as that as someone who's never had to go to a caucus and who has participated in every publicly funded private party primary I've been legally allowed to participate in.  

Legally, no. Realistically, they do. Again, look at 1968. The primary process has to look legitimate or the voters will throw a fit.

The argument against caucuses of course is that they are shitty and undemocratic. State parties primarily use them out of tradition or because they are cheaper to run. But since the whole point of the modern primary process is to be democratic, they also run completely counter to that idea because they are hella discriminatory.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Legally, no. Realistically, they do. Again, look at 1968. The primary process has to look legitimate or the voters will throw a fit.

The argument against caucuses of course is that they are shitty and undemocratic. State parties primarily use them out of tradition or because they are cheaper to run. But since the whole point of the modern primary process is to be democratic, they also run completely counter to that idea because they are hella discriminatory.

Under that logic "superdelagates" exist... why?

[Shryke]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Under that logic "superdelagates" exist... why?

Many reasons. Including, for instance, to keep guys like Trump frmo winning despite not holding a majority of the support of the party.

But of course this is a silly argument because no one is asserting that superdelegates are democratic or that they don't piss people off.

[davos]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

I can't speak as someone who's ever attended a caucus, or someone qualified to comment on US law, of course. But I think you're simply wrong here, at least in some respects.

I would be very surprised indeed if, for example, publicly funded party nominating processes were allowed to be constructed in such a way as to unfairly limit the participation of ethnic minorities, or voters with disabilities, or women, or to give unequal weight to votes cast, and so on.

The question at issue seems to me to be not whether the parties' processes must be fair, but whether in fact caucuses are fair, or at least meet legal standards. I think you could easily argue that caucuses as a selection process indirectly discriminate against disabled voters, but I don't really know whether that breaks any laws in the US.

 

 

Since they are using the public election apparatus, in states where primaries are conducted, the party has to abide by applicable state an federal election law in the conduct of that primary.  Since the Caucuses are private events that do not utilize the public election apparatus, they bypass election laws and can be conducted however the party sees fit (though if they are conducted in public buildings, which they often are, I am not sure if those are provided to the party gratis or if they have to pay a rental fee for their use).  Their is, to my understanding, not a legal issue with how the caucuses are conducted in regards to access and fairness because they are private events.  

the parties can ignore the results of the primaries.  They could decide to chose their nominee by casting lots or reading the entrails of a goat sacrificed in the darkest rituals under the light of a full moon.  I suspect if they just willy-nilly disregarded the how process prior to the election that they would be sued under various grounds.  I suspect that the rules parties have established for how their nomination works could be regarded as a contract and would give both the candidates and those who voted in the primary/caucuses some grounds to fight them in court (though I am not a lawyer.  If I am wrong on this count i'm sure our board legal minds will tell me).  They are also restricted by what is politically possible.  Yes, they have the freedom to chose their nominee by whatever selection process they chose, there would be serious political ramifications for changing the process drastically mid-stream.  

The nomination process in the US is a strange beast and really stands out compared to the rest of the democratic world.  In many other countries the candidates are selected at party meetings without the complex preamble of primaries.  This is a large part of the reason that the US presidential election process seems to go on for so long.  What is in essence an internal party contest is conducted at great length in each state in the US, while in most countries this would occur without significant involvement of the general public

[The Marquis de Leech]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

Does a private organization allowing the general public to assist it in the selection of a candidate it would like to offer in the General (actual) election have an obligation to make the public's participation "fair"?

Neither the Democratic or Republican parties are formal structual parts of our Governments.  They just have complete control of those Governments.  People tend to forget that.

That was the reasoning the Democratic Party of the Jim Crow South used to use. "We're a private organisation - we can determine our membership, officers, and candidates as we see fit", i.e. make sure everything is whites only. Considering the Democratic monopoly in the former Confederacy at that point, it meant that this "private organisation" was able to enforce these ideas on wider governance - i.e. complete exclusion of non-whites.

Surely we've moved on from that these days? These "private organisations" fulfil a public function. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

You are missing my point entirely.  The parties are what they are and I'm not fond of either.  I just think people need to know they have no real control, beyond suggestion, of who these parties offer as nominees for President.  

Acutally, given our debates on structural versus political control of Government you should like this structure.  Any control offered to the public is totaly political the structures actually limit political control of the parties.

And the parties do not fulfill a "public fuction". They are not and have never been arms of any Government.

[DireWolfSpirit]

A New Wall Street Journal poll this week showing Clinton v Sanders in a dead heat nationally. They have Clinton at 50% to Sanders 48% which is within the +/- margin of error.

[Altherion]

12 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

A New Wall Street Journal poll this week showing Clinton v Sanders in a dead heat nationally. They have Clinton at 50% to Sanders 48% which is within the +/- margin of error.

This is interesting, but it only matters if he can win or at least manage a draw in New York. If Clinton wins New York by the double digits predicted in the polls, it's basically over in terms of the delegate count.

[Weeping Sore]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is interesting, but it only matters if he can win or at least manage a draw in New York. If Clinton wins New York by the double digits predicted in the polls, it's basically over in terms of the delegate count.

Agreed. A very narrow victory in New York for Sanders would do nothing for the delegate count but it would help him make the case that she is a damaged candidate. He would have to win everywhere else with the exception of maybe Maryland and D.C., but even in that situation I doubt enough supers would stray from Clinton to swing it at the convention. (This is assuming he doesn't overcome her pledged delegate lead.)

Sanders has one thing going for him in New York, a lack of early voting, which has been an area of huge advantage for Clinton. Still, the barring of Independents (who would have had to switch their party designation back in October of 2015) will likely seal a Clinton victory here.

[Altherion]

Yes. And in fact, it appears that the same mysterious party affiliation switches seen in Arizona also afflict New York. Given the mess in Arizona, some people in New York checked prior to the election and have filed a lawsuit:

Quote

 

With less than 24 hours until the presidential primary, a group of New Yorkers who saw their party affiliations mysteriously switched are filing a lawsuit Monday seeking to open the state’s closed primary so that they can cast a ballot.

...

A significant number of voters, including many named in the lawsuit, say their party affiliation was switched without their knowledge.

Westchester County voter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decided to check on the status of her voter registration last month, after hearing about problems in Arizona’s primary. She was dismayed to discover that, despite being a registered Democrat since 2008, her party affiliation had been changed to unaffiliated. She is now unable to vote for her preferred candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in the primary.

 

 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

With less than 24 hours until the presidential primary, a group of New Yorkers who saw their party affiliations mysteriously switched are filing a lawsuit Monday seeking to open the state’s closed primary so that they can cast a ballot.

...

A significant number of voters, including many named in the lawsuit, say their party affiliation was switched without their knowledge.

Westchester County voter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decided to check on the status of her voter registration last month, after hearing about problems in Arizona’s primary. She was dismayed to discover that, despite being a registered Democrat since 2008, her party affiliation had been changed to unaffiliated. She is now unable to vote for her preferred candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in the primary.

Bolded section is my favorite part.  If only they had included "Democratic" before primary.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Bolded section is my favorite part.  If only they had included "Democratic" before primary.

BBW,

What?

[Altherion]

He means that Sanders is listed as an Independent. As far as I can tell, the article is not wrong -- that's how he appears on the Senate's website.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BBW,

What?

They list Sanders as Independent-VT, yet he's running for the Democratic nomination for president.  I find that funny.

Also, I'm not saying it's wrong.  His own website still lists him as an independent, I understand.  I think it's just a little hypocritical of him to now run as a Democrat when he's been an elected independent for 30 years.