trump off the CO ballot

[Meadmaker]

Trump cannot be on the Nevada ballot:

https://thenevadaindependent.com/articl ... ary-ballot

The first election where I was more or less capable of understanding the whole process was 1976. As I watched and asked questions about the primary system and the race for the nomination, one of the questions that popped into my head was, "Why are state governments involved in selecting party nominees?"

I've never received an answer that made sense to me.


So, in my opinion, there shouldn't be any such thing as party primaries. State governments shouldn't be involved in how parties pick their nominees.

However.....like many things I think ought to be, my opinion isn't particularly significant.

[Meadmaker]

As an aside, I learned something new yesterday that I find fascinating, and I'm kine of surprised I didn't know it.


"Ballots", as we know them today, didn't exist until 1888. Until then, you wrote the name of the candidate you wanted to vote for on a piece of paper, and dropped it in a ballot box. Since there was more than one office being sought at a time, you wrote down the names, and the offices.

Well, of course, to mtake it easier on voters, political parties created pre-printed "ballots", that listed their candidates' names and offices. So, the process of voting involved getting one of your party's ballots from the party office, taking it with you to the polling spot, and putting it in the ballot box.

By the way, different parties' ballots weren't printed uniformly. They might be different colors or sizes. Therefore, your vote wasn't actually secret. Just to be sure of that, "ballot boxes" were often transparent jars with a slit at the top.

I never knew any of that. I assumed ballots always had a lits of names and you marked the one you wanted. Nope. You could say that every vote was a write in vote, but political parties would help you with the writing.

In the post civil war era, there was an innovation in balloting that started in Australia, where they listed names on ballots. The "Australian ballot" was introduced in 1888 in some states (I don't know which or how many), and it rapidly took hold. At the same time, another innovation was added, which was the voting booth. You took that "Australian ballot", and marked it secretly.

[arthwollipot]

Trump cannot be on the Nevada ballot:

https://thenevadaindependent.com/articl ... ary-ballot

The first election where I was more or less capable of understanding the whole process was 1976. As I watched and asked questions about the primary system and the race for the nomination, one of the questions that popped into my head was, "Why are state governments involved in selecting party nominees?"

I've never received an answer that made sense to me.


So, in my opinion, there shouldn't be any such thing as party primaries. State governments shouldn't be involved in how parties pick their nominees.

However.....like many things I think ought to be, my opinion isn't particularly significant.

Correct. It makes no sense.

[President Bush]

Trump cannot be on the Nevada ballot:

https://thenevadaindependent.com/articl ... ary-ballot

The first election where I was more or less capable of understanding the whole process was 1976. As I watched and asked questions about the primary system and the race for the nomination, one of the questions that popped into my head was, "Why are state governments involved in selecting party nominees?"

I've never received an answer that made sense to me.

I looked it up.

Political parties used to sometimes require candidates to pay extremely high fees to appear on a primary ballot. The Supreme Court ruled in BULLOCK v. CARTER that this imposed a burden on candidates´ right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Appellees who sought to become candidates for local office in the Texas Democratic primary election challenged in the District Court the validity of the Texas statutory scheme which, without write-in or other alternative provisions, requires payment of fees ranging as high as $8,900. Appellees claimed that they were unable to pay the required fees and were therefore barred from running. Under the Texas statute, the party committee estimates the total cost of the primary and apportions it among candidates according to its judgment of what is "just and equitable," in light of "the importance, emolument, and term of office." The fees for local candidates tend appreciably to exceed those for statewide candidates. Following a hearing, the District Court declared the fee system invalid and enjoined its enforcement. Appellants contend that the filing fees are necessary both to regulate the primary ballot and to finance elections. Held: The Texas primary election filing-fee system contravenes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 140-149.

(a) Since the Texas statute imposes filing fees of such magnitude that numerous qualified candidates are precluded from filing, it falls with unequal weight on candidates and voters according to their ability to pay the fees, and therefore it must be "closely scrutinized" and can be sustained only if it is reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate state objective and not merely because it has some rational basis. Pp. 140-144.

(b) Although a State has an interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot and eliminating those who are spurious, it cannot attain these objectives by arbitrary means such as those called for by the Texas statute, which eliminates legitimate potential candidates, like those involved here, who cannot afford the filing fees. Pp. 144-147.

(c) The apportionment of costs among candidates is not the only means available to finance primary elections, and the State can identify certain bodies as political parties entitled to sponsorship if the State itself finances the primaries, as it does general [405 U.S. 134, 135] elections, both of which are important parts of the democratic process. Pp. 147-149.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-su ... 5/134.html

I read this ruling standardized the practice of having the public/state run and pay for primary elections instead of the parties.

[arthwollipot]

I've often said that America is a plutocracy. Only the super-wealthy, and those who can raise sufficient money from their supporters, can afford to be elected.

[Meadmaker]

I read this ruling standardized the practice of having the public/state run and pay for primary elections instead of the parties.

But it doesn't explain why there are primary elections at all.

As far as I know, the US is the only country in the world that has anything like our primary elections, and I don't think that makes us "more democratic", or gives the people more control, or results in candidates that are closer to what people would prefer.

The primary system is almost certain to give us Biden and Trump. It chases guys like Joe Manchin off the ballot at all. You have to be party pure in order to survive the primary, which often ends up with candidates so bad that they would lose to anyone except the guy that was nominated through the other party's system.

I kind of like Nicky Haley. I liked Amy Klobuchar four years ago. They each have great cross-party appeal compared to their in-party rivals, but they'll never get the nomination. Welll......maybe. Possibly? I'll hold out a little hope for Haley, but not much. Realistically, Trump has a lock, and even if he manages to do something so awful that even his base deserts him, I don't think Haley could win a primary contest.



Back to the main topic. I've read several editorials about whether or not Trump should be kept off the ballot by the 14th ammendment. The ones that sound sane say no. The ones in predictably left wing sources, like salon.com, who have to cater to their subscriber base, say that it's clear as day that the 14th ammendment applies, but they all sound like shrill partisan screeds. The ones that are written from a less emotional state all say that Trump will, and should, win the case. I must reluctantly concur.

I think that he showed, beyond all doubt, that he would be willing to oarticioate in an insurrection if he thought he could win, but I don't think he crossed the line into actually staging or participate in one.

[President Bush]

Make swing states the openers in the primary process instead of mainly white and rural Iowa and New Hampshire. Or make all states´ primaries happen on the same day.

Too many congressional seats are reliably safe for highly-partisan candidates instead of contestable among all possible candidates. Redistrict the United States.

Increase the number in the US House of Representatives to bring it in line with the increase in population since 1911, last time the House numbers were raised. That would increase the numbers in the Electoral College which should bring its numbers more in line with the popular vote.

[Meadmaker]

Increase the number in the US House of Representatives to bring it in line with the increase in population since 1911, last time the House numbers were raised. That would increase the numbers in the Electoral College which should bring its numbers more in line with the popular vote.

What!????

Have even more Congressmen?




Yeah, actually. It's a good idea.

But it won't happen.

[stanky]

Funny how we resign ourselves to knowing that corruption will over-rule all the checks and balances.
Ya' shrug yer shoulders, and say "Can't fight City Hall!' or "They're all crooks!" etc, and get on with your business.
Until the only business there is, is corruption.
And it has its own rules.
Which it's willing to break.
Hence, capable of evolving faster than a constitution.

Maybe successful criminal enterprise is the pinnacle of democracy in action.
We choose criminals as leaders. For safety. We're all outlaws.
this is the Wild West.

yee-haw!

[President Bush]

I like the Trump team´s presidential immunity argument. A president/former president can´t be indicted for his actions while in office (for example murder or attempting to overthrow an election) because that could open the door to his being pursued for purely political reasons.

If a president/former president were to be indicted for his actions while in office it could come only after he had been both impeached and convicted by the Congress for whatever it was he had done (for example murder or attempting to overthrow an election). Oh, and the impeachment process is a purely political, not a criminal, one.

So a president must have immunity from his actions while in office so that he is not pursued politically unless he is first politically removed from office.

Uh... yeah.