EPTOn April 09 2020 00:41 ChristianS wrote:
I can’t imagine what other context would be necessary.
...that’s not what they argued. I can’t tell if you’re intentionally strawmanning, or if you actually think the DNC’s official position is (edit: bolded) that voting is inconsequential to the legitimacy of the nominee.
I can’t imagine what other context would be necessary.
Show nested quote +
On April 08 2020 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
I argued it was a big deal at least as far back as 2016, when Democrats used it to defend themselves against charges of a fraudulent primary. Democrats essentially argued that it can't be fraudulent because the voting is inconsequential to the legitimacy of the chosen nominee. It should have been addressed then/since and Democrats refused to.
+ Show Spoiler +
On April 08 2020 14:38 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth stating explicitly how big a deal it is for the legitimacy of elections to not throw out a result unless you absolutely have to. We’re probably agreed on this? It’s fundamental to the process that losing parties don’t feel like they just need to drum up a reason for a redo. The NC09 congressional election was redone last year iirc, but that was because one candidate was literally caught paying someone to commit ballot fraud, and even then it took a lot of lawyering to do it. If anybody asks “how hard would it be for a losing candidate to get the result thrown out so they could try again?” the answer should be “basically impossible.”
On April 08 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
First I'd say "fairly administered" is a stretch at best when you have 7+ hour lines on Texas college campuses.
The DNC literally argued in court and won based on the premise they could throw out any votes they want up to and including all of them after a completely flawless primary. So no, it wouldn't be illegal.
I can think of plenty of sensible arguments for why Iowa's results should be thrown out, CA results aren't even finalized so simply not certifying them would be an option and NH probably wouldn't mind in the interest of the greater good (what harm would it do?) just to offer some counters.
But the argument doesn't have to discard any results thus far (though the ones that voted amid the full knowledge there was a pandemic ongoing, and primaries like Iowa should certainly be up for consideration). It could simply be applied to the primaries that are yet to come. Which completely circumvents the "insurmountable barrier" you posited.
On April 08 2020 12:56 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, I think the insurmountable barrier for you is justifying throwing out what appear to have been fairly administered elections, just because a bad thing happened that you think should make voters reconsider their choice. Iowa is one thing, but CA? TX? NH? Throwing out those results is probably illegal, and definitely a violation of fair play, but it’s also not clear how you’re even going to convince people it’s a good idea. Other than “the contest looked pretty much over by the time the virus hit, but I don’t like the result so I wanna redo it”?
Would a national crisis be grounds to throw out a general election result, too? If another pandemic hits in March 2021, should we toss November’s results and re-vote on who’s president?
On April 08 2020 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Before we tackle that I think it's important to agree on the premise. Presuming that, I'm confident there are better ways to find a solution than me pitching alone to work that out. My contribution to that discussion I think has value, but isn't determinative of the preceding points validity.
With that in mind, I think there are a variety of approaches worth consideration. Generally speaking though, being able to implement a nation-wide mail-in (with supplemental in-person and other ADA, houseless, etc. accommodations) primary would rectify the questionable results of primaries like Iowa, provide a verifiable paper trail for validity, demonstrate competency to confront a crisis/Republican interference, enfranchise millions of voters, and serve as a model/seed for a general election voting strategy we'll likely need to ramp up/expand in November.
It would stand in stark contrast to what we've seen from both parties thus far but I don't propose it without expectations it would face resistance from a variety of interest groups.
On April 08 2020 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
So to be clear, even if they could implement something like an all-mail-in election without postponing, they should postpone anyway because the pandemic qualifies as “new circumstances”? Do we redo the primaries that already concluded, then, too? And more generally, how big should a national crisis be to qualify for hitting the reset button like that?
And how do they handle states like Wisconsin where the primary administration is handled by the government, not the party? I haven’t yet heard what you think should be the system if not the government administering the election.
On April 08 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense).
As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them.
For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic?
As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food.
On April 08 2020 09:52 ChristianS wrote:
You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election.
I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system.
In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization.
I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no?
You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election?
On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch.
[quote]
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying.
[quote]
Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election.
[quote]
No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch.
[quote]
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying.
[quote]
Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election.
You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election.
I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system.
In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization.
I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no?
You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election?
It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense).
As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them.
For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic?
As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food.
So to be clear, even if they could implement something like an all-mail-in election without postponing, they should postpone anyway because the pandemic qualifies as “new circumstances”? Do we redo the primaries that already concluded, then, too? And more generally, how big should a national crisis be to qualify for hitting the reset button like that?
And how do they handle states like Wisconsin where the primary administration is handled by the government, not the party? I haven’t yet heard what you think should be the system if not the government administering the election.
Before we tackle that I think it's important to agree on the premise. Presuming that, I'm confident there are better ways to find a solution than me pitching alone to work that out. My contribution to that discussion I think has value, but isn't determinative of the preceding points validity.
With that in mind, I think there are a variety of approaches worth consideration. Generally speaking though, being able to implement a nation-wide mail-in (with supplemental in-person and other ADA, houseless, etc. accommodations) primary would rectify the questionable results of primaries like Iowa, provide a verifiable paper trail for validity, demonstrate competency to confront a crisis/Republican interference, enfranchise millions of voters, and serve as a model/seed for a general election voting strategy we'll likely need to ramp up/expand in November.
It would stand in stark contrast to what we've seen from both parties thus far but I don't propose it without expectations it would face resistance from a variety of interest groups.
I mean, I think the insurmountable barrier for you is justifying throwing out what appear to have been fairly administered elections, just because a bad thing happened that you think should make voters reconsider their choice. Iowa is one thing, but CA? TX? NH? Throwing out those results is probably illegal, and definitely a violation of fair play, but it’s also not clear how you’re even going to convince people it’s a good idea. Other than “the contest looked pretty much over by the time the virus hit, but I don’t like the result so I wanna redo it”?
Would a national crisis be grounds to throw out a general election result, too? If another pandemic hits in March 2021, should we toss November’s results and re-vote on who’s president?
First I'd say "fairly administered" is a stretch at best when you have 7+ hour lines on Texas college campuses.
The DNC literally argued in court and won based on the premise they could throw out any votes they want up to and including all of them after a completely flawless primary. So no, it wouldn't be illegal.
I can think of plenty of sensible arguments for why Iowa's results should be thrown out, CA results aren't even finalized so simply not certifying them would be an option and NH probably wouldn't mind in the interest of the greater good (what harm would it do?) just to offer some counters.
But the argument doesn't have to discard any results thus far (though the ones that voted amid the full knowledge there was a pandemic ongoing, and primaries like Iowa should certainly be up for consideration). It could simply be applied to the primaries that are yet to come. Which completely circumvents the "insurmountable barrier" you posited.
It’s worth stating explicitly how big a deal it is for the legitimacy of elections to not throw out a result unless you absolutely have to. We’re probably agreed on this? It’s fundamental to the process that losing parties don’t feel like they just need to drum up a reason for a redo. The NC09 congressional election was redone last year iirc, but that was because one candidate was literally caught paying someone to commit ballot fraud, and even then it took a lot of lawyering to do it. If anybody asks “how hard would it be for a losing candidate to get the result thrown out so they could try again?” the answer should be “basically impossible.”
I argued it was a big deal at least as far back as 2016, when Democrats used it to defend themselves against charges of a fraudulent primary. Democrats essentially argued that it can't be fraudulent because the voting is inconsequential to the legitimacy of the chosen nominee. It should have been addressed then/since and Democrats refused to.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
I don't think there's a point in arguing specifics over whether certain states should be thrown out unless the delaying and a safe voting plan for all future contests (as well as a fresh set of 1 on 1 debates focused on the current circumstances) are already agreed on as the most sensible way forward as of now.
+ Show Spoiler +
I recognize there are logistical concerns that have to be worked out both for the rest of the primaries and the general election. If the question is "is it possible for a competent group of people with adequate funding to accomplish the task" my answer would be certainly. If you're asking whether Democrats can do it, my point is that I don't think they can based on their actions, and I'm not sure they even want to based on their politics.
That said, switching the Dem primary, let alone the national election to voting that will be considered safe, fair, and verifiable by any reasonable standard is a major endeavor (in part because the US is so far behind every other industrialized nation on this front) that should have been started more than a month ago, and becomes increasingly infeasible as each day passes.
With that said: I can see some good arguments in the abstract for redoing something like today’s WI primary, if you can show that significant numbers of would-be voters sat it out for their own safety (and you probably can). Even then, it’s sticky. Imagine if some establishment Dem narrowly lost his seat to a progressive primary challenge, and then the party announces they’re throwing the result out. Even if he still loses in round two, won’t it look like the party was trying to rescue their guy? And if he wins the second time around it’ll look even worse.
I don't think there's a point in arguing specifics over whether certain states should be thrown out unless the delaying and a safe voting plan for all future contests (as well as a fresh set of 1 on 1 debates focused on the current circumstances) are already agreed on as the most sensible way forward as of now.
+ Show Spoiler +
Logistically, they’d probably have to do it without the benefit of state infrastructure for printing ballots, tracking registered voters, counting and reporting results, etc. And they probably don’t currently have that capability since it’s normally handled by the state. Could they even pull that together by, say, July (to leave enough time for a general election season after the primary)? Especially with everyone furloughed/working from home right now? I’ve never worked in election infrastructure and don’t know the details of it, but it sounds like a pretty big ask.
I recognize there are logistical concerns that have to be worked out both for the rest of the primaries and the general election. If the question is "is it possible for a competent group of people with adequate funding to accomplish the task" my answer would be certainly. If you're asking whether Democrats can do it, my point is that I don't think they can based on their actions, and I'm not sure they even want to based on their politics.
That said, switching the Dem primary, let alone the national election to voting that will be considered safe, fair, and verifiable by any reasonable standard is a major endeavor (in part because the US is so far behind every other industrialized nation on this front) that should have been started more than a month ago, and becomes increasingly infeasible as each day passes.
...that’s not what they argued. I can’t tell if you’re intentionally strawmanning, or if you actually think the DNC’s official position is (edit: bolded) that voting is inconsequential to the legitimacy of the nominee.
That's what "We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way" means.
On April 09 2020 00:39 Zambrah wrote:
Great, now we have two sexual assaulting old white douchenozzle conservatives running for president.
I'm not voting for either, I can't bring myself to. "Vote blue because fuck you" seems a more apt slogan than what they've been peddling.
Great, now we have two sexual assaulting old white douchenozzle conservatives running for president.
I'm not voting for either, I can't bring myself to. "Vote blue because fuck you" seems a more apt slogan than what they've been peddling.
Yeah, me neither. Joe is a deplorable person imo.
