Progressive Politics

4235 readers

769 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

Texas Supreme Court stops Dallas County from counting late votes after confusion over new rules (www.cnn.com)

submitted 14 hours ago by CubitOom@infosec.pub to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Political parties, rather than local governments, administer primary elections in Texas. In the past, Democrats and Republicans have overseen them jointly.

The rules in effect Tuesday are part of local GOP leaders’ decision to hold a separate primary from Democrats this year in Dallas and Williamson counties, leading to precinct-based voting. In previous elections, individuals could cast ballots at any vote center, regardless of their address, under a countywide voting system.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 6 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

Political parties, rather than local governments, administer primary elections in Texas.

It always baffles me how such things often work in the USA. It doesn't take a legal expert to see the problem here.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

It makes sense when you realize that the process for parties choosing candidates is not outlined in the Constitution or anything. A party doesn't need to hold a primary if they don't want to, they could just present a candidate.

If/when a party decides to have a primary, they can pretty much do it however they want.

This happens sometimes with third parties. For example, I don't think Ross Perot had to run in a primary. Nader may have (?), but if so it was probably mostly just a formality by the Green Party.

But yeah, I would probably prefer more regulated primaries, assuming it wouldn't just be used to fuck over progressive candidates, which it probably would be designed to do

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

A party doesn't need to hold a primary if they don't want to, they could just present a candidate.

As they often do when the incumbent is a member in good standing. The Republicans held a token Presidential primary in 2024, but they didn't hold one in 2020, and the Democrats didn't hold one in 2024.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 hours ago

It’s that way for primaries. Technically, in the US, political parties are private organizations. As such they can set up rules how they want within certain confines. One of the big ones is the fact that the democrats don’t even have to listen to their base’s vote and instead rely on a separate committee to select their candidate. This caused issues for Bernie Sanders and should have been a wake up call for people.

Now that being said, you’re welcome to try to get on the ballot in the general election as an independent or another party but Americans are so myopic they only see D or R which is a whole different problem.

[–] essell@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

My impression is that candidate selection is almost always an internal, party political process. How does it work where you are?