1053
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
1053 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2646 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A. Parties haven't held effective primaries for an incumbent since I was born.
B. Political parties are private organizations. They are completely within their rights to go back into the smoke filled back rooms.
C. That would be political suicide and tells us exactly what the DNC thinks about us.
Right? I'm tired of being fucking surrounded by misinformation, even on lemmy.
Political parties don't give up the incumbent advantage. This isn't new.
A. Primaries have existed since 1972. 1976 Ford primaried by Reagan. 1980 incumbent Carter challenged by Ted Kennedy. 1992 Ross Perot.
If B is true, they shouldn't be able to use tax dollars and public employees for their primary elections. They should have to fund and administer their private org election themselves. In fact, in many states only the two parties even have access to primary ballots.
C. DNC could care less about winning. See also Bernie.
Ross Perot was a third party candidate, not a primary challenger to an incumbent. I take no issue with anything else in your comment.
Sorry. Buchanan primaried Bush Sr. (Incumbent)
That makes more sense. I'd forgotten about Buchanan entirely.
Ross Perot was an independent. That's hardly a party primary. The others were before I was born. Also primaries have been a thing since the early 1900's. They just didn't have as much weight then as they do now.
I'm going to need an example state where minor parties can't get on the ballot. At any rate afaik, they pay the state for the election. But it's also in the state's best interest to run it.
And they did win with Biden. I think it's more fair to say they care more about their internal politics than winning.
At any rate it was the Convention that selected candidate until...
Which is what I said.
Ohio is one example that took away third party ballot access. The first hurdle would be getting 60,000 valid voter signatures in a limited time frame. Then you would need to get 120,000 General election votes for a Gov candidate. Arkansas etc are similar
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_parties_in_Ohio
Other examples can be found https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_parties_in_the_United_States
That's not a ban. That's third parties not having enough support.
You don't know what you are talking about. Taking Ohio as example when 3rd parties sued for ballot access, Libs had 3% of the vote, 4-6% for statewide.
https://lpedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Ohio_Historical_Election_Results
Green Party with 1% to 3% when allowed on General election ballots
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Ohio
Not sure what your definition of "enough support" is. Ohio repubs then tailored the law to exclude any future 3rd parties. (Through petition signatures which amount to millions in CPRS)
Fun story, they were on the ballot for the general election in 2020. They got 1 and 0.3 percent respectively.
Frankly, these aren't good enough numbers to be on the ballot. Even if they were at 3 percent. The standard around the world is generally 10 percent to get seated in a parliament.
So Ohio asking for a fifth of that in signatures isn't bad. In other countries they'd need to show half a million people for Ohio's voting population.