Huffington Post has this article by Harry Kresky and Tiani Coleman, urging that the government exert more control over political parties. The analysis simply assumes that the voters are never going to replace either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party with a new major party. The analysis therefore assumes that the only hope for more democratic control over the government is to force those two parties to be more internally democratic.
The article would be better if it mentioned the fact that voters in France this year formed a new party, and then put it into power. Similar events have happened in Canadian provincial elections, and in many Latin American countries. The United States signed the Helsinki Accords, and all the nations that signed pledged that they would not merge any political party with the government.
That’s a good point you raised about the Helsinki Accords. Might be a good way to shut down the spoiler theorists’ arguments. Our country is obligated not just under Constitutional but also international law to give opposing parties a fair chance, hence all of the harsh ballot access laws, debate rules, and political intimidation come awfully close to if not outright violating the Accords.
Come to think of it, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should use that fact in their lawsuits against the CPD.
The current top HACKS in the D/R parties differ only a little bit from the top HACKS in the USSR commie and Germany nazi gangs in the 1930s — with their killer PURGES.
Statists and statism in action.
—
NO primaries.
PR and nonpartisan AppV
https://www.oscepa.org/election-observation/democratic-commitments
has link to full text.
1990 stuff – in Copenhagen — while the ex-USSR regime was rotting to death.
Problem — No treaty = NOT enforceable in the USA.
I think you misunderstood the thrust of the editorial, which was to eliminate party control of state-sponsored and funded primaries. Under the current system the state requires the parties to conduct what are ostensibly public elections, but which the parties then claim they are private entities.
Under Top Two like-minded citizens are free to organize to support candidates, as happened in France.
Thank you, Jim. I think you missed the thrust of the article, Richard.
In 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled in Eu v San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee that political parties have a First Amendment freedom of association right to favor certain candidates in their own primaries and other nomination processes. The decision was unanimous. Tiani, as I understand your article, you and Harry argue that the government should prevent the Democratic Party from favoring certain Democrats over other Democrats in the nomination stage. The article seems to focus on the 2016 presidential race, in which Democratic Party officials favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Aren’t you arguing that it should be illegal for the party to do that?
What we’re arguing, Richard, is that parties shouldn’t be able to have it both ways — have the power of the state [i.e., through funding of their primaries, through near exclusive ballot access for the general election, through control of government committees (including redistricting), through publicly accepted legitimacy by virtue of having “publicly sponsored primaries”, etc. etc.)–but be declared private when it comes to voter access and accountability. If parties are declared private they should truly be private, and if primary elections are really “public” in that they’re a state-sponsored most determinative stage in a public election, then they should truly be public.
Injury to plaintiff = case
NO injury to plaintiff = NO case
— which may be determined only after some *factual* *evidence* shows up (esp after discovery stuff).
The SCOTUS MORONS invented *standing* to confuse everybody — esp the lower courts.
—
What law in DC was violated by the alleged DNC machinations ???
How much of the common law of MD State survives in DC from when the DC regime took effect ???
— circa 1800 — after making Fed buildings in the 1790s — Congress, White House, etc.
How many private groups have private judicial bodies regarding alleged injuries by private group folks ???
— so the public courts do NOT get involved.
Richard, skip down to the final five paragraphs.
I think what they are saying is that the current practice of having private parties controlling primaries (this is particularly true for presidential primaries) results in an irreconcilable conflict, and which the Zloch decision illustrates as not being subject to adjudication.
Political parties are not truly private associations when the state maintains their membership records, and restricts participation in public elections.
Again — Public Electors nominating public candidates for public offices by public LAWS.
See the Texas White Primary cases and later primary cases — since primaries / caucuses / conventions are (may be) a step in the election process.
Thank you for engaging, Tiani. Parties never wanted primaries. State legislatures forced them on the parties. When that happened, in the 1900’s decade, parties filed lawsuits in many states, arguing that the state constitution of that state should protect them from being forced to nominate via government-administered primaries. It isn’t fair to hold it against parties that they have government-administered primaries when they didn’t want them, and were forced.
Again — the official primaries came along in 1888-1890 to end having TYRANT bosses controlling conventions by major threats and bribes.
See the Boss Tweed gangsters for example.
Other major reform of the era — the SECRET ballot — to also end those threats and bribes by the boss gangs.
One does not have to blame William Tweed for the institution of government-run/funded primaries in order to object to their continuation in the same form more than a century later.
My recollection was that Hiram Johnson favored non-partisan primaries, but was thwarted by the political parties.