This is pretty much what I’m trying to say. Some people are probably going to say that they’ll eventually do that anyway, but I think there would be outrage if they tried. But if Democrats are the ones who start that ball rolling first, they run the risk of playing right into Trump’s narrative that they’re just nothing but a bunch of sore losers who are trying to rig the election. Yes, Trump will say these sorts of things, but Democrats shouldn’t be doing things that might validate him. There are a lot of independents who would balk at such an idea, and like it or not, we need to persuade them that we’re a better choice for governing the country. This seems like a good way to dissuade them.
Absolutely.
Voting rights, fighting voter suppression – fight for ways to get out more and more voters and fight to be more persuasive to all of the voters who plan to show up. But even proposing and talking in a state legislative committee about the idea of removing the incumbent presidential candidate from a poll is fucking nuts.
It could even hurt down ticket Dems in those states as it would be an election without a contest at the top, more like a midterm, which despite 2018 usually plays to D disadvantage.
Dumb thing to do as well as wrong.
You know what? That’s a brilliant post, DSeid - I hadn’t even thought of that, but you’re right. It would be like a mid-term if you take away the main event.
Probably not. I’m sure any independent or 3rd party candidate would leap at the chance to be on the ballot without a Republican. The future ballot access ability (getting 5% or so of the vote leading to guaranteed later access without signature gathering) alone would make it too good to pass up.
Granted, Democratic Candidate may not be seriously threatened by 3rd Party Candidate but it’s not as though they were seriously threatened by Republican Candidate either in California, New York, Illinois, etc and people still come out to vote for president.
In many states they’ve done it already. There wasn’t. Or there was, and the GOP ignored it.
So a law which says that you have to have a freely provided ID is worse that telling millions of people who have registered to vote that they may not vote for their preferred candidate?
I don’t want to hijack the thread with a voter ID debate, but your side complains about disenfranchisement, but at the same time would tell people that they cannot vote to re-elect the President of the United States.
How is it better to tell people that they can vote, but only for the state approved candidate? That smacks of the “elections” that they hold in Cuba.
Of course they can. All their candidate has to do is get on the ballot.
Millions of people might want to vote for Taylor Swift but if Ms Swift doesn’t put herself on the ballot, that’s on no one but her. It ain’t the states’ fault.
If Taylor Swift does not want to run, then she is not a “candidate.”
If you don’t file your tax returns with the state in question, you’re not a “candidate” there either.
Being a candidate is more than a vague yearning to run, it’s also paperwork and regulations on the federal and state level. Either do the work or stay home.
I don’t believe a state can add requirements beyond what is laid out in the Constitution; Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
That is, of course, not even REMOTELY what people in this discussion are saying. If fact, it’s pretty much the exact opposite.
They already do. You need to have enough signed petitions to get on the ballot, for example (this is waived for major parties since it’s assumed that they’ll get enough but political parties aren’t referenced in the constitution)
If you read the Thornton case cited on the prior page of this thread, you will see that the Supreme Court makes a distinction between general administrative ballot access laws to ensure an orderly election and to make sure that there are not 5,000 candidates for an office listed (4,993 of them are just for novelty reasons) and enacting meaningful substantive requirements which tend to invoke the state power to add qualifications for the office being sought.
It is exactly what people are saying. They are saying that unless the candidate they wish to vote for, who would otherwise be entitled to ballot access, cannot be voted in favor of because of an additional state policy requirement that it alone believes is an important quality to have in a candidate: in this case the openness of releasing one’s private tax returns.
As others have said, there is no difference in this requirement than one requiring “voluntary” searches of a candidate’s home or the release of all private communications. It would be a further edge case and a different debate if the requirement was that one had to be a Republican or a heterosexual, but the principle is the same for this particular debate: these are requirements in addition to the qualifications listed in the Constitution, not administrative and related to orderly elections, and therefore out of bounds.
Agreed that fighting against voter suppression is a greater priority than cunning plans about who can get on the ballot. The latter is pretty much despairing and assuming the former will have succeeded.
This is, I think, an important point – it is established already that you may not legislate additional qualifications ***to hold the office ***above and beyond what the constitution says. The next question becomes, how far may the administrative/procedural requirements for ballot access go without crossing over into excessively onerous or capricious hoop-jumping or becoming mandates that *candidates *fulfill a particular preferred profile for holding the office.
Read Thornton. The Arkansas law at issue said that a term limited Congressman could not appear on the ballot. If the voters wrote the term limited candidate in, he or she could still be elected.
The Court held that to be a distinction without a difference as it noted the difficulty and practical impossibility of winning a write-in campaign.
It’s not a complex if you are an actual victim. Which they would be in this case. And I thought Democrats believed that voter suppression was the worst thing ever.
Democrats are their own worst enemy. They keep bringing the crazy when all they have to do is calm down and come up with a solid, center left, non-scary candidate with a non-crazy platform. Trump is the most vulnerable incumbent in a long time, and you shouldn’t need to resort to tricks to beat him.
I can’t imagine how this move would help the Democrats. If Trump still won (and I think this move would make that more likely), the Democrats will look like they tried to play shenanigans and lost. Trump will go around claiming that he has an even bigger mandate because he won without those states anyway, and will use their tactics as an excuse to punish them in various ways. And if Trump lost, his loss would have a giant asterisk behind it and would likely be challenged in court.
Democrats need to beat Trump cleanly. Enough with the shenanigans. Enough grandstanding. Just come up with a reasonable platform acceptable to the majority of people and do the hard work of winning the election properly. Ballot gimmicks will backfire.
Only the Democrats need to play by the rules. Republicans can do anything they like and it’s always “legitimate”.
I’ll choose Texas as a hypothetical example, a state where Democrats are working hard to turn to purple and then to blue. Imagine their Republican legislature choosing its recommended best practices and the ballot looking like this:
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) [Supports killing babies in the womb, does not support your right to own a gun]
Donald Trump (Republican) [Meets all recommended best practices]
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) [abuses illegal drugs]
Whatever the “best practices” are will be decided upon by the majority. The majority will decide what is true and fair. Allowing such labeling on the ballot is a tyranny of the majority and a *horrible *idea.