This is so astoundingly wrong, I’m flabbergasted (sorry, Trevor Noah!).
I am a poll worker. There is a VERY rigorous process to ensure than the person registering is a citizen.
Texas not only verifies citizenship, it is so zealous in doing so that it routinely flags eligible voters.
Moderating:
Joe Biden is not the topic of the thread. Hunter Biden is not the topic. High taxes are not the topic. Hilary Clinton is not the topic.
I am surprised I had to say that last one, but here we are. Drop the attempted hijacks.
More than a different argument. There are probably different laws on the books in each state as to primaries versus the general. So the same finding of fact might have to be re-proven to different detailed standards for the two elections and could result even in the same findings of fact producing different outcomes of law in the same state.
You keep saying “chaos”. Not chaos. Just a not-nationally-standardized result. There are lots of things in the USA that differ across the 50 states. We are not a unitary country even though I agree it would be smarter here in the 21st Century if we were.
You clearly can run a functioning democracy that way. We have been for ~250 years.
I agree that if SCOTUS finds a way to punt, everything about the election will be more complicated. And will almost certainly involve protesting and violence. OTOH, if SCOTUS does rule, and rules in a way that the highly-roused rabble disagree with, there will also be protesting and violence.
According any significance whatsoever to what public lawlessness may follow is simply choosing to give in to the anarchists and their propaganda-masters.
When has a candidate for president been on the ballot in some states but not others in that 250+ years?
I don’t see how you can be so complacent about this. If the next election has Trump and Biden off the ballot inconsistently across various states, the latter through malicious partisan revenge action with no recourse to effective due process to correct it, it marks the failure of democracy in the US.
The absence of a federally consistent process for the application of 14A in the Consitution and an effective process to correct misapplication is an error that needs to be corrected, not something that should be celebrated as a virtue because the Constitution is an infallible religious text.
The fact that the states have so much power over elections is similarly an error that needs to be corrected, because the record of many states in conducting fair elections is appalling, it is the chief weapon that Republicans are using to undermine democracy in the US.
I swear that if a massive asteroid were heading toward Earth that would wipe out mankind, the US had the technology to deflect it but the Consitution said we couldn’t proceed, most Americans would shrug and say there was nothing we could do, it’s in the Constitution.
YMMV. Colorado lets you register online.
It’s not that I’m complacent about it. I agree completely with you that the things you say need to be corrected ought to be corrected. And pronto. Like this week, not next month.
I simply despair of any mechanism to do so that is less extra-constitutional than what the traitorous revolutionaries are proposing. Once we tear up the only rule book we have, it’s game over. Until then we have an opportunity to muddle through. An increasingly slim opportunity, but an opportunity nonetheless.
This happens all the time (no, not of major party candidates, but there are far more than 2 political parties in the United States).
As an example, here’s the map for the Green Party candidate in 2020. It looks like he wasn’t on the ballot in several states. (ETA: Grey is not on ballot; light Green means he was a write in)
Of course, as has been noted, this is not exactly what trump is facing. He’s being kept off of primary ballots; we haven’t even reached the general election stage yet.
Good job for acknowledging that you understood what I obviously meant, but pressed on with an irrelevant response (supported by a pretty map!) anyway.
People keep repeating this, but so far as I can see the determination in CO and ME that 14A applies is not restricted in scope to primary ballots.
And so far as I can see the only way we muddle through this is if the SC does something reasonably sensible other than the originalist/textualist mantra.
It’s extremely unfortunate that it’s this SC, and it underlines yet again how disastrous it was the the Dems let the What If We Didn’t Party subvert the SC. But it’s all we have, and as bad as some justices are, they are not completely off the deep end like so much of Congress.
But it’s not irrelevant. Our Founders, in their infinite wisdom, didn’t build political parties into our system, and so there certainly can’t be any fundamental difference between “major parties” and “minor parties” in the system. A candidate from a party can be on the ballot in some states but not others, and this doesn’t cause the system to break down. Something similar happened in 1948, with “dixiecrat” candidates running only in Southern states.
The irrelevance has nothing to do with whether parties are major or minor per se. It’s irrelevant because I’m obviously not talking about minor candidates who CHOOSE not to run everywhere, but candidates who are deemed ineligible and not ALLOWED to run.
What I don’t understand as a Canadian is why the individual States have any say in who is a candidate for a party. Partisanship is not part of our constitution either and parties are essentially clubs run by their members to field candidates with a common platform. Until the general election puts a name (and party affiliation if not an independent) the government plays no part.
In fact-land, liberals from California are not fleeing to Texas or anywhere else, except for one reason, to escape the skyrocketing property values that make CA unaffordable. In general, it’s the rightwingers that emigrate in a huff to rightwing states – like Idaho in particular. Liberals move, for preference, to liberal states like Washington and Oregon, or to the Northeast.
Northeasterners move south to escape the cold winters, as far as I can tell. The people of any stripe who move to the poorer and crappier safety-net states for tax and cost of living relief are typically retired and their income has to go farther than it did when they were working.
If you’re going to try to insult liberals on this board, you’d best come with cites.
/hijack
The Supreme Court will make sure he’s on the ballot in all 50 states.
And even if that somehow doesn’t happen, his rabid supporters will write his name in, assuming their scribbles are legible.
Wait - you think 3rd party candidates don’t want to be on the ballot in each state?
When they aren’t on a ballot, it’s because they didn’t qualify (usually, they didn’t get enough signatures, but it could be for other reasons). Lawsuits often commence.
And, as noted, the system still operates when that happens.
There’s a fun & naïvely anachronistic feature of the backup procedure (“contingent election”) where the President is selected by the House after the EC fails to reach a majority decision.
The House must consider the top three vote getters from the EC’s unsuccessful balloting. So some oddball candidate has one last Hail Mary chance to become Prez.
Oh those sweet summer children back in 1776 before anyone had thought to invent political parties and the duality that game theory dictates is the only stable equilibrium given the rest of the US’s voting features. They can hardly be blamed for their oversight, since game theory wouldn’t be invented for another century.
Yeah, that’s how Evan McMullan had a shot at the Presidency in 2016: Win one state (probably Utah, in his case), the other states just happen to fall out short for both other candidates, and then convince a few Representatives that he represented a compromise. It was a slim chance, of course (538 estimated it at less than a percent), but still a lot better chance than even most politicians would ever have.
Hm… Pursuing the hypotheticals deeper down the rabbit hole, the Founders who wrote that provision were clearly assuming that, since nobody got an outright majority, there must have been at least three candidates. But what if there weren’t three valid candidates? What if, say, the Democrats get a plurality, not quite 50% of the electoral votes, and the Republicans are split between some electors who vote Trump and some who coalesce on some other Republican, but then the Powers that Be determine that Trump isn’t a valid choice? Do they just pick from the other two, then, or does that force Trump’s name onto the shortlist despite ineligibility?
Actually, there are a lot of ways that “top three” thing could go wrong. What if there are two major contenders, and then a half a dozen different protest votes, each for a different candidate, so there’s a six-way tie for third place?
A contingent election would be an absolute shit show. While the House votes on who will become President from among the top three EC winners, they vote as state delegations – i.e. the Representatives from a state vote for a candidate, and whomever wins gets that state’s vote (with each state getting one vote). It’s ill-defined how it’s determined who wins in a state’s voting – is a plurality sufficient, is there a quorum requirement, etc.
Because of the state delegation requirement, it’s likely that Trump would win a contingent election even if Democrats took back the majority in the House. That’s because Democratic Representatives are disproportionately clustered in fewer high-population states while Republican Representatives are spread across more low-population states. So it’s entirely possible that Trump could lose the popular vote and place second or even third in the EC, and still become President.
Yep. It’s yet another way the total electoral system of the USA is biased in favor of the right.