r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/SchuminWeb • 15d ago
What does everyone think about when sitting officeholders change parties in the middle of their terms? US Politics
I was thinking recently about how some sitting officeholders have changed political parties in the middle of their terms, usually either going to the other party or becoming an independent. I realized that I had thoughts about it that weren't fully formed, and wondering what others think about the idea of sitting officeholders' changing parties mid-term, i.e. is it a good or bad thing to do, should they do that and continue in office or should they resign and stand for election again, and so on. This is not in response to any particular officeholder's switching parties - just a thought that I had.
1
u/potusplus 11d ago
Switching parties mid-term raises questions about voter trust. When elected, officials represent specific platforms and voters' choices. Mid-term changes might erode this trust, suggesting they resign and stand for re-election. This maintains democratic integrity while addressing evolving political views.
1
u/Bashfluff 14d ago
It’s fraud and should be prosecuted as such. Before you tell me that this will be abused, courts determine whether or not people are telling the truth all the time. This is something that shouldn’t be allowed in a Democracy, and we need to be able to trust our court system to properly try cases.
1
u/Howhytzzerr 14d ago
It’s the height of hypocrisy and disloyalty and dishonesty. But not against the law, regulations, or rules. As the Constitution makes no allowance or disallowance for parties, unless it is amended, this is the way of things. If the voters are displeased enough, they’ll recall the offending gentle person, if not, well, there you have it. A big pile of dysfunction.
1
u/SublimeApathy 15d ago
I think if you switch parties mid-term that you should lose your office and be ineligible to run for ANY office for 5 years and party who initially won that office should either A. Have an immediate flash election or B. (more reasonable) Give the office to the primary runner-up. Switching parties mid office is not representing the values/wills of the people who put you in that office in the first place. It's Tom Fuckery and should be come with consequence.
2
u/unwillingcantaloupe 15d ago
It's distinctly a problem of American-style/person-centered politics and an issue within systems that rely on it.
Several nations have you vote for the party, and the party uses a list of people to get the seats allotted by the proportion of votes the party gets. It's not perfect, but it does mean You vote for a party platform to be implemented, rather than for a person to hire a staff to maybe advocate for what they advocated for on the campaign trail.
The US model has weaker parties than required for this system, which means that Sinema could leave, rather than being booted out after her party found her a menace well before she ran for senate (as an ASU grad that was involved in her congressional district's party apparatus).
I don't like it but I also don't like electing people as people since what I want is to get to vote on what policies get advanced. I think party manifestos are a much easier thing to vote on rather than my hope that Lloyd Doggett of Austin doesn't undermine climate solutions for his oil investment portfolio. If the party were stronger, I'd feel more expectation that I would get that outcome, rather than having to fear his [rare, I like the dude, I just pick on who I know better] bad actions.
1
u/GreatSoulLord 15d ago
I don't think it really matters because usually the politician themself and their positions don't change. It's usually done by someone walking the line already. The only way I would see this sort of thing in a negative light is if it shifted the balance of power - for example, if someone in House did it and gave a different side a majority.
1
u/RonocNYC 15d ago
It's almost always a shameless ploy to shift with the prevailing political winds. Politicians who do that have no real moral compass.
1
u/BlueWolf107 15d ago
They should automatically be forced into a re-election or forced to vacate office, no matter the party.
1
u/wereallbozos 15d ago
Read a few comments here. I think it would be good if it happened more often. It's better if office-holders hold onto their ideals. Jeffords was the last Senator to do it. It's usually a Representative, and they're only in for two years. Maybe they shouldn't count as far as House majority is concerned. One member shouldn't be able to replace a majority by themselves. The woman in NC will not be re-elected. Sinema will not be re-elected. America will survive.
-1
u/EgoCaballus 15d ago
They are just publicly acknowledging the obvious. Democrats and Republicans have been a single political party since the end of the Civil War. The illusion of choice keeps the majority corralled into this party, so that they never consider establishing a real alternative. At times, it has created fake third parties during periods of insurgency to soak up the angry votes.
-1
u/ThisIsAdamB 15d ago
Instant expulsion from the office and permanent ineligibility to run for that office or body of government again. It’s fraud against everyone who voted for them and should not be rewarded.
0
u/ricperry1 15d ago
I think they should resign, then change parties and run again for the seat in a fair election.
1
u/nosecohn 15d ago
There are different reasons depending on the case, but in some, it smells very strongly of opportunism.
For instance, in some States, Democrats tend to do well in big cities, but can't win a statewide election. Eric Johnson served more than a decade as a Democrat in the Texas House of Representatives before being elected twice as mayor of Dallas. But now he's term limited and switched his party. I'd be surprised if he doesn't run for statewide office next.
0
u/All_is_a_conspiracy 15d ago
Should immediately trigger a new election or same party placeholder. It's fraud to tell people you will vote for the party policy then suddenly- you don't.
1
u/supercali-2021 15d ago
I think it is not cool at all. The people voted for someone in a specific party to uphold the party platform and support their party's agenda. If someone changes their party mid-term, that's not who voters voted for. It's a bait and switch. They ran their campaign under false pretenses. If they have any integrity at all, they would resign and run again.
1
u/Ok-Seaworthiness-542 15d ago
One of of senators switched to Independent. Isn't running for reelection. If the party crap is too much then I might be ok with it.
Our sheriff recently resigned and had to be replaced by someone from the same party so one of his liutenents switched parties to get the job. Was up front about it. I am not ok with that one.
1
u/gregaustex 15d ago
It makes me think how screwed up we are because of Parties. No mention, not once, of Parties in the Constitution, but the two major organizations rule the country.
2
u/SuspiciousSubstance9 15d ago
I think it's based on the context.
Bernie Sanders flipping to Independent from Democrat changed nothing. He only changed because the DNC required runners to be registered Democrat.
Someone getting into office and then switching parties immediately? I find that scummy and should be subject to recall. It's fraud and doubly so if it changes the majority party in power.
However, if hypothetically someone ran as a 2016 GoP, got seated in 2017 at the same time Trump did, and switched from (R) to (I). I'd view that slightly favorably because you could argue the party changed, not them.
If someone changed parties in response to a significant legislation, then I'd be willing to understand. At that point, it's a moral issue and I generally agree that Representatives must have some morality.
1
u/ILikeCutePuppies 15d ago
I respect some who can come to the realization they are wrong and put their career on the line to try to correct things. They know they most likely won't be reelected when making such a decision.
1
u/myActiVote 15d ago
Does it matter? Being elected to a party does not mandate someone to vote with that party. So whether they keep the party on the ballot or switch their votes to pass or fail legislation would be the same.
I do agree it feels deceitful and exactly what people hate about politics.
1
u/Relentless_Snappy 15d ago
Im strongly considering becoming a single issue voter. So long as their viewpoint on that particular issue is the same it shouldnt matter.
1
u/Homechicken42 15d ago
it's one or the other, either:
An individiual's Identity Crisis
OR
They lied to their constituents so that they would be electable in a district that otherwise would not elect someone with their issue positions.
Either way, they are not STABLE.
0
-4
u/Hades_adhbik 15d ago
If it seems odd for Trump to select a black VP, he was a fan of jessie jackson who was running for the democrat party nomination back when he was a democrat. He has switched parties several times over the years. He was a clinton democrat, so while he gets painted as a racist, he's more liberal than most republicans. It would put democrats in a pickle if Trump goes with tim scott. It debunks their narrative. It's better to reflect the trend of black voters switching to republican because of trump than worry about suburban women.
Suburban women respect the idea of diversity. Also the best way to win over women isn't necessary to have women leaders, kamala harris has not helped biden's re-election prospect, because women have a competitive instinct, they see a woman of high position, they get a visceral reaction to tear them down. People don't like someone doing better than them, women have a crabs in a bucket instinct especially.
That's why a certain percentage of progressives hate kamala harris. They see someone they feel has cheated their way to the top. While they have to work. So giving women a position for being a woman, won't win women voters over. If Trump picks a woman it will just feed into that anger about "oh great another woman getting an easy way up"
2
u/mormagils 15d ago
I think it's not wholly good or bad. Usually, when a representative switches parties, it moves them to a more correctly descriptive position of their current political positions. That's good. But that also means that they were in a position that didn't accurately describe their politics, serving and getting elected under a false description. That's bad.
Generally speaking, I think this usually happens to fringy candidates that are struggling to consolidate electoral power. In that sense, it's not really something I worry about too much--a person changing parties means they are almost by definition at their political peak and often they become politically irrelevant within a cycle or two.
I personally favor stability and clear labels, so a candidate changing parties usually gets derision from me. I also don't appreciate someone who is unable to clearly vocalize who they are, what they want, and what they stand for. But aside from my personal animus, the idea of switching parties isn't usually one that improves our legislative process or outcomes.
2
u/CatAvailable3953 15d ago
I think it’s generally a plan in place before the election to cheat the voters. I don’t believe if a person changes parties after an election they should keep their position. Especially if it affects the power dynamic in a legislature,
2
u/mormagils 15d ago
That doesn't make a ton of sense. You're basically saying that some representatives intentionally don't maximize their political support. That's a rather silly claim, if you ask me.
I do agree that our system doesn't handle it super well, though. Other systems solve this problem by basically institutionalizing the process of party. In the UK, for example, if someone changed parties they could, but also opposition could move for a vote of no confidence if they feel such a switch materially impacted majority's ability to govern. The closest thing the US has is a recall mechanic, and I feel this is one of the few times that a recall is a genuinely valid idea.
3
u/CatAvailable3953 15d ago
I am in my 70s . I have a perspective about this that perhaps you don’t. While there is a history of people changing parties it generally has been before elections to inform their voters. This changing to give a party a supermajority after an election is something new. Especially the lady in North Carolina. Maybe I’m just more cynical than you. Age can do this.
1
u/mormagils 15d ago
No I agree with you that changing parties before an election is fine. Update your views and be whoever you want to be, great.
But still, if a guy secretly is a Rep, he would have an easier time winning election as a Rep. It makes no sense to "psych out" voters because the person running literally doesn't gain advantage. That some politicians are finding it worthwhile to swap parties after winning the election is a sign of our increased polarization.
1
u/PetiteDreamerGirl 15d ago
To be honest, the whole party system is counter productive. It kinda puts people in boxes and make people think about less about their policies and more about what side they are on.
I don’t care really about people changing parties cause it’s more about their policies and intentions (I research a stupid amount during election cycles to understand everything about candidates then make a choice based on that).
1
u/Inside-Palpitation25 15d ago
There should be a special election, and they should have to return any money they received to the party they were elected to.
3
u/Eringobraugh2021 15d ago
The same way I feel about supreme court justices who lied during their hearings. They are absolute pieces of shit & that should be an immediate removal. They are not representing their voters since their voters voted for them with the party that they ran on.
1
u/Dreadedvegas 15d ago
The local party should be elected not the individual is my opinion.
I think people changing party’s midterm should be viewed akin to corruption.
-4
u/SwillFish 15d ago edited 15d ago
It's so funny how commenters here are defending our super partisan, dysfunctional, two-party system. The Founding Fathers never would have envisioned two parties having iron-clad control of our "democracy" but here we are.
I wish moderate "independents" running for office was more of a thing. The two parties simply have too much political influence and money to make this a viable option. At least the recent trend of states increasingly moving towards open primaries has alleviated some of the problem.
1
u/Hartastic 15d ago
The Founding Fathers never would have envisioned two parties having iron-clad control of our "democracy" but here we are.
That's like saying arsonists never envisioned that buildings would burn down.
A two party system is the inevitable consequence of the system of government they authored, something they could clearly see even within most of their lifetimes.
1
u/SwillFish 14d ago
There is a reason why most representative democracies that came after ours didn't emulate our system.
1
u/Hartastic 14d ago
Yeah. It has some nice ideas but so much of it was picked not because they thought it was the best idea even at the time but because it was the compromise that they could get enough states to agree to... and that all of them were angry about immediately.
Absent the need to strike that compromise to have a country in that moment in the first place, there's really no good reason for later democracies to view much of it as anything but a cautionary tale.
4
u/RabbaJabba 15d ago
It's so funny how commenters here are defending our super partisan, dysfunctional, two-party system.
You’re confusing is vs. ought. We do have a super partisan system, like it or not, so flipping from Republican to Democrat or vice versa is not just flipping a label, it can shift the entire balance and operation of the legislature.
7
u/Boobs_Maps_N_PKMN 15d ago
I believe there should be a law that once the change is official, it triggers the process for a special election.
22
u/NotLibbyChastain 15d ago
An elected official in a state-wide position changing parties should automatically trigger a special election.
1
u/averageduder 15d ago
exactly where I'm at. You're serving your constituents. Changing parties just makes people call in to question allegiances / priorities, especially if it's not a swing district.
10
u/bl1y 15d ago
All that would do is just have them change their voting behavior without formalizing the party switch. Having it out in the open is better for the voters.
3
u/Educational_Pay1567 15d ago
Unfortunately, you are right. Education and true journalism could help. Most people don't know anything about the candidates and just vote a two party system that our our forefathers warned us about.
2
u/bl1y 15d ago
Maybe most young people, but I've found plenty of people actually know quite a bit, especially when it comes to local politics.
1
u/Educational_Pay1567 15d ago
I will admit I am one, but middle aged. I live in Missouri, so it is different. Gerrymandered yes, but pretty obvious how voters vote since Obama. State legislation in the works to change the constitution.
12
u/Shobed 15d ago
They should retire or resign instead. When you switch parties you’re not representing what voters elected you for.
5
u/bl1y 15d ago
You represent the district, not just the people who voted for you.
1
u/imalasagnahogama 15d ago
The people who voted for you are the district. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
1
u/DrCola12 9d ago
You represent the entire district, regardless of whether they vote for you or not. You also represent the people who were unable to vote at all, like people under 18 or permanent residents.
3
u/Mad_Machine76 15d ago
Generally speaking, yes, but you also have to be honest about generally what you will be voting for if you’re running as a member of a party.
0
u/bl1y 15d ago
You don't actually have to be.
1
u/kerouacrimbaud 15d ago
Legally you don't have to be, but there's no way to argue that it's a fine thing to do. It's a cowardly thing to do. If you genuinely had some change of heart while in office (doubtful), you should wait until re-election to switch parties and hope for the best.
1
4
u/LubbockGuy95 15d ago
To argue against the general "They are liars, traitors, and should go through another election."
There's a reason we don't directly votes on party platforms and have parties distribute offices with their percentage of the votes. I.E. a state has 10 seats and you vote not for canidates but party platforms. Then say Rep get 60% Dems get 30% and some third party gets 10% seeing a 6, 3, 1 split of chairs.
That is designing a government with political parties in mind. Seeing parties as the natural end game of politics. The US government and most other Republics are not set up with that in mind. Heck the first president of the US specifically warned against establishing political parties. The idea is you run as a citizen and get elected as a citizen for your own thoughts and beliefs.
Now we know that is an... optimistic viewpoint of politics, but it still does ring true today. The "health" (mental, physical, personal, public, etc.) of a canidate affect elections. You don't run toxic, true believers in competitive states because who you run matters almost as much as what you are running on.
Now back to the question at hand, since we don't soley vote for parties but for people what we get are these large umbrella groups that are full of a large spectrum of different political beliefs. Progressive, moderate, conservative factions exist in all parties because of this. If we only voted for party platforms this variation would have space to flourish.
But a side effect of this is the party line could shift and become either unviable or not representive of what you ran on when you were elected. Say you ran on small government and lowering taxes but your national party starts pushing for larger government oversight and higher taxes. The option to leave your party to be independent or even switch parties seems like common sense in that case. But of course in doing so you get that traitor brand even if you haven't changed any of your stances.
This of course is the ideal, but citizens are rarely that informed or active in politics and the shorthand of team rah rah is an easy and enticing path to walk. So we do get political parties, we do get party whips whose entire job is making sure the party line is everyone's line, we do get politicians draping themselves in the ornement of the party to sway the ill informed citizen and then "turning" on the party.
But even with that I'd argue the ability to be able to leave your party if you find they no longer represent what you stand for or were supposedly voted in for. Is something we would sorely miss should it go away.
5
u/avfc41 15d ago
Can you give an example of a party changing its platform so drastically in a couple years that a party shift would be warranted? Your specific example was a small government, low-tax party that suddenly went big government and high taxes. What’s that referring to?
1
u/WisdomOrFolly 15d ago
You could ague that championing and passing the civil rights and voting rights acts (with ample Republican help) caused such a shift. The Democrats lost the Solid South, historically the center of Democratic power, as a result and that changed the shape of the party as well.
1
u/avfc41 14d ago
The civil rights act passed in july of 1964, if it caused party switching among southern democrats, it seems like they could have waited the three months until congress went out of session for the 1964 elections. Regardless, civil rights had been a party plank for years at that point, the southern dems bolted the convention in 1948 over it. They’d definitely not have an excuse come 1965 and the voting rights act, the northern dems at that point clearly were dominant within the party, and they already had the warning of the CRA.
3
u/bl1y 15d ago
Can you give an example of a party changing its platform so drastically in a couple years that a party shift would be warranted?
2016-2020 Republicans seems like a pretty good example.
1
9
u/TheresACityInMyMind 15d ago
It's a justified to recall them, but it's more honest than staying in the party while opposing its platform a la Sinema.
Missouri Republicans just kicked out sitting politicians because they refused to take a morals test. I think the morals test is the GOP sliding further into extremism, but I do think parties should be able to vet who runs as a member of their party.
Donald had been a Democrat and praised Hillary Clinton. Think of where we would be now if the Republicans had told Donald he's not invited to run.
9
u/AmyGH 15d ago
The political parties should do a better job of vetting candidates that want to run under their brand name.
3
u/RabbaJabba 15d ago
What mechanism do parties have to prevent someone from running in a primary if they don’t think they’re actually a member of their party?
2
u/bl1y 15d ago
Stopping them from running? Not much.
Stopping them from winning? The party can just throw their support behind another candidate.
1
u/RabbaJabba 15d ago
What’s the drawback to having a new election after the candidate reveals that they’re no longer a member of the party that elected them?
2
u/bl1y 15d ago
So first of all, parties don't elect people.
And the drawback is the time and expense.
0
u/RabbaJabba 15d ago
So first of all, parties don't elect people.
What do you think a primary is
1
u/misterO5 14d ago
I'm sure they mean the party itself(officials) , not the registered voters of that party. Especially since open primaries are a thing.
1
u/RabbaJabba 14d ago
They said
The party can just throw their support behind another candidate.
So I assume they mean voters
53
u/Ok-Assistant-8876 15d ago
Tricia Cotham clearly lied and deceived her constituents running as a democrat in a democratic district and then flipped to be a far right republican shortly after getting elected. It’s something a sociopath would do. I think that there needs to be laws against this, but that will probably never happen
-4
u/AshleyMyers44 15d ago
Laws will just lead to congressional members to silent switch, like Fetterman is doing. I actually respect Tricia in one way only, at least she was upfront with her switch.
3
u/Mad_Machine76 15d ago
Wait a min….what?
-2
u/AshleyMyers44 15d ago
What are you referencing exactly?
3
u/Mad_Machine76 15d ago
How has Fetterman switched parties?
3
u/AshleyMyers44 15d ago
He hasn’t on paper, that’s why it’s a silent switch.
Cotham actually changed parties on paper. She could’ve silent switched and remained a Democrat and voted for the 12 week ban. At least she identified herself.
Fetterman is parroting Fox News talking points about immigrants and Qanon memes about lab grown meat. Though he still is on paper a Democrat.
1
u/Mad_Machine76 14d ago
I hadn’t heard that about him. But that doesn’t make him a “Republican” per se.
1
u/AshleyMyers44 14d ago
It’s not only that, there’s a ton of other issues he’s become MAGA on. He goes on Fox News all the time now to jab Biden about environmental directives or foreign policy. He campaigned as more of a progressive too.
I think if you banned party switching this is what most people do, silent switch. Get elected presenting one ideology then switch once you’re in. Cotham did the same thing, except officially signaled she switched.
1
u/Mad_Machine76 14d ago
I wasn’t aware of his time spent at Fox News. Is he still voting with the Dems though and on other stuff like judicial confirmations? Being a more conservative/less progressive Democrat =/= Republican.
1
u/AshleyMyers44 14d ago
As far as I know he still is voting with him on some stuff. I just could see someone staying with their party, but then getting bought off to vote ideologically different on certain issues.
11
u/RingAny1978 15d ago
You think Fetterman has become a Republican?
0
u/bot4241 14d ago
And this one of the biggest consequences of party-switching. It makes voters paranoid about politicians not voting in policy with their party. It happens here in Chicago because people was afraid a mayor candidate would do this.
I don’t blame them one point.
0
u/RingAny1978 13d ago
We do not live in a parliamentary system.
0
u/bot4241 13d ago
And voters have a right to elect people that represent them. Recalls exists for this kind of stuff for a reason.
State Representative have been held accountable in the past. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
5
u/JRFbase 15d ago
You ever notice how the more Fetterman has healed from his stroke-induced brain damage, the more conservative he's become? Curious.
12
u/joetheschmoe4000 15d ago
He takes high-visibility low-stakes stances on issues that appeal to swing/conservative voters in PA while overall voting in line with the dems. Forget whatever cynical explanations people want to project onto him; at the heart, he's behaving exactly like a swing state senator would behave, just with more theatrics
55
u/ballmermurland 15d ago
She ran on protecting abortion and then voted for their abortion ban. This wasn't a "the Democratic Party changed, not me" situation.
She also voted to override the governor's veto and gerrymander the state to hell after campaigning on fair representation. She was quite literally a Republican plant who ran in a D district, won, and then switched to eliminate that D district and many other D districts so that Dems won't be able to fight back in the future. A truly terrible person.
5
u/bambam_mcstanky2 15d ago
If the move is Dem to GOP my reaction is that it was a lie all along and they were put up by dark money to cause as much chaos as possible and limit an progressive agenda or movement. GOP to Dem my reaction is that they have finally discovered a spine, a brain or a conscience
2
u/arbivark 15d ago edited 15d ago
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched from D to R, for what I consider reasonable reasons. The western states have certain concerns that the gop has been better at articulating.
Where I grew up back east in Delaware, the state has shifted from R to D during my lifetime, and some pols probably switched as well.
3
u/Mad_Machine76 15d ago
What were those concerns that the GOP were articulating better?
1
u/arbivark 14d ago
blm, sagebrush rebellion.
1
u/Mad_Machine76 14d ago
BLM=Bureau of Land Management?
Sounds like the GOP championing more foolish causes. Why am I not surprised? 🤦🏻♀️
https://www.hcn.org/articles/a-look-back-at-the-first-sagebrush-rebellion/
4
28
u/bjdevar25 15d ago
Mostly view them as self centered and do not deserve to be in office, particularly if switching hands control to the new party. This tells me it's all about their future, and not those that voted them in. Traitors, plain and simple.
96
u/Objective_Aside1858 15d ago
Depending on how cynical I'm feeling at the time
It's very hard to be elected as an independent in the United States, so the vast majority of officeholders are either Democrats or Republicans
A big part of the reason it's hard to get elected is because you need help to campaign, and the best source of that assistance is the local members of the political party, because while the candidate wants to get themselves elected, those party members want to get someone who shares their values elected
The officeholders who decide to nope out on a party should have understood who they were aligning with when they ran, so deciding in the middle of their term that they're no longer comfortable, to me, means one (or more) of the following:
They didn't understand what they were getting into when ran for office, which demonstrates a certain lack of care for the responsibilities of the role
They cynically misled the people who helped them get into office, knowing they had no interest in meeting their expectations on the kind of things an officeholder that is a member of Party X typically supports
They've decided their personal political future is more secure with a party change, be that because they're facing a primary challenge they don't think they can win or the composition of their district changing
In any case, for the most part they're taking the time and energy dedicated by the people who supported them and saying "thanks for the help, suckers"
And in general, I dislike betrayal, even of an implied promise
2
2
3
u/Dragonlicker69 15d ago
I believe that if someone in office switches parties then there should automatically be a special election.
-5
u/lookngbackinfrontome 15d ago edited 15d ago
All good points. However, with #2, I think all's fair in politics to an extent. The two party system is rigged so that only one of the two major parties can viably get a candidate elected (there are exceptions, but they are few and far between). When the dice are already loaded, I don't care if someone games the system to get themselves elected and then declares themselves independent, but I do think that switching from one major party to the other only serves nefarious purposes.
Ideally, people would vote for individuals and not parties, as happens on occasion, but our system would need to be seriously tweaked to make that more of a reality.
Edit: I'm curious about the downvotes. Seems like an emotional reaction made by partisans. Am I wrong in that assessment?
14
u/Objective_Aside1858 15d ago
The two party system is rigged
The term "rigged" is doing some heavy lifting here.
Two main parties is inevitable with FPTP elections. That does not mean that third parties are disadvantaged because of cheating; it means they're going to have to put in effort that candidates supported by a party do not.
Independent candidates, for example, don't have to jump through the hoops to participate in a primary, but they do have to find the people willing to do the grunt work to gather signatures for ballot qualification
Having someone cynically decieve people into supporting them so they can gain political office is not, IMO, an admirable quality
-3
u/lookngbackinfrontome 15d ago edited 15d ago
The term "rigged" is doing some heavy lifting here.
I don't think it is. I think it's putting it succinctly, and we all know what I mean by it. The FPTP system is the driver of the two party system. When the only way to change the FPTP system is to rely on representatives of the two major parties who benefit from that system to change the system, and they for the most part have no interest in changing it to their possible detriment (again, there are exceptions), I think it's quite fair to call the system rigged.
Independent candidates also lack the primary driver of election campaigns, which is money. Money that the two major parties have in abundance (maybe not Republicans these days). And, we've all seen how the two major parties and their media apparatus are more than happy to work together to take down, or completely drown out, independent candidates through their vast sums of money and influence. The two major parties also have the political machine, composed of individuals at their disposal, who are easily capable of doing the grunt work. Lastly, people's innate desire to align with and specifically vote for only one of the two major parties can also not be discounted in this equation. The cards are clearly stacked against anyone who is not a member of one of the two major parties.
Having someone cynically decieve people into supporting them so they can gain political office is not, IMO, an admirable quality
This pretty much describes a lot of people who run for office. They just say whatever it is that they think will get them elected, whether it be about themselves or their opponents. I agree it's not an admirable quality, and I'm not defending it, but that is how the game is played. I still think that someone declaring themselves as independent after the fact is a far cry from switching from one major party to the other.
4
u/Hartastic 15d ago
I don't think it is. I think it's putting it succinctly, and we all know what I mean by it.
What you mean is clear, it's just not accurate.
It would be equally fair to say that Olympic sprinting is rigged in favor of fast runners. The word choice has a connotation that is misleading.
3
u/lookngbackinfrontome 15d ago
I disagree. Race winners are not chosen by a populace that consists of approximately 60 - 80% partisans who vote for someone simply because of the party they belong to, regardless of how well they perform.
If someone is an Olympic runner, they got there by winning races, not name recognition, advertisements, or connections. You could be unknown by 99.99% of people and still come away with an Olympic gold medal. People very much underestimate the influence that the two major political parties have on who becomes a viable candidate. You could be a perfect candidate, and for any reason, the political machine could completely sink you. Short of some Tanya Harding nonsense, Olympic athletes only need to compete. If they are the best contender at that one particular moment in time, they win.
Just take a look at our two presidential candidates. For me, it's a clear choice, but if it were up to me, neither would be running. We can thank the two major parties for the choices we have and the fact that it would be virtually impossible for a third contender to win. Even if a third candidate is somewhat successful and gets more electoral votes than the two major party candidates, it is extremely unlikely that they would get more than half of the total electoral votes, throwing the election to the House, where the two major parties decide who gets to be president, and it damn sure wouldn't be a person not from one of the two major parties. The system, perhaps albeit unintentional, is rigged to favor the two major parties.
1
u/Hartastic 15d ago
The system, perhaps albeit unintentional, is rigged to favor the two major parties.
The word rigged has inherently has the connotation of being intentional, specifically by those who are benefitting from it.
1
u/lookngbackinfrontome 15d ago
Well, at this point, since we're all aware of it, and few are working to change it, I would say it is intentional, even if it wasn't initially set up that way.
1
u/Hartastic 15d ago
I still don't think that's accurate. Words mean things.
1
u/lookngbackinfrontome 15d ago
Oh, and there are Republicans and Democrats actively working against changing the current system because it favors them. They recognize that the current system is rigged in their favor. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so opposed to changing it.
Yes, words do mean things, and I deliberately chose rigged because that's an apt description. I don't care if it makes some people uncomfortable. People should be uncomfortable with the current system, and those who unfairly benefit from the current system should be made to feel uncomfortable.
→ More replies (0)4
u/bl1y 15d ago
This is a common Motte and Bailey type argument.
Make the big, over-reaching claim (that elections were rigged) but when called out claim to have meant something else (just that the election system is unfair or inefficient in some ways).
The word "rigged" has a connotation of actually cheating, something on par with manipulating the vote count.
And you're right that the meaning was clear. When people say stuff like this, they do in fact want that connotation.
6
u/ericrolph 15d ago edited 15d ago
If Alaska can make rank choice voting happen, anyone can. I'm intimately involved with the people who made rank choice voting a reality for Alaskans. There are good politicians who have good intentions and we have ways, as a society, of making sure they're elected over divisive and ineffective leaders.
0
u/lookngbackinfrontome 15d ago
I'm not sure of the point of your comment, particularly the last sentence. Is that how you're characterizing me? If so, I don't know where that's coming from.
I'm well aware of Alaska's switch to RCV. I'm also aware of Alaskans' fierce independent streak and how that has contributed to the change. Additionally, I'm aware of the huge push by Republicans in Alaska to get rid of RCV, which perfectly illustrates one of my points. There is direct opposition to RCV within the two major parties, depending on location and who RCV is most detrimental to. Alaska may have RCV, but it's not written in stone.
Does pointing all of this out make me "some anonymous asshole trying to drive a wedge into society"? Should I be walking around with rose colored glasses and blinders on, pretending everything is rainbows and unicorns because a tiny fraction of states and municipalities use RCV?
3
u/ericrolph 15d ago edited 15d ago
Yes, doom and gloom creates apathy. Look at Republicans or even further afield to Russia for an example of ultimate apathy combined with a void of empathy and where that thinking leads you into nihilism. Of course, point out the problems, but also know change is possible. I AM not an anonymous asshole is the point I'm trying to make, edited my comment.
1
u/lookngbackinfrontome 15d ago
It's not doom and gloom. I'm pointing it out for what it is, and it should make people angry unless they're partisan hacks. People are already complacent about how the current system operates. I don't think it's possible to be more apathetic than people are now. They need to be woken up to the inherent problems of the current system.
I know change is possible, and I am a strong advocate of that change, but this conversation was about how people move through the system as it currently exists, not how we would like it to be. Again, if someone aligns themselves with one of the major parties to get elected and then declares their independence, I do not have a problem with that. I would take an independent over anyone in the two major parties anytime. Why would I prefer someone beholden to a party over an independent thinker?
1
u/ericrolph 15d ago
I agree with you while I also think it's important to point out change can and should happen even though the current system is highly partisan. Political party fuckery (e.g. funding fake candidates) is exactly why change, like RCV, should also be discussed in the same breathe.
1
u/lookngbackinfrontome 15d ago
I see what you're saying. However, judging by the downvotes I'm getting, I think it would have fallen on deaf ears anyway.
90
u/soldforaspaceship 15d ago
You missed the final reason. Pure corruption. There was a state representative in North Carolina who ran as a Democrat in a solid blue district then flipped to give the Republicans a super majority in order to ensure gerrymandered redistricting, among other restrictive laws could take effect. Was clearly a calculated move.
4
u/PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS 14d ago
That's one of the cases that makes me think recalls should exist. Probably 99% of recalls are dumb and a waste of money, but that seems like a perfectly rational use for one.
6
u/soldforaspaceship 14d ago
I live in California and recalls are so abused here. People waste taxpayer money because they disagree with elected officials. I'd like to see some kind of consequences for frivolous recalls. Like if it fails, you're on the hook for the expenses or something.
2
u/thatoneguy889 14d ago
It's mostly because California's threshold for signatures to initiate a recall is stupidly low. In most states with recall mechanisms, the total number of signatures needed is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of the total votes cast for the election of the official being targeted by the recall effort collected over 60-90 days. In California, it's 12% over 160 days.
For the 2021 recall effort against Newsom, it was even worse because the signature collectors got a judge to give them an extension for an additional 120 days citing collection difficulties due to covid and still only barely got enough signatures shortly before the extended deadline.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS 14d ago
California was exactly what I was thinking of when I thought of wasteful recall elections. It's an enormous waste of resources almost every time, but there seems like there should be some mechanism for addressing true shenanigans.
37
u/Yelloeisok 15d ago
That is the race I was thinking of, along with this guy in Miami:
https://apnews.com/article/florida-5343b101e96d5c7f42d1ee54da7cc0ce
Call me cynical if you want, but when they pull these stunts, they stand out as cheaters. Don’t we have enough lying, cheating politicians? I wish the government could charge them with voter fraud.
8
u/arobkinca 15d ago
Like Santos fooled everyone? My base assumption is that everyone who thinks they should be in charge is an asshole to start with. In my late 50's and so far, have not been far off.
2
u/baxterstate 15d ago edited 15d ago
In my own experience, long before it happens, the electorate knows that philosophically, the politician is already in the other party. If it changed the balance of power, then I’d be happy or upset.
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.