←back to thread

A Report on the Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries

(drive.google.com)
212 points DamienSF | 2 comments | 27 Jul 16 05:59 UTC | HN request time: 1.279s | source
Show context
forbes ◴[27 Jul 16 07:24 UTC] No.12171132[source]▶
Does any other country have a 'primary' system like the US? In Australia there is no pretending to elect candidates for each party. In our recent election we had two choices for PM from the major parties, chosen by the parties themselves.

In the US you spent a year choosing your candidates, but behind closed doors one of those parties spent all their time trying to push one candidate whilst the other party spent all their time trying to stop another.

The Australian system seems a little more honest, even though the roles of PM and President are quite different. We can elect a PM and the party can then choose to throw them out the week after. This happens frequently.

replies(8): >>12171152 #>>12171170 #>>12171202 #>>12171304 #>>12171462 #>>12171679 #>>12173969 #>>12175748 #
snowwrestler ◴[27 Jul 16 19:19 UTC] No.12175748[source]▶
The U.S., as a system of government, does not actually have a primary system. See if you can find it in the U.S. Constitution--I'll wait while you look.

> In our recent election we had two choices for PM from the major parties, chosen by the parties themselves.

This is what the U.S. has as well. The Democratic "primary" is a private process that is not required by the Constitution or federal law. It is set up and run by private citizens for the benefit of private citizens. It is how the Democratic party chooses its candidate, and it works however the Democratic party says it should work.

Participating in a primary is not like participating in a general election. There is no federal right to be considered for the Democratic candidate for president. There is no federal law that says the Democratic National Committee staff has to provide equitable treatment to any particular candidate or campaign. There is not even a federal requirement that a citizen be permitted to cast a vote at all in a primary.

I am hopeful that one of the results of all this hysteria and lawsuits right now is that the courts will help make that clear to people.

replies(1): >>12181016 #
1. TheCoelacanth ◴[28 Jul 16 15:58 UTC] No.12181016[source]▶
They don't have to participate in state-run primary elections, but if they choose to, they are not allowed to commit election fraud. Primary elections are still elections.

Of course, they don't have to provide equitable treatment to candidates in other ways.

replies(1): >>12185587 #
2. snowwrestler ◴[29 Jul 16 08:25 UTC] No.12185587[source]▶
How is a primary similar to a general election? No one is elected to anything in a primary. A primary results only in an advisory signal to a party nominating process, which is privately run. We just saw the Democratic one conclude tonight.

What is the state or federal government interest in how a private organization chooses to endorse a slate of candidates? Will we see lawsuits and government regulations over how the Sierra Club or NRA choose to endorse candidates? Will we see state officials stepping in to run or monitor caucuses or conventions if the state party decides to do that instead of a primary?

Just because a party primary has the same mechanics as a general election, that doesn't necessarily mean it has the same legal status--or that it should. In fact it's arguable that spending state resources to help a group of private citizens decide who to endorse is an example of straight-up corruption and waste of taxpayer money.