Seriously, GOP? Really?

[rah]

It's easy to get on the ballot and doesn't require anyone's approval. It's a safe Dem district so a lot of people aren't paying that much attention. If he wins in the primary, (which he won't) then the party will vilify him.

[kentonio]

It's probably just a cultural thing then, I was just amazed that the GOP weren't lining up to register their disgust at this guy.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's not a cultural thing. It's just not worth anyone's time to be angry at all the loony people who try and get attention. His opinions don't reflect on but himself, everyone knows that.

[Lorizael]

It's not a cultural thing. It's just not worth anyone's time to be angry at all the loony people who try and get attention. His opinions don't reflect on but himself, everyone knows that.

Well, he's not the only Neo-Nazi out there.

[Jon Miller]

It's probably just a cultural thing then, I was just amazed that the GOP weren't lining up to register their disgust at this guy.

If it looked like he was getting votes there would be (I think).

If you read the details, there have been plenty of crazies who have tried to get office through 'both parties'. Depending on the state, the most the party can do is not support him with funding and refuse to sit with him if he is elected.

JM

[kentonio]

I don't get that, do parties not have any control over who represents them?

[notyoueither]

We have loony parties sure, but if someone like that ever put himself forward for one of the mainstream parties he'd be rejected and vilified immediately.

He or she would not be allowed to seek nomination for Labour, LibDem, or Conservative?

[notyoueither]

I don't get that, do parties not have any control over who represents them?

They shouldn't, in a representative democracy.

[kentonio]

He or she would not be allowed to seek nomination for Labour, LibDem, or Conservative?

Nope, not a chance.

They shouldn't, in a representative democracy.

Why shouldn't they? No candidate should be prevented from running, but why should parties be forced to accept any candidate running under their banner?

[Jon Miller]

Yes, our parties are not near as strong. Especially in the last 100 years.

JM

[notyoueither]

Nope, not a chance.

I find this difficult to believe. It is contradicted by your next sentences.

Why shouldn't they? No candidate should be prevented from running, but why should parties be forced to accept any candidate running under their banner?

Because in the US democracy starts with deciding who the candidates will be. That is the reason for the attention paid to primaries.

Nominations in Canada (and the UK, I'd expect) are less news-worthy events. Still, it really chafes when the central party organisers attempt to get involved. Here it goes so far as the party naming candidates in some ridings. This has implications when we consider that our PMs and premiers are supposedly subject to nomination or replacement by the body composed of the election winning candidates.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't get that, do parties not have any control over who represents them?

Not beyond fundraising and official support, no. We have primaries. Party unity is much weaker in the US than in the UK.

I guess this shouldn't be surprising, given your previous egregious ignorance of US politics.

[kentonio]

I find this difficult to believe. It is contradicted by your next sentences.

No it isn't. Parties in the UK have control over the people who run under that party. You can't just declare yourself as a Conservative or Labour candidate without the backing of the party in question.

Because in the US democracy starts with deciding who the candidates will be. That is the reason for the attention paid to primaries.

There are shortlists for candidates in the UK too, but those shortlists are comprised of party members, not just randoms off the street.

Nominations in Canada (and the UK, I'd expect) are less news-worthy events. Still, it really chafes when the central party organisers attempt to get involved. Here it goes so far as the party naming candidates in some ridings. This has implications when we consider that our PMs and premiers are supposedly subject to nomination or replacement by the body composed of the election winning candidates.

Why? The parties are structures of likeminded people, who should they be open to anyone? For one thing we never get craziness like cross party voting.

[kentonio]

Not beyond fundraising and official support, no. We have primaries. Party unity is much weaker in the US than in the UK.

I guess this shouldn't be surprising, given your previous egregious ignorance of US politics.

Yes thats right, not knowing a relatively small detail about party structure (and being open about wanting to know more) invalidates everything I've ever said about US politics. Well done, you win the internet.

[notyoueither]

No it isn't. Parties in the UK have control over the people who run under that party. You can't just declare yourself as a Conservative or Labour candidate without the backing of the party in question.

The issue is loons seeking nomination. That is what the fascist in your article is doing by running in the primary.

There are shortlists for candidates in the UK too, but those shortlists are comprised of party members, not just randoms off the street.

I regard this as a subversion of the democratic process. It is parties sending representatives to electors. That is not how it is supposed to work. Electors send representatives to the legislative body. I think the Yanks are closer to ideal on this score.

Why? The parties are structures of likeminded people, who should they be open to anyone? For one thing we never get craziness like cross party voting.

We do get craziness like cross-party voting. Partisans of other parties can and do get involved in nomination contests by buying a membership. I find it hard to believe this does not happen in the UK, unless there is no democratic nomination process.

At any rate, I agree that the parties are structures of likeminded people. That is why we should be able to trust the decision by the members of a party in a riding to find their own, best candidate. That's democracy.