Florida to consider ban on party-switchers

[Pangloss]

Republicans in Florida must be pretty mad about Charlie Crist, our current governor who is now running as an independent for US Senate against Republican nominee Marco Rubio and Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek. Apparently a state senate commission on elections has decided that it is time for the state to consider making it more difficult for people to do what Charlie Crist is doing.

 

My question is: Why? What is so bad about allowing people to run for office as an independent?

 

It turns out that my district's state senator sits on this commission, so I let her have an earful this morning in email (for whatever THAT's worth, sigh). Their reasoning (see article below) seems to be that it makes the state look bad, but I don't buy that argument. I think they're protecting the two-party system, and I think that stinks. What do you think?

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/21/1885302/charlie-crist-switch-to-independent.html

[jackson33]

For a good understanding of the US electoral system today, the following explanation is one of the best. It's a short 6 page pdf....

 

At least one of the candidates for whom the electors vote was required to be an inhabitant of another state. A majority of electoral votes was necessary to elect, a requirement intended to insure broad acceptance of a winning candidate, while election by the House was provided as a default method in the event of electoral college deadlock. [/Quote]

 

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/28109.pdf

 

In short each State either by virtue of there State Legislation, the Political Parties or some combination determine the system to choose the electorates and several States have proposed splitting their electoral votes, according to the State Vote Count, to my knowledge without success.

 

As for the two party system, although there are actually far more than 20 and any individual can run in a number of States, a majority of the 'Electoral College' must be gained in order for Congress to Count and Ratify the election. Even though two major parties have come close to a tie, that would then require the House to decide to winner, if three or more viable candidates were running, the probability for NOT receiving the 51% required, would greatly increase and the House would decide the winner. For the record this is done the second day of the NEW House (not the lame duck) session. I'll also note, that electors from any State are NOT required to vote according to their districts wishes, allowing the possibility of ONE elector deciding a National election, if the Congress would ratify the election, they could.

 

To answer your question Pangloss; Running as whatever, in your case an Independent or in others now in Congress as Independents, it's whom they caucus with that matters. Crist was running as a Republican, would have been 'bound' to caucus with the Republicans, lost to Rubio the Republicans choice, THEN ran as an Independent and likely would caucus with the Democrats, not exactly what is best for the political system itself or the voters of Florida. If he had run as an Independent to begin with, regardless his intention to who he caucused with their would have been no problem, IMO. Those two (I) now in the Senate ran to caucus with the Democrats....

[john5746]

I think the two parties have too much of an advantage already, so I don't have a problem with people leaving them. My only issue would be the monies they receive prior to switching. It probably isn't feasible to be required to return it, but at the very least, they should not be able to use it for the election in question.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well it would split the party, losing them lots of votes. Sucks to be them, IMO. The two party system is already protected by law (indirectly), as jackson33 mentioned.

[Pangloss]

To answer your question Pangloss; Running as whatever, in your case an Independent or in others now in Congress as Independents, it's whom they caucus with that matters. Crist was running as a Republican, would have been 'bound' to caucus with the Republicans, lost to Rubio the Republicans choice, THEN ran as an Independent and likely would caucus with the Democrats, not exactly what is best for the political system itself or the voters of Florida. If he had run as an Independent to begin with, regardless his intention to who he caucused with their would have been no problem, IMO. Those two (I) now in the Senate ran to caucus with the Democrats....

 

He likely would caucus with Democrats? What, are you reading tea leaves or something? And even if that were true, so what? How is that "not exactly what's best for the voters of Florida"? Are you saying that when the voters of Florida elect Democrats that this is bad for the state?

 

What's so awful about letting the man caucus with whomever he wants to caucus with? Elected officials are beholden to the people who elected them, not to archaic political parties trying to maintain their grip on power.

[jackson33]

He likely would caucus with Democrats? What, are you reading tea leaves or something? And even if that were true, so what? How is that "not exactly what's best for the voters of Florida"? Are you saying that when the voters of Florida elect Democrats that this is bad for the state? [/Quote]

 

Pangloss, according to the voters in Florida they nominated a Republican (bound to caucus with republicans) Rubio, REJECTING Mr. Crist. Since Mr. Crist could caucus with either party and especially this election it could mean the balance of power. Maybe you have some information, but the general consensus to my knowledge is Crist will caucus with the Democrats, since much of his policy is anything but conservative, the reason Rubio was nominated. Yes (this election), I would suggest if Florida Voters elect a Democrat Senator and/or a person to Caucus with them, IMO it would be very bad on those that rejected Crist to begin with, Health Care, Federal Spending-Debt, Taxes for those in the 200K$ and above brackets and more....Furthermore and in my opinion, you really don't have a strong Democrat running, this cycle, by percentage a good many of the Democrat base would rather vote for the person that might caucus and has a change to win.

 

What's so awful about letting the man caucus with whomever he wants to caucus with? Elected officials are beholden to the people who elected them, not to archaic political parties trying to maintain their grip on power.[/Quote]

 

Well we have to assume the voters of those parties WILL caucus (beholden), with the party the people elected and the above explained problem only exist when an Independent beats his own previous party, then does caucus against his own original party. Again, if somehow Crist were to win and the count w/o him were 50 Dem/49Rep (VP breaks any tie), he would hold the total power of all Chairmanships, heads of all committees and total control of the Senate. That might get Florida a whole lot of pork, but NOT necessarily good for the people, pork is always targeted...

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, according to the voters in Florida they nominated a Republican (bound to caucus with republicans) Rubio, REJECTING Mr. Crist.

 

This is pretty wild extrapolation of what a vote means. In TWO ways.

 

First, people vote for a candidate. That's the mechanism they have available. Saying that a vote for Person A is a "rejection" of Person B is an interpretation.

 

Second, people vote for a candidate. That's the mechanism they have available. Saying that a vote for a candidate constitutes a "binding" obligation to join some nebulously-defined "caucus" that they had no say in the construction of is another interpretation.

 

It's dangerous to interpret the will of the American people. And you need to review the Constitution, which contains NEITHER of the above interpretations.

 

It sounds like the people in charge are doing a lot of interpreting. And I don't like what I'm hearing here at all. You're doing a great job of convincing me that what they're doing is even worse than I thought.

 

 

Since Mr. Crist could caucus with either party and especially this election it could mean the balance of power.

 

I think you're wrong about this whole "binding" thing anyway. I think Joe Lieberman, for example, could "caucus" with the Republicans if he so chose. I don't think anything "binds" him to caucus with the Democrats at all. I think he made that call himself, and he could reverse it tomorrow if he wanted to.

 

It's called being "independent". As in NOT a member of either political party.

 

 

the general consensus to my knowledge is Crist will caucus with the Democrats

 

Pure speculation, and also, I believe, incorrect. I've followed Crist for years, and remember all the times he was the hand-picked darling of Jeb Bush and being regularly smacked around by the left. He's fought against gay marriage, lead an effort to put mandatory PRAYER back in Florida public schools (!), favors broadening the range of crimes that carry the death penalty, considers the 2nd Amendment an absolute, favors distribution of federal welfare dollars through religious institutions, opposes NAFTA, opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, and opposes progressive taxes.

 

Here is where OnTheIssues.org has him placed:

 

 

Wow. And you think he'd caucus with Democrats. Really.

 

 

Again, if somehow Crist were to win and the count w/o him were 50 Dem/49Rep (VP breaks any tie), he would hold the total power of all Chairmanships, heads of all committees and total control of the Senate.

 

More speculation, and I have no idea why any of the above would be a bad thing, not just for Florida but for anyone.

 

By the way, here's Marco Rubio (the Republican candidate for Senate):

 

And here's Kendrick Meek (the Democratic candidate for Senate):

 

 

Just in case anybody's wondering why I'm wringing my hands so much about this election. And these charts really say a lot, don't they? I think it's *fantastic* that Charlie Crist is giving Floridians a third option. I just wish more of them were planning to take it. (Crist is running 14 points behind Rubio.)

[jackson33]

First, people vote for a candidate. That's the mechanism they have available. Saying that a vote for Person A is a "rejection" of Person B is an interpretation.[/Quote]

 

Pangloss, under the primary or caucus system the members of a party pick their candidate to then run against the others. The system can be subverted, for instance crossover voting to get a less acceptable candidate nominated as was in the Lieberman case, however IMO neither the Florida or Alaska REPUBLICAN candidates faced that problem. It was a rejection of one person over the others.

 

Second, people vote for a candidate. That's the mechanism they have available. Saying that a vote for a candidate constitutes a "binding" obligation to join some nebulously-defined "caucus" that they had no say in the construction of is another interpretation.[/Quote]

 

In order to obtain a viable voice (committees, majority or minority) in either party after the elections Independents will coalition into one of the two major and controlling parties, which has NOTHING to do how they vote, or shouldn't (arguable).

 

It's dangerous to interpret the will of the American people. And you need to review the Constitution, which contains NEITHER of the above interpretations.[/Quote]

 

Other than both a P & VP can NOT be from the same State, the ages or their residencies the Constitution does not lay out a system for choosing Candidates. This originally was left to the States for BOTH the Executive and Senate nominees, through the State Legislatures, for the Senate later changed to popular vote (A 17) which led to the Caucus/Primary systems. Senate and House rules for these procedures are over my pay grade, but in the Senate it's designed to favor the majority elected to the Senate.

 

I think you're wrong about this whole "binding" thing anyway. I think Joe Lieberman, for example, could "caucus" with the Republicans if he so chose. I don't think anything "binds" him to caucus with the Democrats at all. I think he made that call himself, and he could reverse it tomorrow if he wanted to. [/Quote]

 

Lieberman was not ethically bound to caucus with the Democrats when elected as an Independent, however when Arlen Specter, switched parties he was and may not have switched if his seniority would have been lost.

 

To show how this works, maybe it's best just to read about an actual event and one which could well be a factor this election;

 

In 1953, Robert Taft, a Republican of Ohio, was serving as Majority Leader, when he died. The Ohio Governor appointed a Democrat to fill out his term. That left the then-96 member Senate with 47 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent. The Independent, Wayne Morse of Oregon, agreed to caucus with the Republicans, bringing the Senate to 48-48. Republican Richard Nixon was the Vice-President, and therefore the Senate’s presiding officer. That gave Republicans a fragile majority.[/Quote]

 

http://www.libertycentral.org/ask-an-expert-a-50-50-senate-2010-10

 

Pure speculation, and also, I believe, incorrect. I've followed Crist for years, and remember all the times he was the hand-picked darling of Jeb Bush and being regularly smacked around by the left. He's fought against gay marriage, lead an effort to put mandatory PRAYER back in Florida public schools (!), favors broadening the range of crimes that carry the death penalty, considers the 2nd Amendment an absolute, favors distribution of federal welfare dollars through religious institutions, opposes NAFTA, opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, and opposes progressive taxes.[/Quote]

 

I'd rather not get involved with Governor Crist's political ideology, really don't think he has a chance of winning the Senate Seat (drawing any support from the Democrat Meek), but this years election is based around Obama/Polosi/Reid Policy, then primarily the HCB. Crist quote "I would have voted for it but I think it could be done better*" is basically a Dem talking point and not going to win him any friends in the current Rep caucus, which held together 40-0. As for Gay Marriage, Obama does NOT favor either, Free Trade is a Conservative principle, Obama extended Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" and one you left out, he over reacted to the BP oil spill, saying "This is the resurrection of the clean energy argument without a doubt in my mind,'' Crist told reporters Monday** ". If he did get to the Senate, especially with the likely winning freshman Republicans and offered any chairmanship under the probable Democrat Controlled Senate, he would likely caucus with them...yes that's opinion.

 

* http://www.kendrickmeek.com/index.php/weblog/archive/breaking_governor_crist_diagnosed_with_political_amnesia/

 

** http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/2010/05/oil-spill-is-proof-that-drilling-is-safe-enough-or-clean-for-florida-crist-says.html

 

 

Pangloss, I think your unintentionally arguing the Republican Establishments(pundits/money/ideology/moderates) argument, their leaders fearing the "so called" Tea Partiers" and their influence (conservatism) into their system. I have no idea how this will work out, but in the years to come, either the Republican Party will become MORE conservative (seems the likely choice) or a new party will take over their base, which I believe is currently 20% of the American electorate...

[Pangloss]

Okay, so you retract your statement that party affiliations by independents are "binding". That's fine, I'm glad we agree.

 

Pangloss, under the primary or caucus system the members of a party pick their candidate to then run against the others. ... It was a rejection of one person over the others.

 

Aside from the fact that it's not (it's actually a selection of one candidate over the others), I would also point out that we allow "rejected" candidates to return again in future elections and even run for the same office. By your logic, they should be barred from doing that because they've been "rejected".

 

At any rate, you haven't explained why it's a bad idea to allow an individual to run for public office as an independent and then caucus with whomever they want. For that matter, I don't see the harm in allowing them to run in one party's primary, and, if they fail in that one, to run in the other party's primary in the same year. Why not? I think that would hurt them more than anything else. I can see how it might hurt one or both parties, maybe, but that's irrelevant -- the ONLY thing that matters is whether they're hurting the voters.

 

Just look at the Alvin Greene thing in South Carolina. Is the South Carolina Democratic Committee (or whatever it's called) hurt by this? Undoubtedly. But the people of South Carolina elected the man, fair and square. Sure he kinda makes them look a little rough around the edges, but it could just as easily have gone the other way, if he'd stood up and changed public perception. But either way he's their man -- they elected him, that's the end of it. Democrats in South Carolina have no right to say otherwise. They made their bed. They get to sleep in it. If they have a problem with that, then they can put up a better candidate next time!

 

All I see here are excuses and the corruption of power.

[jackson33]

Pangloss; The Alvin Green story is interesting, but there have been Alvin Green's elected to office in the past even a few people that died or people that have gone to prison, which show an electorate ignorance. (By the way I'm predicting Green will receive 25-30% of the vote this election). However we're talking about Rubio over Crist as the Republican choice and I do believe there is a difference. Rubio is the Speaker of the Florida House, an attorney and a degree in Political Science.

 

Aside from the fact that it's not (it's actually a selection of one candidate over the others), I would also point out that we allow "rejected" candidates to return again in future elections and even run for the same office. By your logic, they should be barred from doing that because they've been "rejected". [/Quote]

 

Then why bother with a the primary/caucus system to begin with? If every person that lost in the primary (yes, rejected by their party for THAT election), decided to run under one of the other 20 parties or as an Independent, the eventual winners would all be in question. In the Florida case, as stated, Crist is pulling support from Meek, who would have had a much better chance to win if Crist had not run. You talk about corruption, people could/would simply run for office to change the outcome, which may be the case in Alaska....Lisa Murkowski could only run as a write in Candidate, only one such winner in our history has this been done, yet can ONLY draw votes from the person who beat her in the primary, Joe Miller and their nearly tied. In this case however, the name must be spelled correctly (State Law), and I know human nature well enough to know 90% of her voters will NOT spell it correctly, causing all kinds of problems. Talk about hanging chads, how about is that a K or an H.

 

To be clear, the rejections are in the current primary or caucus (which are easier to play games with), not later elections, that should be common sense, primarily because candidates and the environment are likely to be different. Under that premise, Reagan would never had been President or Nixon had ever been a Senator, much less a President. That's just silly...

 

At any rate, you haven't explained why it's a bad idea to allow an individual to run for public office as an independent and then caucus with whomever they want.[/Quote]

 

They can and do and are NOT ethically bound to caucus with either. By virtue of the election the affiliation determines which party they caucus with or in the case of an independent can do so with either. All this talk has to do with the balance of power and their vote in theory should be directed to their States/District wishes. A person could caucus with one party, never vote along that party lines, which is an entirely different thing, of course they won't hold any leverage what so ever.

 

For that matter, I don't see the harm in allowing them to run in one party's primary, and, if they fail in that one, to run in the other party's primary in the same year. Why not? [/Quote]

 

Many already do, but with a major party. Many this year that could easily have run under one of the Conservative Parties, Socialist Parties (most don't even run primaries, but have National Conventions) are running as Dem/Rep. I suppose a person could go through the procedure to be in both Rep/Dem Primaries, if the State allows (a declared affiliation is usually required), then if they could win one, run under that flag, but what would happen if they won both. Bouncing around looking for a favorable electorate, kind of seems a waste of time and opposes the idea, the VOTERS do the selecting.

 

I think that would hurt them more than anything else.[/Quote]

 

Yes and it's unfortunate, Crist is a good person for Florida and may not be delectable in the future. I have seen him as a viable, though not electable Presidential Candidate.

 

I can see how it might hurt one or both parties, maybe, but that's irrelevant -- the ONLY thing that matters is whether they're hurting the voters. [/Quote]

 

Agree, but that lies in how they vote, according to their constituents wishes, which has NOT been the reality in the last few years.

[Pangloss]

Aside from the fact that it's not (it's actually a selection of one candidate over the others), I would also point out that we allow "rejected" candidates to return again in future elections and even run for the same office. By your logic, they should be barred from doing that because they've been "rejected".

Then why bother with a the primary/caucus system to begin with?

 

Why indeed. I don't think that system serves ANY useful purpose to the American public, and there are some very good arguments that it actually harms us quite a bit. I don't know that I espouse that view, really. I think when the party system works well it does a valuable service. When everyone is behaving honorably and professionally it helps us filter candidates and lets us chose between the best ones, which in a country this size is pretty important.

 

But I think it's good to keep that system on its heels much/most of the time, and not comfortable and in control like it wants to be. Especially right now when inappropriate and detrimental influences (both left and right) have grown to be so strong. Affording them this additional privilege (legally denying the losing primary candidate the right to run as an independent) seems like a bad idea to me. It fails to pass the test of "does it hurt the people, or just the parties".

 

Just my two bits, of course.

 

 

In the Florida case, as stated, Crist is pulling support from Meek, who would have had a much better chance to win if Crist had not run.

 

The whole "independents pull support from legitimate candidates" argument has a major flaw. People get all upset because some "spoiler" candidate pulled support away from their darling, but they're ignoring the fact that their candidate has failed to appeal to the people who are supporting the "spoiler".

 

 

You talk about corruption, people could/would simply run for office to change the outcome, which may be the case in Alaska....Lisa Murkowski could only run as a write in Candidate, only one such winner in our history has this been done, yet can ONLY draw votes from the person who beat her in the primary, Joe Miller and their nearly tied.

 

I will admit that it's unfortunate for Joe Miller, and you might have a point about Alaska's voting mechanics being flawed. But if he's the candidate who has the broadest appeal then it won't make any difference -- he cannot fail to be elected, no matter how many spoilers there are.

 

That's the great thing about democracy -- if you leave it alone people tend to elect the represetatives they want. Which is pretty much the point.

 

 

Crist is a good person for Florida and may not be delectable in the future.

 

Actually I know some women here in Florida who still think he's pretty delectable. ;-)

 

Yeah I don't disagree with you about Crist's decisions over the last year or two. He has only himself to blame for his situation.

[lemur]

The whole "independents pull support from legitimate candidates" argument has a major flaw. People get all upset because some "spoiler" candidate pulled support away from their darling, but they're ignoring the fact that their candidate has failed to appeal to the people who are supporting the "spoiler".

But isn't the whole point of a two-party election to unify pro-active voters with re-active voters to oust the incumbent that doesn't pander enough to critics? I think people who think the point of electing a representative to do anything except portray them in a critical drama are naive. The primary function of democratic representation is to sufficiently piss people off who want to install a legitimate leader. This can be done either by preventing them from being elected altogether or electing them in order to subject them to legislative resistance and checks and balances between the branches.

Edited October 25, 2010 by lemur

[Pangloss]

That sounds more like a subject change than a refutation of my point, or maybe I just don't understand it. Can you drag it around to the subject of banning party-changers after primaries?

[CaptainPanic]

Apologies for not having read this entire thread. Just quickly giving my opinion on this:

 

Changing parties: sure. Should never be a problem for anyone.

Changing parties in the middle of a campaign - should be impossible, because someone signs up for the elections as a representative for a party. If the person wishes to change, the only option should be withdrawal... and then this person can try again at the next election - for a different party.

 

How is the general public supposed to know what a person stands for if they change party halfway through a campaign?

[D H]

A couple of court cases:

 

 

Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 735 (1974)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/415/724/case.html

Sore-loser laws further the State's compelling interest in the stability of its political system, outweighing the interest the candidate.

 

South Carolina Green Party et al. v. South Carolina State Election Commission et al. No. 09-1915 (2010)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1531943.html

It ain't easy being green.

[Mr Skeptic]

How is the general public supposed to know what a person stands for if they change party halfway through a campaign?

 

I think that when they switch parties it gives you a very good indication of what they stand for. The ones that stay in the party you don't know what they stand for since you don't know whether they're in that party out of convenience or because of the position of the party on the various issues.

[Pangloss]

How is the general public supposed to know what a person stands for if they change party halfway through a campaign?

 

How about exactly the same things they said they stood for before they changed parties? It's not a law of physics that you have to match the party platform, you know.

 

And at risk of sounding curmudgeonly, I wonder if people who are informed about what a candidate stands for by what political party they are in should even be voting. But the old axiom (no idea if true) is that ~80% of the country votes that way, so what do I know.

[JohnB]

Just to point out;

The whole "independents pull support from legitimate candidates" argument has a major flaw.

It actually has two. The first and foremost is that Indepenents are legitimate candidates. We see similar arguments down here. The bottom line is that if the major partys can't come up with people better than the Independent candidate, then they don't deserve to win. Independents have a tendency to get in the way of the careers of political party hacks.

[jackson33]

JohnB; What we're discussing this thread, is the switching from a major party to running as a "no affiliation" candidate or as an Independent. In theory any person, with any ideology or one that could run under one of the current 20+ established parties, will attempt to run as one of the majors. For instance both Ron and Rand Paul are in fact members of the Libertarian Party, but are registered and run as Republicans. Party policy or Platforms change according to who wins their Primary, ahead of a general election. Basically, in this case, if their were a VIABLE "Tea Party" (there is none) Rubio and maybe 50-100 other candidates for the US Congress or a thousand running for State Legislatures, would have run under that party and probably done quite well, IMO.

 

As I understand your parliamentary system, they require a majority to rule or without that majority either a coalition will form or a new election called. Here, so long as we have a two party system, Independent Candidates or member of another party, can option to join either party, called to caucus with. As explained above this is usually pre-determined and done by affiliating with that party ahead of the elections.

 

Florida, already has a "time limit" for switching parties to run which is SIX months ahead of the National Election, due to there early primary allowed time for Crist to run as an Independent. ALL there legislation is asking is that this time limit be extended a year or about 18 months (12 months ahead of primary) that the person running under some party actually be a registered member of that party. Since Independent usually means no party affiliation, unaffiliated members of the electorate that wish to run, would either have to run as an In dependant or register with some party 12 months ahead of the Florida Primaries. From opening post link;

 

 

 

The Florida Senate's Ethics and Elections Committee produced a report this month that makes several suggestions related to the issue, including a requirement that a candidate be registered with the political party whose nomination he or she is seeking for a year before qualifying for the election. It also recommends the state adopt a clear ``sore loser'' provision, spelling out a definite ban on losers of party primaries from finding ways to run in an ensuing general election. [/Quote]

 

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/21/1885302/charlie-crist-switch-to-independent.html#ixzz13a1ZtihP

 

Thread; While I agree members should practice their personal/constituents beliefs/wishes, when they arrive in Washington, it's simply not going to happen. People elected as either Republicans, Democrats or those that choose to caucus with one or the other are going to be dominated to some degree by the establishment, to have any voice in governing. CaptainPanic, then is indirectly correct and since who the Independent Caucus with is optional, the Florida voters as of today have no idea what that might be.....

 

CaptianPanic Quote;

How is the general public supposed to know what a person stands for if they change party halfway through a campaign? [/Quote]

 

Last nights, debate and Crist again refused to say whom he would caucus with...

The Miami Herald: Crist Fumbled A Bit Before Answering Caucus Question From David Gregory. Again and again, Gregory came back to Crist. Youve dodged this question for months, he said, asking Crist whether he would align himself with Democrats or Republicans in Washington. Does it mean your vote is for sale? Crist fumbled a bit before saying, I would make a decision thats in the best interest of my fellow Floridians. (Beth Reinhard, Crist Takes Heat At Final Debate, The Miami Herald, 10/27/10)[/Quote]

 

http://www.marcorubio.com/what-theyre-saying-about-rubio-winning-last-nights-debate/

Edited October 27, 2010 by jackson33

[Pangloss]

Even Karl Rove, responding to that very comment, thought it was bunk, and that he would caucus with Republicans for sure. And he is a MASSIVE Marco Rubio supporter.

[jackson33]

Pangloss; I believe Karl Rove is an asset to Conservatives, on the other hand IMO he is the essence of the problems with in the Establishment Republican Party, the old guard so to speak. His political slamming of RI's Republican choice for O'Donnell, the best example, favoring Mike Castle over the "Tea Party" backed candidate. Since Rove, knows Crist personally, I do not and at the time Rove thought the Republicans would take the Senate and if I agreed with that, then I might agree. I have never thought, Republicans would win the Senate, this cycle.

 

As for how Crist would have caucused, I can only offer my previous opinion, that he would caucus with the party that gave him the biggest voice, that likely being the Party in control of the Senate. However this begs the "question", in NOT declaring his intent, do you see this as fair to the Democrat Candidate (Meek) who is losing support to Crist, this election, if indeed he would caucus with the Republicans???

 

By the way, did you know that the winning candidate Tuesday in RI, will in fact have a vote in the lame duck session, the election is to fill Biden's seat and term, only....

[Pangloss]

this begs the "question", in NOT declaring his intent, do you see this as fair to the Democrat Candidate (Meek) who is losing support to Crist

 

Yes.

 

 

By the way, did you know that the winning candidate Tuesday in RI, will in fact have a vote in the lame duck session, the election is to fill Biden's seat and term, only....

 

I think you mean Delaware, but I'm not sure I get your point.

[jackson33]

Correct...Delaware, must have had a recent blog entry elsewhere on my mind where Loughlin® has a fighting change to beat Cicilline(D) in RI, too many races to keep everything straight.

 

 

 

Pangloss, do you honestly believe Bill Clinton tried to get Meeks to drop out of the race and endorse Crist for the fun of it, or better yet that the Florida Democratic BASE, was properly handled. Crist may NOW say he would HAVE caucused with the Republicans, but ALL signs point otherwise....

 

Bill Clinton sought to persuade Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the race for Senate during a trip to Florida last week — and nearly succeeded.

 

Meek agreed — twice — to drop out and endorse Gov. Charlie Crist’s independent bid in a last-ditch effort to stop Marco Rubio, the Republican nominee who stands on the cusp of national stardom. [/Quote]

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44337.html

[Pangloss]

Of course not. I have no reason to doubt that story, which I just read about earlier today. And if that had happened it's possible Crist might have gone ahead and pledged to caucus with Democrats if he won. As would be his right, as far as I'm concerned. And everyone would have known exactly what the deal was well in advance of the election.

 

You want to let people who gerrymander and filibuster and cater to special interests decide what the rules for running for election to be. Well, let's be honest -- you want ONE of the two groups that gerrymanders and filibusters and caters to special interests to decide what the rules for running for election to be.

 

Sorry, can't go there with you.

[jackson33]

And everyone would have known exactly what the deal was well in advance of the election. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss, five days ahead is not "well in advance", up to half your electorate may have already voted.

 

Sorry, can't go there with you. [/Quote]

 

Well, I was invited to go there in your opening post "What do you think?", even giving you the Constitutional explanation base and where State/Party can take over. It's a Federal 6 month requirement for pre-determined party affiliation and Florida simply wants to add a year before their primary. If you see something wrong with this and I've consistently mentioned fairness to Meek, I simply don't understand your reasoning. Most Candidates spend 12-18 months or more of their time and some bodies money, seeking some office under the system and changing affiliation in an assumed fit of rage (Crist), IMO is not acceptable. As a Conservative and one that votes Republican most of the time (last week here in NM) I've found it hard to even discuss this issue.

 

As for gerrymandering otherwise known as setting rules, it's done all the time for all kinds of social behavior. We're talking State prerogatives here, which is up to you and the rest of your Florida Electorate/Legislature to decide.