Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It’s worth keeping in mind that US elections are insanely expensive, you can’t even run paper candidates (candidates who exist just to keep voters engaged and have no hope of winning) due to the huge barrier to entry for federal office.
This isn’t like the UK where you pay a nominal fee to run and that’s it you’re on the ballot, the costs are much higher either in raw money paid or in needing to run a signature gathering campaign to get onto the ballot.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAlso, I'd like to add that it's an effect of the Electoral College. In a popular vote system, a vote from Oklahoma would be worth just as much to Biden as a vote from Michigan. But under the Electoral College, an extra vote from Oklahoma (or California for that matter) is frankly worthless. Ask Hillary Clinton, who improved Democratic margins in red and blue states but got edged out in purple ones.
So to do a comparison on ballot access, in South Carolina you must pay 1% of the annual salary of the office you’re running for (times the number of years a term would be) even if you’re a recognised nominee from a major party. So a democrat running for Congress in South Carolina has to pay $3,480.00, which they don’t get back, for Senate it’s $10,440.00.
This compares to the UK, where someone running to be an MP has to pay a £500 deposit, which they get back as long as they get 5% of the vote.
It’s understandable that state parties don’t have 3 grand to throw at congressional races they can’t win, and that’s the cost before one even campaigns.
Also remember, US political parties don’t collect membership dues, they are funded only by donations and loans. That makes it much harder to collect money the way you would in other democracies.
Edit: Quick check, in Florida it’s 6% of the annual salary, so $10,000, again that’s just to get your name on the ballot.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 22nd 2020 at 11:38:54 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAre we talking about congressional candidates or Presidential? If we're talking about downballot races, Democrats are running candidates in all but a handful (7-8) of House seats (and a couple of them are candidates that dropped out), and all but 2 Senate races (one candidate dropped out after the filing deadline and the other was repudiated by the party after a sexual harassment scandal)
Edited by nova92 on Sep 22nd 2020 at 4:41:10 AM
![]()
The system seems to be designed to reduce the competition in elections, the problem is that like much US election law it’s not 1 set of rules, it’s over 50.
I’d certainly say it should be changed, if having lots of people run for office becomes an issue then that’s just a good reason to implement a voting system other than FPTP.
I’m talking Congressional, though they connect, if you get like 2% of the presidential vote in a state you often get easier ballot access rules when your party runs someone for congressional office in the state.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 22nd 2020 at 11:44:15 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIs there any reason for not changing that?
I wouldn't know about this specific case, but the default answer to such questions is "Because the people with the power to change the system are those that benefit from the system the most."
Looking at Florida some more it extends to state offices as well, so to run as a candidate for the Florida legislature it’s a fee of $1,700, that’s probably a big part of why Democrats didn’t run any candidate in 12 of the state house seats in 2018 (out of 120 total seats).
Edited by Silasw on Sep 22nd 2020 at 11:50:14 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
And are Dems and Reps benefiting from basically handicapping their own campaigns?
In other news, Reuters ran a poll showing that 62 percent of Americans want the SC seat to remain vacant, while only 23 percent want it to be filled, meaning that even a lot of Republicans don't want this to be a rushed appointment.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesI’ve found some national numbers for state-level election in 2018.
591 Republicans running for state legislative positions won unopposed in 2018, and that’s not counting where they ran with only an independent/third-party opponent instead of a Democrat. 974 Democrats won under similar conditions.
It’s a big problem with US democracy, remember this isn’t county or city government, these are races for the state governments who decide amongst other things election law.
Napkin maths says that it’s about 1 in 6 Democrats and 1 in 5 Republicans at the state level who get to run unopposed.
At a guess it’s a MAD situation, if either party started pumping money into running candidates who would loose the other party would benefit, if they changed state law to make it cheeper to run then they’d be at a disadvantage as such a change would only impact the states they control (where they probably have the fundraising advantage).
Edited by Silasw on Sep 22nd 2020 at 12:10:11 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm not saying that no one that runs for government is willing to exact change in order to serve the people. I am saying that those that are able to actually do so would often be running directly against their own personal interest, essentially making the people dependant on their sense of charity.
Edited by Kayeka on Sep 22nd 2020 at 2:12:50 PM
It seems odd that a national campaign is so dependent on state laws. We don't really have an analogue to that. It's not like different provinces have different campaign laws or something.
I guess we must chalk it up to the foibles of the state/federal system, then.
That makes sense, yeah. And that's also a rather unfair system.
Edited by Redmess on Sep 22nd 2020 at 2:15:28 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesTechnically the US is more comparable to the European Union than to a single country. Each of its states is, well, a state. It's just that over the years its become much more centralized compared to how it was originally envisioned. A lot of the assumptions it made when it was established make no sense anymore.
Edited by Clarste on Sep 22nd 2020 at 5:22:14 AM
A question about the process of the sitting president making way for the election winner: why the gap in-between November and January of the year after the election?
In-between November and the following year, the sitting president is still President of the United States while the election winner is only "President-Elect". I may have asked this a long time ago in this thread but should Biden win this year, how effective is Trump's authority in-between November 2020 and January 2021?
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis continues to be himself - 'It's dog-whistle base stuff': DeSantis launches Trump-styled protest crackdown
Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday outlined an aggressive plan to crack down on what he calls "violent agitators," turning a huge spotlight to a political wedge issue President Donald Trump's reelection campaign has focused on for weeks.
The announcement amplifies Florida's role in a polarizing national fight Trump and other Republicans are waging against Joe Biden and Democrats, who argue the GOP is using small pockets of violence to punish all forms of protest and critics of police misconduct.
"If you know that a ton of bricks will rain down on you, then I think people will think twice about engaging in this type of conduct," DeSantis said during a Tampa-area press conference.
The proposal, the first rolled out by DeSantis since the outset of the pandemic, makes it a third-degree felony to be in a gathering of more than seven people that causes injury or damage; a third-degree felony to block traffic during a protest held without a permit; blocks state funding for cities that "defund the police," and creates a new six-month mandatory minimum jail sentence for anyone who strikes a law enforcement officer during a "disorderly assembly." It would also, among other things, give legal liability to a driver who is "fleeing for safety from a mob."
Democrats' double losses in Florida continue to be the most painful results out of 2018. DeSantis is cracking down on protests (and possibly stripping protestors of their right to vote!) This stuff is absolutely nuts.
x5This. People who claim each state in the US is equivalent to a country are just flat out wrong. That is not the case at all. A state is just an internal division of the country of the United States. Thinking it is anything other than that is what causes the senate and the electoral college to be so broken.
Edited by Heatth on Sep 22nd 2020 at 10:02:09 AM
Depending on exactly how badly he takes his (still hypothetical, don't get comfy!) loss, it could be a fun few months. Or "fun".
Edited by Kayeka on Sep 22nd 2020 at 3:04:10 PM
Normally he would be considered a lame duck president, in other words, he wouldn't be able to get anything done. With this congress though, who knows?
The Netherlands has a lame duck session around elections too, but the lame duck in that case is the incoming coalition, not the outgoing one. I guess it just depends on who gets to be a lame duck when in the transition process.
So that raises the question: is it better to be a lame duck early on, or at the end of a term?
Edited by Redmess on Sep 22nd 2020 at 3:12:43 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times

Not to mention in-person canvasing.
Disgusted, but not surprised