So much for getting rid of Democratic or Republican parties

Shivetya

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jan 16, 2008
1,543
223
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature

Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

Amazing isn't it, even the process of Democracy gets stomped by the new guys. So a local vote can be nullified by the Federal government. I wonder what would happen if a state put it up to vote.

Never underestimate what people will do once they are in power
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
I guess this answers the question of why there are so few black GOPers. Federal policy requires them to be Democrats.

If Glenn Beck wants to rebuild some sense of credibility, Loretta King should be in his sights instead of the whatever insane topic of the day that he wanders into.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,132
4
that is pathetic that the Obama administration did this and I hope it is pick up by other medias and they fry for this.

Sorry but Obama administration saying is crap. I know for a fact Houston and Dallas by law is nonpartisan for all election. I want to say it is even a state law that all local election are required to be nonpartisan. I know for fact both Cities have elected black mayors.
I know plenty of small towns in Texas that have had minority mayors.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I guess this answers the question of why there are so few black GOPers. Federal policy requires them to be Democrats.
Uhh...yeah, right. That's what the DOJ said. :rolleyes:

That said- this is wrong and needs to be addressed. If the city wants non-partisan elections, they should get them.

I doubt Glen Beck will talk about this. It's actually an issue with substance, and we all know that's not his area of expertise.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,220
quae tangit perit Trump
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature

Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

Amazing isn't it, even the process of Democracy gets stomped by the new guys. So a local vote can be nullified by the Federal government. I wonder what would happen if a state put it up to vote.

Never underestimate what people will do once they are in power
If you would just take off the partisan blinders for a minute...

Why was the vote nullified in this case?

Because, according to the article:

Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination.
In this case, I disagree with DoJ and with King's decision and her reasoning, but let's be clear, this wasn't a case of the government acting randomly or without precedent, rather this was part of a law the city knew they were subject to.

Locally, Tucson has a similar process and to be frank, it's a meaningless distinction, the dark-horse Republican candidates still speak the GOP line and go to Tea Parties and the Democratic candidates follow the DNC and go to cultural events. We still have parties locally because we still have state and national parties.
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
If you would just take off the partisan blinders for a minute...

Why was the vote nullified in this case?

Because, according to the article:



In this case, I disagree with DoJ and with King's decision and her reasoning, but let's be clear, this wasn't a case of the government acting randomly or without precedent, rather this was part of a law the city knew they were subject to.
While the OP misunderstood the reasoning behind why the Feds got involved, the issue still remains that the decision and rationale have a partisan bent to them.
 

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,743
141
Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

Amazing isn't it, even the process of Democracy gets stomped by the new guys. So a local vote can be nullified by the Federal government. I wonder what would happen if a state put it up to vote.

Never underestimate what people will do once they are in power
That's ********. Obama can't say that equal rights can only come as a result of the democratic party? So much for transparency in office. :rolleyes: If by transparency you mean Obama is going to overrule everything that may break down parties all together then yes, he's done us all a solid here. :cool:
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
That's ********. Obama can't say that equal rights can only come as a result of the democratic party? So much for transparency in office. :rolleyes: If by transparency you mean Obama is going to overrule everything that may break down parties all together then yes, he's done us all a solid here. :cool:
Let's be clear- Obama didn't do anything. The DOJ, part of his administration, did.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
Uh, isn't a rose still a rose even if you call it a daffodil? What the hell is the point in removing the party name from the ballots? :confused:
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Both Partys are corrupt and rotten, we need to ban both of them and all the ones who hang out in the halls of washington with tons of $$$ that buys off these guys. Lobbyist.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,220
quae tangit perit Trump
While the OP misunderstood the reasoning behind why the Feds got involved, the issue still remains that the decision and rationale have a partisan bent to them.
When I said partisan, I meant Shiv's propensity to make every issue a clear and present danger when Democrats do it, but I can see that I was unclear.

I disagree entirely with the rationale which seeks to link party politics with the Voting Right Act. If the ~9,000 black voters are unwilling to participate previously, being able to vote along party lines isn't going to change that.
 

Ttownbeast

macrumors 65816
May 10, 2009
1,135
0
The parties are dying off I give the Reps 10 years (estimate) before the members numbers dwindle to an insignificant amount to have a controlling stake in bipartisan politics (I don't know what party will replace them, but it will happen). The Dems aren't too far behind I place their demise at about 15 years (the reverse would have been likely had the Republicans won this last presidential race) only prolonging the inevitable--they had a good run approximately 150 years as separate parties out of the 233 years this nation has existed far longer than the whigs or other major parties.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Uh, isn't a rose still a rose even if you call it a daffodil? What the hell is the point in removing the party name from the ballots? :confused:
So that you vote on their merits and not their party line. Most people who are democrats/repubs who don't recognize a person auto check the side they belong to without knowing their policies.
 

Macaddicttt

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2004
992
2
San Diego, CA
So that you vote on their merits and not their party line. Most people who are democrats/repubs who don't recognize a person auto check the side they belong to without knowing their policies.
The flip side is that it gives a distinct advantage to the candidate with the best name recognition (see Schwarzenegger, Arnold); with the party name you at least get a rough idea of what a candidate's policies are.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,220
quae tangit perit Trump
So that you vote on their merits and not their party line. Most people who are democrats/repubs who don't recognize a person auto check the side they belong to without knowing their policies.
But, all this does is shift voters from party lines, where at least they might understand who might ideologically follow their interests, to name recognition which gives political families and those with deep pockets to line the streets with signs.

I'm still not convinced that removing party designations does anything to help voters or disrupt party affiliations.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
But, all this does is shift voters from party lines, where at least they might understand who might ideologically follow their interests, to name recognition which gives political families and those with deep pockets to line the streets with signs.

I'm still not convinced that removing party designations does anything to help voters or disrupt party affiliations.
What is wrong with voting for the best person for the job. The party they are affiliated doesn't matter as long as you agree with the persons views. Another reason to do away with the party system. Deep pockets are all throughout politics, it doesn't matter what party they are on. You don't see many poor people running. To bring money into the argument is a moot point. Everyone in politics has money.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,132
4
Let's be clear- Obama didn't do anything. The DOJ, part of his administration, did.
Why cant we hold Obama accountable for this. You and many others held bush accountable for things his administration did.

Seems like a double standard to me.
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
Let's be clear- Obama didn't do anything. The DOJ, part of his administration, did.
Come on, Lee. And Dick didn't torture anybody, it was those folks in the CIA. When push comes to shove, the POTUS (real or shadow) is the end of the line. Cheney is ultimately responsible for what happened under his administration, Obama is responsible for what happens under his. Even if you think the line from Obama to King is too fuzzy, the article indicates that she has Holder's blessing.

But, all this does is shift voters from party lines, where at least they might understand who might ideologically follow their interests, to name recognition which gives political families and those with deep pockets to line the streets with signs.

I'm still not convinced that removing party designations does anything to help voters or disrupt party affiliations.
So what? The vote doesn't disenfranchise anybody, and doesn't try to. It isn't unconstitutional. It isn't even a debated public policy issue. If the voters see a benefit in making this shift, why should we deny them?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
And you think Obama has nothing to do with this?
Do you think he told the DOJ how to rule on it? Really?

Come on, Lee. And Dick didn't torture anybody, it was those folks in the CIA. When push comes to shove, the POTUS (real or shadow) is the end of the line. Cheney is ultimately responsible for what happened under his administration, Obama is responsible for what happens under his. Even if you think the line from Obama to King is too fuzzy, the article indicates that she has Holder's blessing.?
You're right, but I have yet to hear Obama address this. Does anyone have anything where he stated that this was his position?
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,220
quae tangit perit Trump
What is wrong with voting for the best person for the job. The party they are affiliated doesn't matter as long as you agree with the persons views. Another reason to do away with the party system. Deep pockets are all throughout politics, it doesn't matter what party they are on. You don't see many poor people running. To bring money into the argument is a moot point. Everyone in politics has money.
Well, first the inclusion of a party designation doesn't keep voters from choosing who they is the best person for the job, instead the party system creates a funnel for money to go to candidates who may or may not be able to support their own campaign independently. But, I think you're mistaken if you think that the DNC won't help fund candidates that they see as viable and necessary because they don't have a D next to their name. The funding avenues will continue and all the old problems remain, except that now our apathetic voter is looking a a list of names without any other context, thus they may pick a name that sounds culturally similar or is more recognizable because of other reasons—including money and not because that person was a good candidate.

Of course, politics is money and money is politics, but removing the party designation doesn't fix this.


...So what? The vote doesn't disenfranchise anybody, and doesn't try to. It isn't unconstitutional. It isn't even a debated public policy issue. If the voters see a benefit in making this shift, why should we deny them?
First, read my post about the administration's decision. I think it's a sieve. Secondly, I never argued that it was unconstitutional or even wrong, nor should it be denied. However, I've heard a lot of happy talk about how this will fix the two party system and I just don't buy the argument.
The parties will continue to move money around to support local candidates, aware voters will still be able to discern that the guy praising the Minuteman (to use a local example) is probably a Republican, and our apathetic voters will just shift from voting down the line to voting for names.