Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Neal Meyer's avatar

I wanted to raise a concern I have with this piece and see if I can get some clarification. Michael writes: "any state rep candidate who can get a couple dozen people to check a box on a form in any district in the state can run as an official candidate of the Socialism Party and we can’t do a thing about it."

As far as I can tell this is not true, at least in New York, where Michael and I both live. If you look up section 16-110.2 of the New York state election law, there is a clear procedure that parties can use to expel and disenroll people who do not agree with the program of their party. I've found a number of cases that involve the application of this procedure, including most notably so far a case in 2009 (Walsh v. Abramowitz) in which hundreds of PBA members attempted to enroll in the Conservative Party and were then disenrolled from the party after the party held a hearing and expelled them for entryism (it's a wild case for many reasons). Contrary to what Michael seems to say, the courts held that it was essential that parties' ability to expel entryists and those in fundamental disagreement with their program be protected so that parties can offer distinct politics and programs to voters. The cases I've read especially emphasize the need for such a mechanism to protect minor parties.

I haven't looked exhaustively at other states' election codes but of the ones I've looked at they also have clauses that offer similar rights and protections to political parties.

The other issue with Michael's argument is that even if it were true that a party can't formally expel people enrolled as a member of the party for disagreeing with their program, it's extremely rare for there to be such cases of hostile entryism. It was big news when a MAGA person got the WFP ballot line in a NY House race last year precisely because it's such an unusual thing to happen (and based on my reading of the case, the reason WFP was not able to remove that MAGA person was because the WFP filed their case too late).

It's also not true as far as I know that all states mandate that parties use primaries to choose their nominees. I know at least some use caucuses and conventions as well, and some offer parties the choice of which method to use.

Even if it were true that parties can't expel and disenroll people, and even if it were true that they are always mandated to use primaries, I would still disagree with the implication Michael draws that parties are "illegal." I think in that case he would still be mistaking formal rules for the real rules that determine how parties work and how nominations are made. (See "The Party Decides," an excellent book by political scientists about how parties broadly define have a significant amount of control over nominations and other activities of their elected officials.) But the fact to begin with is that I don't think that electoral law even works the way Michael says it does.

There may be other reasons to run in the Democratic Party primary, but I don't think "because parties are illegal" seems to be a compelling reason. Would love to hear more from Michael though about this, because maybe there's some aspect of the electoral law that I am not understanding. It's hard to tell because his piece does not cite evidence or sources to back up his claims so I'm not sure what he's basing this argument on.

I appreciate you hosting this debate and looking forward to discussing more with Michael, you, and any others interested in the topic.

Expand full comment
Whig Weeb's avatar

Additionally, some would argue Manchin and Sinema are being accountable... To their voters. The people they are supposed to represent. Which gets to the real reason we have this system in America: Americans loathe parties and believe that breaking party lines to support your constituents is real democracy. Americans conceive of democracy very differently, they conceive of it as provincial first and ideological second, and balk at the suggestion the party, not the people, should boss around politicians.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts