4 ms·
The DNC literally argued in court that they have no obligation to conduct fair elections, can just do whatever they want with back room deals and call it legiti
by claudeganon 7y ago
The DNC literally argued in court that they have no obligation to conduct fair elections, can just do whatever they want with back room deals and call it legitimate, so I don’t see that happening:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/reminder-dnc-lawyers-to-court-we-do-not-owe-voters-an-impartial-or-evenhanded-primary-election.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/reminder-dnc-lawyers...
- thomk 7y agoThat article is unbelivable, eye opening and infuriating.
- jimmydddd 7y agoI guess the gist of it is there's a difference between a Party's Primary election process and a National or State election. The Party is treated like a private club that can do whatever it wants in its Primars to select its candidate for the general election.
- claudeganon 7y agoRight, which is fundamentally incompatible with a two-party democracy.
- CWuestefeld 7y agoThe Party is a private club, full stop.
- redbeard0x0a 7y agoAnd the DNC paid for part of the app+services by Shadowinc.io (As well as Pete, Iowa and Nevada Democratic Parties.
- dragonwriter 7y agoThe surprising part is that they had to argue that; that was the practice of every major party (only ever two at a time, but more than two over history), openly, until after 1968, and it was PR, not law changes, which got them to even pretend to make some gestures toward fairness.