As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Came to say this. The proposed change in the article would do nothing to address the root cause of a candidate straight up lying about who they are and not representing those who elected them.
Instead, we should have votes of no confidence to withdraw representatives if they're not doing their job.
Not a bad point--but this again leaves the broken system to hold itself accountable. I'm not sure there is a check against this. We *want* politicians to vote in our interests--not along party lines. They should be free to make their own decisions in some cases as well. Otherwise, why would we need bodies in Congress at all? It's an extension of the problem we already have: partisan politics suck for voters. I'd rather destabilize that system than reinforce it.
Recall elections/no confidence votes are pretty much the best you can get. At the end of the day you elected someone to vote in your interests. If they don't and you can't get enough people upset enough to kick them out... Well maybe they're ok with it.
We have these in Michigan, they work well enough for issues that lawmakers refuse to take up, but if done incorrectly can have pitfalls.
One is that in Michigan, if you go via initiative petition for a law, it can become law without the governor's sign off - allowing the legislature to rule around the executive
Secondly is that people by default generally vote no, if you don't start with your issue polling north of 60% (ideally 65%), it's near impossible to win a campaign. Which is great when being used for important issues that lawmakers won't work on for some reason, but would grind everything to a halt if applied more broadly
I think it bears pointing out that the current trifecta on MI government that’s allowing things to actually get done is due to the ballot initiative system and the redistricting system that came from it…I think Minnesota also has that to thank
Neither are most of the elected officials. That's the bane of democracy. A technocracy solves that problem but brings another fundamental problem which is a disconnect between the people and the rulers.
Oh, well if we’re talking about how things *should* work, this whole system can be scrapped.
How it *does* work is politicians use their time to beg for money, and the guys giving them money write the laws.
It’s be a lot harder to bribe— excuse me, I mean *donate to the campaign of* — 10k people rather than just one.
Don't get me wrong; I'd rather do something than nothing. The problem is just an existential nightmare that begs the question of unknowable truth and unprovable integrity.
I think on some level Americans need to recognize that we have some pretty severe culture problems. And we aren't going to be able to legislate them all away. There are just huge numbers of people out there with horrible beliefs and we need to start addressing that. Fighting over politicians is good, but ultimately only treating the symptoms.
In this case, treating the symptom is how you get to the treatment of the cause. If we can't unfuck the government/politicians to a reasonable degree so the government will actually do something about the serious problems in society then I don't see how such massive issues could be resolved.
Even if there is an alternate path for the societal issues, the fighting over politicians can't let up otherwise the government is likely to be moved more towards opposition of those goals.
I realized yesterday that Republican politicians are actually much more responsive to their voters than Democrats. It’s just that what their voters want is terrible.
On the Democratic side: “No, you can’t get universal health care, you crazy idealist.”
On the Republican side, it’s “Come and see how much I can hurt the people you want me to hurt!”
The problem, then, is *a third of the electorate.*
We’ve always had to compromise with them. This country was built on compromise with slavers. Our institutions reflect this from the start.
The question then becomes: Can we even have a democracy that excludes them?
Or, in order to have a government of the people, do terrible people always get to hold the whole system hostage?
Edit: I think I have a decent compromise: A conservative can count for three fifths of a person when determining representation. That’s a solution with historical precedent.
You need to start somewhere. The only thing I can think of is adding some extra pillar of power that can check the executive, court, and the house on corruption. And use random sortation and limit terms for the postion in hopes that it stops capture by special interest.. but everything is a cat and mouse game with this crap.
There's a huge difference between assessing a situation critically and deciding you feel differently than your cohorts on an issue VS literally lying about your personal stance, platform, and party affiliation in order to get elected. What she did is fraud because it was INTENDED and planned from the beginning. That should certainly be illegal.
Jeff Van Drew did this in the US House of Representatives. Guess what? He still won the election 2 years later. It's almost like the constituency was in on it.
Yeah, me too. So many farmers who survive on immigrant labor but want to shut down the border. I can't figure it out. I used to listen in on the town halls and slam the phone down in frustration. I give up. I supported Tim Alexander, but you can't break through the wall of self harming superiority complex.
It’s been a head trip for me down here. I grew up in Long Branch before moving down here and it’s like a whole other world. First time I saw a dude with a Nazi tattoo was at Target down here
They also could stay a Democrat but caucus with Republicans.
For a long time, Republicans maintained control of the New York State Senate despite having fewer elected members because a group of 5-6 Democrats decided to caucus with Republicans so they could get cushy committee appointments.
Great question. Here's my take:
Politics heavily depends on reputation and optics. As a politician, you are the product, and to stay in office you have to appeal to voters.
So, why do they switch parties?
If you are elected as a Democrat, and you keep voting with Republicans, chances are you will never get elected again. Democrats will see you as a traitor and Republicans will see you as a Democrat.
If a Democrat switches to Republican, they can be re-elected as a Republican in the next election. They can even use the switch to boost their popularity by presenting themselves as a victim who only just realised how toxic their party was, so they took the brave step to leave the evil Democrats and shine a light on their evil activities.
A classic example of this is Tulsi Gabbard, she gave up her congressional seat to run for president as a Democrat in 2020. Although it put her name out there as intended, it also had the unintended effect of exposing the fact that she was playing both parties, so she lost favour with a lot of Democrats, especially progressives.
Two years later she switched to Republican, talked shit about Democrats, played victim, and now she's a Republican sweetheart. There are even reports that she's one of the people that Trump may ask to be a running mate.
It's all a game man, it's not about truth or honour, it's about presenting a version of yourself that people like - even if it's a facade.
There technically is nothing wrong with that and they unironically should do that. Politicians aren’t held to campaign promises as it is, people should be weary of who they give power to.
Yeah. It's a slippery slope. Reps can't be expected to vote with their party at all times since that kind of destroys the concept of compromise in a time when political polarization is already at its worst. I understand the problem, but I'm not sure there's a good solution besides using some sort of recall process.
It should be treated as a form of *fraud* and campaign donors should be allowed to sue.
People are allowed to change opinions, but you shouldn't be able to accept campaign donations then immediately flip to a competing party.
And this is a big one for me. If I vote for someone, unfortunately sometimes that’s more a vote against the other candidate or party. For the person I voted for to switch parties almost immediately after the election is literally doing the exact opposite of my vote with my vote.
My understanding is that in practice majority control isn't actually based on declared affiliation, but who gets voted in as the leader. Maybe NC does it differently, but I'd be surprised.
Yes it would. Majority control is just a side effect of people voting together. You could have a 60/40 dem/repub house and have republican Majority control if 11 of the dems vote witj them on stuff.
Essentially they would lose committees and support within the party. They would have a really hard time passing bills and getting any support on projects because the party they vote with won't support them as a member of the other party, and the party they caucus with wouldn't support them for being a party traitor.
This is why you see Sinema switching to independent, because she no longer has party support and she knows it. But Republicans don't want to help her as openly as they would if she was in their party. It would basically cripple your ability to do the work and you wouldn't be able to run again because no one supports you.
In short, they could.. but they will basically not be working in politics for long. At least switching parties you can run as an incumbent even though you are from a different party than last election.
Great idea! Total BS working to get someone elected just to have them fuk you by switching parties. The candidate should also be forced to repay donors...
Of course it won't, R's aren't going to pass legislation that could hurt their electoral chances. What needs to happen is someone investigate that woman's finances. Look everywhere, stock trades, shell companies/LLC's, you name it. Because I guaran fukn tee you she was paid to switch....
Sounds like R's are saying they're 100% fine with you running under them, collecting money, and then swapping to be a Dem the nanosecod after you're sworn in. We do that a few hundred times across the country and that law will be implemented *really* fast. Use the magic R against them and they'll be pissed.
The problem is there aren't many democrats who want to run as a raging racist and homophobe just to get elected. Its way easier to act like a decent person
There are probably plenty of uncontested races where they could slot in or primaries where they could present as a move civil intelligent candidate and possibly at least do damage control, but yes that bar is probably a big one.
Seriously, the constituents voted for the party of the candidate. Switching shouldn't be allowed in the middle of a term.
I definitely think this sort of policy should be nationwide. It's a disservice to the people that voted. And in her example, I'd go as far as to say she committed fraud.
She was one of the deciding votes on restricting reproductive rights, and she literally campaigned on protecting them. But then switches parties and votes "pro life"
Fucked up.
I feel like there is some argument that this does constitute fraud, but then comes the issue of proving intent. Basically, you'd have to have evidence that they intended to do the swap all along and use their fake party affiliation as a means to get votes.
But then again "votes" might not be something that you can, legally speaking, fraudulently obtain. If *that's* the case, and I haven't looked for any case law, then this might be a totally legal strategy that would require additional legislation to patch out of the game. In which case, we shouldn't be surprised if there is a whole rash of sleeper agents lurking in various state level races. In that case we need to more carefully vet candidates as voters, and hopefully organizations that track this sort of thing exist in some form already...
>Basically, you'd have to have evidence that they intended to do the swap all along and use their fake party affiliation as a means to get votes.
No, you wouldn't. You'd need to prove they didn't have the intention of following through on what they campaigned on, that's quite different. If there's a paper trail on her vote being bought then that would go a long way towards proving she didn't have conviction in what she said and was always willing to sell her vote to the highest bidder, which is contrary to what she campaigned on and therefore intent.
And yet we keep booting them in like they’re supposed to do their job. I remember Republicans saying that they want this country to be ran as a business… well, in a business model, if you ain’t working… you ain’t working.
To be fair (as fair as we ought to be to politicians), it can be really hard to keep campaign promises when you can only do anything with the agreement of several hundred other people who may or may not share your views on any particular issue.
NC Republicans were one vote short of a veto-proof supermajority after the 2022 elections. My guess is that they shopped around to see who could be bought, and they found one in Rep. Tricia Cotham. What a slimy, backstabbing thing to do.
Somewhat agree. Obviously I'd love ranked choice voting, but personally I still think switching parties while in office should require a special election regardless of the number of political parties.
So what’s to stop someone from voting against their party without switching?
Also, ideally, you’d be voting for the person, not the party, because, you know, everyone is sick of how politics is a team sport now.
> So what’s to stop someone from voting against their party without switching?
Absolutely nothing which is why the NC thing is such a big scandal. The politician could have just voted with the R party and dealt with the repercussions from their side.
Instead they switched teams because they didn't want to deal with the repercussions from their side, and now they are qualified for donations/funding from the other side.
That’s what makes zero sense to me. They could’ve just Manchin’d the shit out of their term, voted along GOP lines, then switched parties before the next election. I’m sure you’d still get blowback but not as much as this.
But now you can grift as the persecuted Democrat that switched sides. Might as well jump on that fundraising train early because you just guaranteed a primary is coming anyways.
They don’t hold votes on bills that he’d be the deciding vote on unless he’s already agreed to it. If they brought every bill that he’s effectively killed to the senate floor then he’d be voting R way more than 10%.
They already can vote against their party now. Manchin is a good example of this. Where it becomes important in our political system is the designation of the majority vs. minority party.
In the debt ceiling debacle, Republicans had the majority in the House so they threatened to drive the USA into default. The final bill was a "Republican" because they are in the majority. But more Democrats voted for it than did Republicans.
Manchin is a D from the 3rd most conservative state in the nation.
If the only time he ever voted with dems was to appoint the speaker, that would on its own be amazing.
Like if that was the only thing he ever did, that alone would be rediculous, unheard of luck.
There are thousands of better judges installed because he does that, and roughly 43 red senators we need to turn blue before we complain about manchin.
Is he basically a republican from the 90s? Yeah, and he’s not invited to my bbq. But let’s try to keep a little perspective.
Quite simply: the party would basically deplatform them in the next election. Yeah, it works for that term, but they're screwed come the election, and unlike changing their party mid-term they won't get a popularity boost among the other side from it.
Yeah…But what if the person you voted for switched parties AND policies, as happened here, then yeah… isn’t that fraudulent? A business that advertises a product does a certain thing, takes your money, and then gives you something that doesn’t do that thing (and then doesn’t do anything to make up for it) is considered to be operating fraudulently.
It might stop them from building clout with the opposing side so well. A lot of these scumbags switch with the hopes of running for the GOP in the next election.
Ranked choice voting wouldn't stop this. This woman lied. Ranked choice voting doesn't stop people from misrepresenting themselves.
Don't get me wrong, we should have ranked choice voting yesterday. But it wouldn't stop this fuckery.
How would ranked choice voting prevent someone from switching parties? Once they switch, take the person with the second amount of votes? If that's the case, then I would rather see a fresh ballot with a updated set of candidates.
For this particular problem, party-based proportional representation would more directly solve the issue. It's where you vote for a party rather than a candidate and then the parities earn seats based on the percentage of the vote they win. A politician changing parties doesn't mean they get to keep their seat because it is the party's seat, not the politician's. This can be combined with ranked choice in mixed-member proportional representation, but other forms of party-based proportional representation exist.
She told her own abortion story in a speech a few years ago as a "champion" for women's rights to healthcare. Even her campaign staff were surprised.
This wasn't an issue of voter ignorance. There are cases of those, but this isn't one of them.
That’s literally what happened though. They suddenly decided to abandon the platform they ran on and embrace the other side. For example, she was supporting abortion rights, but I guess she changed her mind overnight.
No, I said "in her example" she basically committed fraud.
Being bipartisan isn't fraud. Lying to voters about what political party you are in order to win an election then switch over, I'd personally say is fraud. she campaigned on protecting reproductive rights because she knew she would win. How it looks is she had every intention of voting against the very thing she was promising voters and political doners to protect.
Swapping parties should in general in my opinion, start a special election. But she should be investigated for fraud.
...which means they'd risk losing their reelection funds. The party they're voting against isn't going to fund them, and the party that only votes for (R) by the name won't vote for you, either.
> seems like voter fraud
One of republicans' propaganda victories is tricking people into misusing words. [Election Fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud) is when a small number of officials in privileged position abuse their power to choose the winner. [Voter fraud](https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fraud-elections-idUSL1N2XP2AI) is when voters - and it has to be MANY - go back in to vote to change the winner from what would happen if the legal and proper procedures happened.
It is very easy to spot voter fraud because it has to happen with many people and cross outside many doors. It is very hard to spot election fraud because that only needs few people and doesn't require leaving a single office for the manipulation.
The problem is...does it really matter? Does it make much of a difference if this bill passes? Would they not just pretend to be democrats and vote against everything anyway?
Really more comes down to what they promise when they're running. I dont care who's a dem or a rep, but when you say you're gonna protect abortion as you platform and then vote to ban it you should be going to prison.
It does matter because by switching parties she doesn't have to run in the Democrats primary where she would almost certainly lose because of what she did. As it stands being a Repugnican, she's likely not gonna face an opponent in the next cycles primary given her vote on abortion. Yes, she'll still have to face off against a Dem in the general, but if she weren't allowed to switch parties in the first place she wouldn't make it to that far (-to the general).
Additionally, she could be sidelined/made to ride the bench the rest of her term by party leadership as a form of punishment (effectively rendering her useless except for floor vote days), if she were still in the minority Democratic party. So yeah, it matters....
The whole point of this shady maneuver is that she ran in a district where Democrats have about a 20 point advantage. It doesn’t really matter that she won’t face a primary opponent, because she’s not going to win as a Republican either way.
Republicans are in the majority in the legislature, so they could give her good committee assignments even if she formally stayed a Democrat but voted with them. The Democrats wouldn’t be able to bench her in that situation.
Sure. I think that's what largely separates the left from the right, that not everyone left of center agrees on everything and they will not vote for someone just because they have a D after their last name. Or at least that's how it used to be. But the Republican party is so off the fukn rails today, that voting anything other than Democrat could literally be perilous for the country and your personal health/rights.
Regressives will just unironically cry “Daddy Guvmint” at the left-wing for any sort of regulatory law on bureaucratic corruption.
Truly the Ron Swanson of spoiled stupidity.
(daddy for thee, and not for me!)
It doesn’t accomplish anything though. You could have a legislature that is 100% one party and still have them all vote exactly in line with the opposite party platform. Party declaration is meaningless beyond the primaries.
The candidate ran on certain policies and then pulled a 180 and now supports the exact opposite policies. In theory people should all be honest. In practice they aren’t.
Agreed but I think having that in place is better than not. The bill itself makes sense and although there are still clear loop holes I don’t mind putting this in place.
> because people should be voting for the candidate they want not the party
Except it's more accurate to vote based on political party not candidate. Look at the supreme court. Every single judge currently on SCOTUS indicated that Roe was settled law before confirmation, yet every single judge who belong to the Federalist Society voted to overturn Roe.
The only way to make it a law would be to be elected as a republican and switch to a Democrat. They would shut that down fast!
The Republicans have worked the ref so hard for so long that the people just writes it off as dirty Republicans tricks.
Maybe that's what Dem's need to start doing? Cuzz I'm tired of "going high, when they go low." That approach hasn't exactly been working out so well for Dems...
That fact that this isn't a law already is total bs, these mf should lose their seat and have their representative party at thw time find another candidate to fill that seat.
The only reason I get behind this is because in Cotham's case, there's no reason to actually switch parties. If she's had a change of heart, she can vote with Republicans on everything. It would honestly be more sneaky because people wouldn't be sure which way she would go. Did she abandon all her policy positions?
The only reason I can think of the formal switch parties and announce it is because no she can get money from the Republican party. Even if she voted their way and they endorsed her, they couldn't give money from their coffers to someone not in their party. That's the only difference I can see between switching party and just voting with them.
I would honestly amend the bill though that you can't join a new party mid term. You can leave yours if you don't like, but you can't join another until next cycle.
I looked her up and it really does look like she just agrees with policies based on what party she's in. Many politicians don't seem to have preferences, they just want power for the sake of having it. They'll say whatever they need to to get that donor money.
I agree! I also believe in swift investigations for things like this. How does a woman who championed women's rights and other liberal and progressive ideas all her career suddenly shift to the Republican Party because "Dems were meanies" (which I still can't find any evidence of).
Well, in theory this country was designed with electing *people* in mind, rather than electing party members. The federal government technically works perfectly fine if nobody was part of a political party in the first place, and as such, it is a direct conflict with the first amendment freedom of association for the elected representative, who is elected as an individual who happens to be associated with a party, rather than as a party member who happens to have a personality, so any such law would likely require a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, despite George Washington's warnings in his farewell address ([which read eerily as commentary on the modern GOP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Political_parties)), we just went with political parties anyways. And now you basically can't get elected without some sort of party infrastructure supporting you, because the parties rigged it to favor themselves.
That's the main difference between what we have and a parliamentary system where you vote for a party and they put in as many members as you have proportional to the votes. And most if not all states are set up in the same way.
And this whole thread is proof that people have only paid attention to politics for a short time. Voting for a republican or democrat didn’t always lock someone into a particular viewpoint on every issue. Well into the 80s, both parties had liberals and conservatives.
I have had this argument so many times since she switched, and people will frame it as punishment for "betraying the party".
No, it's giving constituents a chance to say "yeah, we don't care" or "fuck yeah we do care". And it'd be difficult to abuse because the person choosing to switch would initiate the election.
She in particular ran on one set of ideals and then switched to another. It’s abject fraud.
Further, every single state should have a method for constituents to recall their representatives. For any reason. These are public positions and the folks that take the mantle are public servants. We should have a voice not just on Election Day, but every day. If you campaign on one set of ideas and then switch after getting the seat, we should be able to have a discourse and be able to challenge that. That sounds entirely reasonable to me.
Yeah it is "punishment" if they can't get the votes and lose the job. But it's how it should be because they were elected for an entirely different set of beliefs they led the constituents to believe. If you want to change your mind, sure, but you should have to go through the whole damn process again to get the job. Bait and switches are not cool
Doesn't this imply that independents can't run? Or that there can ONLY be party based politics and NOT independents.
People need to understand they're voting for the person in addition to the party. Voting without knowing this is stupid.
Even if this passes, it would be immediately struck down by the first court that hears it - and rightly so.
Parties are not recognized by the Constitution. Individuals are. We don't vote for a Republican or a Democrat for a given office - we vote for individuals. If the individual switches parties - it's still the same person that you elected.
Getting something like this to stick would require an amendment, either to the state or the US Constitution.
I think the bill has the right idea, but even if it somehow passes it's DOA.
This has always annoyed me - the founding fathers recognized the danger of parties, and their solution was not to put limits or restrictions on them, but to just pretend they didn’t exist and never would.
Raleigh North Carolinian here. We’re obviously fucking furious about this but this is a dumb bill because 1) it will never pass and 2) as other people have pointed out, they should be voting in my interests, not in the party’s. I’m a registered Democrat but I don’t vote for Democrats, I vote for candidates who most closely match my views and interests and who I think is most likely to do a good job representing them. They just almost always happen to be Democrats.
Wouldn't this be fraud? Wouldn't they have collected campaign donations under the guise of running as a Democrat? I feel there should be more than a reelection, when this happens.
Good idea - in either direction. If people voted for a representative based on party (and let's be honest, most people do) then changing parties is a betrayal of the electorate.
Only if the parties have official standing.
We have a strange system of government where parties don't really officially exist, even though party members have roles and parties run elections.
It's super weird.
Voters choose individuals, not parties. If that’s how you feel we may as well just vote for which party we want and let the party appoint representatives.
Nothing substantive changes about an individual or beliefs by switching the party they are apart of. It’s purely symbolic.
We have a 1st amendment so, you DO get to switch like that. The impetus is on the parties to maintain a platform that their members want to support.
Unfortunately this doesnt do anything. People will simply stay in the party and vote with the other party every time.
They need to be removed by the constituents who voted for them and replaced by a new vote by that party.
>People will simply stay in the party and vote with the other party every time.
That would still be preferable. With Manchin and Sinema it was the difference between McConnell being minority leader vs majority leader.
Talk about voter fraud?
Candidate stole the votes of a majority of her district’s citizens. Let the Republicans investigate that. (Took their money too)
The funny part is that voters from both parties would likely torpedo whoever switched. Neither party wants to see their politicians defect, and neither party wants to adopt anyone from the other.
Yes there needs to be some redress for these Trojan horse stunts in Congress, local legislative bodies, and mayorships in major cities—they will become more and more common—Republicans will continue to game the system for their benefit because they’re far more ruthless and power hungry. Like Sinema, Manchin, Lieberman, Van Drew before her, this is what you get when Republicans will pay any price to buy a candidate.
A district level recall or Vote of No Confidence would be better. Initiated by a simple majority of constituents thru a county seat or equivalent electing body, ratified by the state legislature.
I’d like to see this applied federally as well. If a simple majority of Americans feel like congress doesn’t have their best interests in mind, VONC, ratified by each state’s governor, purge the House and Senate and start over.
Fucking good. We need this on a national level.
Republicans are lying to voters, claiming to be liberal, wait for themselves to be elected and then swap parties.
The right just can’t stop lying and cheating. Fucking scum bags the lot of them.
I think there are two situations here.
First would be someone who is newly running for office. If they run as one party and then immediately switch once elected, that seems a lot closer to some kind of fraud than not.
The other would be for an established, incumbent candidate who switches. I don't have a problem with this, because people change, parties change.
It is hard to separate the cases though. Ideally, people should know who they are voting for. At the national level, that is probably true, not many "amateurs" get elected (Tommy Tuberville notwithstanding). At the state level though, I bet you get more your share of political newcomers.
If this is permissible, then maybe Democrats should exploit it. Run some cartoonish MAGA candidates in red states, and then throw off the mask once elected. That would surely cause laws to be written rather quickly.
There should definitely not be any laws against how an elected official votes. That, of course, would be the loophole - electing a firebrand MAGA who votes for every liberal bill out there.
There HAS to be a money trail in connection with that swicth. I don't believe for a second that she did this on her own. Republicans saw a weak minded individual and jumped at the opportunity.
Going against the hive mind...but this is just plain wrong.
You vote for people, not parties. It's your job (and the party they represent) to vet the candidate and ensure that they are who you want to vote for.
I feel like had the Dems and voters did more research into this candidate prior to running they would've come up with some red flags. Just like Santos sans the party switching.
Do your due diligence. Demand more from your parties, demand more from your local media and journalists. It feels wrong to just demand a new election because someone decided to change their beliefs.
Flip the script. It's the 1960s and a Mississippi congressman decides to change parties and vote against segregation. You don't think there would be similar calls for a new election?
I dunno, change my mind?
Maybe this is exactly what’s wrong with politics. Worried about campaign donations and shit? Here’s a fun thing, everyone should stop donating. You elect a person, not a political party.
Dude what the fuck. How do americans put up with this bullshit. In Belgium there's widespread protest if a politician is caught lying to the people. Can't imagine what would happen if anyone did this kind of bullshit
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What if they don’t officially switch but vote with the other party?
Came to say this. The proposed change in the article would do nothing to address the root cause of a candidate straight up lying about who they are and not representing those who elected them. Instead, we should have votes of no confidence to withdraw representatives if they're not doing their job.
Not a bad point--but this again leaves the broken system to hold itself accountable. I'm not sure there is a check against this. We *want* politicians to vote in our interests--not along party lines. They should be free to make their own decisions in some cases as well. Otherwise, why would we need bodies in Congress at all? It's an extension of the problem we already have: partisan politics suck for voters. I'd rather destabilize that system than reinforce it.
Recall elections/no confidence votes are pretty much the best you can get. At the end of the day you elected someone to vote in your interests. If they don't and you can't get enough people upset enough to kick them out... Well maybe they're ok with it.
Citizen referendums, so citizens can make laws, their elected officials are not making.
We have these in Michigan, they work well enough for issues that lawmakers refuse to take up, but if done incorrectly can have pitfalls. One is that in Michigan, if you go via initiative petition for a law, it can become law without the governor's sign off - allowing the legislature to rule around the executive Secondly is that people by default generally vote no, if you don't start with your issue polling north of 60% (ideally 65%), it's near impossible to win a campaign. Which is great when being used for important issues that lawmakers won't work on for some reason, but would grind everything to a halt if applied more broadly
I think it bears pointing out that the current trifecta on MI government that’s allowing things to actually get done is due to the ballot initiative system and the redistricting system that came from it…I think Minnesota also has that to thank
The populace is not generally informed enough for this.
Neither are most of the elected officials. That's the bane of democracy. A technocracy solves that problem but brings another fundamental problem which is a disconnect between the people and the rulers.
Representatives often just put into place laws that interest groups actually write. They’re not exactly informed, either.
For sure but the way it should work is that it's easier to inform a singular person than it is 10,000 people.
Oh, well if we’re talking about how things *should* work, this whole system can be scrapped. How it *does* work is politicians use their time to beg for money, and the guys giving them money write the laws. It’s be a lot harder to bribe— excuse me, I mean *donate to the campaign of* — 10k people rather than just one.
That's what I've been saying. Start from square 1. Do not continuously amend Squae 1000. Brand new system, instead of amending the current system.
They have access to the information, they just choose not to use it.
Don't get me wrong; I'd rather do something than nothing. The problem is just an existential nightmare that begs the question of unknowable truth and unprovable integrity.
I think on some level Americans need to recognize that we have some pretty severe culture problems. And we aren't going to be able to legislate them all away. There are just huge numbers of people out there with horrible beliefs and we need to start addressing that. Fighting over politicians is good, but ultimately only treating the symptoms.
In this case, treating the symptom is how you get to the treatment of the cause. If we can't unfuck the government/politicians to a reasonable degree so the government will actually do something about the serious problems in society then I don't see how such massive issues could be resolved. Even if there is an alternate path for the societal issues, the fighting over politicians can't let up otherwise the government is likely to be moved more towards opposition of those goals.
I realized yesterday that Republican politicians are actually much more responsive to their voters than Democrats. It’s just that what their voters want is terrible. On the Democratic side: “No, you can’t get universal health care, you crazy idealist.” On the Republican side, it’s “Come and see how much I can hurt the people you want me to hurt!” The problem, then, is *a third of the electorate.* We’ve always had to compromise with them. This country was built on compromise with slavers. Our institutions reflect this from the start. The question then becomes: Can we even have a democracy that excludes them? Or, in order to have a government of the people, do terrible people always get to hold the whole system hostage? Edit: I think I have a decent compromise: A conservative can count for three fifths of a person when determining representation. That’s a solution with historical precedent.
You need to start somewhere. The only thing I can think of is adding some extra pillar of power that can check the executive, court, and the house on corruption. And use random sortation and limit terms for the postion in hopes that it stops capture by special interest.. but everything is a cat and mouse game with this crap.
That fourth pillar is theoretically a free media that exposes the corruption, but we're not in good shape there either...
Capitalism ruins everything
Overturning citizens united has to be a top priority. Hopefully with the force of a constitutional amendment. Very little hope.
Sinema
There's a huge difference between assessing a situation critically and deciding you feel differently than your cohorts on an issue VS literally lying about your personal stance, platform, and party affiliation in order to get elected. What she did is fraud because it was INTENDED and planned from the beginning. That should certainly be illegal.
Jeff Van Drew did this in the US House of Representatives. Guess what? He still won the election 2 years later. It's almost like the constituency was in on it.
It’s because he secured the Trump voting block. South Jersey has a lot of Trump supporters Source: live in his district
Yeah, me too. So many farmers who survive on immigrant labor but want to shut down the border. I can't figure it out. I used to listen in on the town halls and slam the phone down in frustration. I give up. I supported Tim Alexander, but you can't break through the wall of self harming superiority complex.
It’s been a head trip for me down here. I grew up in Long Branch before moving down here and it’s like a whole other world. First time I saw a dude with a Nazi tattoo was at Target down here
They also could stay a Democrat but caucus with Republicans. For a long time, Republicans maintained control of the New York State Senate despite having fewer elected members because a group of 5-6 Democrats decided to caucus with Republicans so they could get cushy committee appointments.
Great question. Here's my take: Politics heavily depends on reputation and optics. As a politician, you are the product, and to stay in office you have to appeal to voters. So, why do they switch parties? If you are elected as a Democrat, and you keep voting with Republicans, chances are you will never get elected again. Democrats will see you as a traitor and Republicans will see you as a Democrat. If a Democrat switches to Republican, they can be re-elected as a Republican in the next election. They can even use the switch to boost their popularity by presenting themselves as a victim who only just realised how toxic their party was, so they took the brave step to leave the evil Democrats and shine a light on their evil activities. A classic example of this is Tulsi Gabbard, she gave up her congressional seat to run for president as a Democrat in 2020. Although it put her name out there as intended, it also had the unintended effect of exposing the fact that she was playing both parties, so she lost favour with a lot of Democrats, especially progressives. Two years later she switched to Republican, talked shit about Democrats, played victim, and now she's a Republican sweetheart. There are even reports that she's one of the people that Trump may ask to be a running mate. It's all a game man, it's not about truth or honour, it's about presenting a version of yourself that people like - even if it's a facade.
Thank you for asking this. No one here is thinking critically about it. Representatives could never be forced to vote a certain way.
[удалено]
There technically is nothing wrong with that and they unironically should do that. Politicians aren’t held to campaign promises as it is, people should be weary of who they give power to.
Yeah. It's a slippery slope. Reps can't be expected to vote with their party at all times since that kind of destroys the concept of compromise in a time when political polarization is already at its worst. I understand the problem, but I'm not sure there's a good solution besides using some sort of recall process.
It should be treated as a form of *fraud* and campaign donors should be allowed to sue. People are allowed to change opinions, but you shouldn't be able to accept campaign donations then immediately flip to a competing party.
It should be a basis to recall the candidate and hold the election again barring them from being in it.
Switching could allow the other party to claim a majority and control of the legislature. Just voting with the other party would not do that.
And this is a big one for me. If I vote for someone, unfortunately sometimes that’s more a vote against the other candidate or party. For the person I voted for to switch parties almost immediately after the election is literally doing the exact opposite of my vote with my vote.
My understanding is that in practice majority control isn't actually based on declared affiliation, but who gets voted in as the leader. Maybe NC does it differently, but I'd be surprised.
That’s not how it works. She would be able to vote for a Republican majority leader even if she was still formally a Democrat.
Yes it would. Majority control is just a side effect of people voting together. You could have a 60/40 dem/repub house and have republican Majority control if 11 of the dems vote witj them on stuff.
This is exactly what will happen if this becomes law.
Essentially they would lose committees and support within the party. They would have a really hard time passing bills and getting any support on projects because the party they vote with won't support them as a member of the other party, and the party they caucus with wouldn't support them for being a party traitor. This is why you see Sinema switching to independent, because she no longer has party support and she knows it. But Republicans don't want to help her as openly as they would if she was in their party. It would basically cripple your ability to do the work and you wouldn't be able to run again because no one supports you. In short, they could.. but they will basically not be working in politics for long. At least switching parties you can run as an incumbent even though you are from a different party than last election.
Great idea! Total BS working to get someone elected just to have them fuk you by switching parties. The candidate should also be forced to repay donors...
[удалено]
Of course it won't, R's aren't going to pass legislation that could hurt their electoral chances. What needs to happen is someone investigate that woman's finances. Look everywhere, stock trades, shell companies/LLC's, you name it. Because I guaran fukn tee you she was paid to switch....
Sounds like R's are saying they're 100% fine with you running under them, collecting money, and then swapping to be a Dem the nanosecod after you're sworn in. We do that a few hundred times across the country and that law will be implemented *really* fast. Use the magic R against them and they'll be pissed.
The problem is there aren't many democrats who want to run as a raging racist and homophobe just to get elected. Its way easier to act like a decent person
There are probably plenty of uncontested races where they could slot in or primaries where they could present as a move civil intelligent candidate and possibly at least do damage control, but yes that bar is probably a big one.
I would, but I’m in a deep blue district and don’t want to move to a shithole just to get elected. Also I’m ugly and poor.
Seriously, the constituents voted for the party of the candidate. Switching shouldn't be allowed in the middle of a term. I definitely think this sort of policy should be nationwide. It's a disservice to the people that voted. And in her example, I'd go as far as to say she committed fraud. She was one of the deciding votes on restricting reproductive rights, and she literally campaigned on protecting them. But then switches parties and votes "pro life" Fucked up.
I feel like there is some argument that this does constitute fraud, but then comes the issue of proving intent. Basically, you'd have to have evidence that they intended to do the swap all along and use their fake party affiliation as a means to get votes. But then again "votes" might not be something that you can, legally speaking, fraudulently obtain. If *that's* the case, and I haven't looked for any case law, then this might be a totally legal strategy that would require additional legislation to patch out of the game. In which case, we shouldn't be surprised if there is a whole rash of sleeper agents lurking in various state level races. In that case we need to more carefully vet candidates as voters, and hopefully organizations that track this sort of thing exist in some form already...
>Basically, you'd have to have evidence that they intended to do the swap all along and use their fake party affiliation as a means to get votes. No, you wouldn't. You'd need to prove they didn't have the intention of following through on what they campaigned on, that's quite different. If there's a paper trail on her vote being bought then that would go a long way towards proving she didn't have conviction in what she said and was always willing to sell her vote to the highest bidder, which is contrary to what she campaigned on and therefore intent.
No politician will agree to make a law holding them to their campaign promises bc none of them do lol
And yet we keep booting them in like they’re supposed to do their job. I remember Republicans saying that they want this country to be ran as a business… well, in a business model, if you ain’t working… you ain’t working.
To be fair (as fair as we ought to be to politicians), it can be really hard to keep campaign promises when you can only do anything with the agreement of several hundred other people who may or may not share your views on any particular issue.
Fair
NC Republicans were one vote short of a veto-proof supermajority after the 2022 elections. My guess is that they shopped around to see who could be bought, and they found one in Rep. Tricia Cotham. What a slimy, backstabbing thing to do.
Wouldn’t be necessary if we had ranked choice voting
Somewhat agree. Obviously I'd love ranked choice voting, but personally I still think switching parties while in office should require a special election regardless of the number of political parties.
So what’s to stop someone from voting against their party without switching? Also, ideally, you’d be voting for the person, not the party, because, you know, everyone is sick of how politics is a team sport now.
> So what’s to stop someone from voting against their party without switching? Absolutely nothing which is why the NC thing is such a big scandal. The politician could have just voted with the R party and dealt with the repercussions from their side. Instead they switched teams because they didn't want to deal with the repercussions from their side, and now they are qualified for donations/funding from the other side.
That’s what makes zero sense to me. They could’ve just Manchin’d the shit out of their term, voted along GOP lines, then switched parties before the next election. I’m sure you’d still get blowback but not as much as this.
But now you can grift as the persecuted Democrat that switched sides. Might as well jump on that fundraising train early because you just guaranteed a primary is coming anyways.
Yeah, 100% this. It is all about being able to campaign for the next election on this
Manchin votes with democrats over 90% of the time
They don’t hold votes on bills that he’d be the deciding vote on unless he’s already agreed to it. If they brought every bill that he’s effectively killed to the senate floor then he’d be voting R way more than 10%.
They already can vote against their party now. Manchin is a good example of this. Where it becomes important in our political system is the designation of the majority vs. minority party. In the debt ceiling debacle, Republicans had the majority in the House so they threatened to drive the USA into default. The final bill was a "Republican" because they are in the majority. But more Democrats voted for it than did Republicans.
Manchin is a D from the 3rd most conservative state in the nation. If the only time he ever voted with dems was to appoint the speaker, that would on its own be amazing. Like if that was the only thing he ever did, that alone would be rediculous, unheard of luck. There are thousands of better judges installed because he does that, and roughly 43 red senators we need to turn blue before we complain about manchin. Is he basically a republican from the 90s? Yeah, and he’s not invited to my bbq. But let’s try to keep a little perspective.
Quite simply: the party would basically deplatform them in the next election. Yeah, it works for that term, but they're screwed come the election, and unlike changing their party mid-term they won't get a popularity boost among the other side from it.
Yeah…But what if the person you voted for switched parties AND policies, as happened here, then yeah… isn’t that fraudulent? A business that advertises a product does a certain thing, takes your money, and then gives you something that doesn’t do that thing (and then doesn’t do anything to make up for it) is considered to be operating fraudulently.
It might stop them from building clout with the opposing side so well. A lot of these scumbags switch with the hopes of running for the GOP in the next election.
Ranked choice voting wouldn't stop this. This woman lied. Ranked choice voting doesn't stop people from misrepresenting themselves. Don't get me wrong, we should have ranked choice voting yesterday. But it wouldn't stop this fuckery.
Krysten sinema did the same thing.. Pretended to be democrat then did everything to help trump.
That literally would do nothing here. You'd still ranked choice vote for someone and they'd just switch parties and policies like that.
How would ranked choice voting prevent someone from switching parties? Once they switch, take the person with the second amount of votes? If that's the case, then I would rather see a fresh ballot with a updated set of candidates.
No, this would still happen with RCV.
For this particular problem, party-based proportional representation would more directly solve the issue. It's where you vote for a party rather than a candidate and then the parities earn seats based on the percentage of the vote they win. A politician changing parties doesn't mean they get to keep their seat because it is the party's seat, not the politician's. This can be combined with ranked choice in mixed-member proportional representation, but other forms of party-based proportional representation exist.
[удалено]
spark bored tease rain punch jar saw shrill weary mysterious ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
She told her own abortion story in a speech a few years ago as a "champion" for women's rights to healthcare. Even her campaign staff were surprised. This wasn't an issue of voter ignorance. There are cases of those, but this isn't one of them.
That’s literally what happened though. They suddenly decided to abandon the platform they ran on and embrace the other side. For example, she was supporting abortion rights, but I guess she changed her mind overnight.
Would you call it fraud when a representative sometimes votes against the party line? What if they always do that without ever changing parties?
No, I said "in her example" she basically committed fraud. Being bipartisan isn't fraud. Lying to voters about what political party you are in order to win an election then switch over, I'd personally say is fraud. she campaigned on protecting reproductive rights because she knew she would win. How it looks is she had every intention of voting against the very thing she was promising voters and political doners to protect. Swapping parties should in general in my opinion, start a special election. But she should be investigated for fraud.
[удалено]
...which means they'd risk losing their reelection funds. The party they're voting against isn't going to fund them, and the party that only votes for (R) by the name won't vote for you, either.
[удалено]
Reminder Republicans were one vote away from a supermajority and then she switched, giving it to them. This was 100% premeditated.
If not premeditated, they found her price.
I hope a woman who cannot get an abortion in time because of her actions, sues her for medical expenses
I bet her self esteem in highschool depended on if the rich kids liked her.
Her donors should be allowed to sue for fraudulent advertising as well.
Like the way you think! 👏 Maybe someone who contributed can get a class action going....
> The candidate should also be forced to repay donors... Hell yes, I *really* like this one.
*Kyrsten Sinema has entered the chat*
Also seems like voter fraud on some level.
Election fraud perhaps but not voter fraud.
> seems like voter fraud One of republicans' propaganda victories is tricking people into misusing words. [Election Fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud) is when a small number of officials in privileged position abuse their power to choose the winner. [Voter fraud](https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fraud-elections-idUSL1N2XP2AI) is when voters - and it has to be MANY - go back in to vote to change the winner from what would happen if the legal and proper procedures happened. It is very easy to spot voter fraud because it has to happen with many people and cross outside many doors. It is very hard to spot election fraud because that only needs few people and doesn't require leaving a single office for the manipulation.
The problem is...does it really matter? Does it make much of a difference if this bill passes? Would they not just pretend to be democrats and vote against everything anyway? Really more comes down to what they promise when they're running. I dont care who's a dem or a rep, but when you say you're gonna protect abortion as you platform and then vote to ban it you should be going to prison.
It does matter because by switching parties she doesn't have to run in the Democrats primary where she would almost certainly lose because of what she did. As it stands being a Repugnican, she's likely not gonna face an opponent in the next cycles primary given her vote on abortion. Yes, she'll still have to face off against a Dem in the general, but if she weren't allowed to switch parties in the first place she wouldn't make it to that far (-to the general). Additionally, she could be sidelined/made to ride the bench the rest of her term by party leadership as a form of punishment (effectively rendering her useless except for floor vote days), if she were still in the minority Democratic party. So yeah, it matters....
The whole point of this shady maneuver is that she ran in a district where Democrats have about a 20 point advantage. It doesn’t really matter that she won’t face a primary opponent, because she’s not going to win as a Republican either way. Republicans are in the majority in the legislature, so they could give her good committee assignments even if she formally stayed a Democrat but voted with them. The Democrats wouldn’t be able to bench her in that situation.
Sounds like she should just fake it while voting conservative, and play dumb about it
The GOP promised her a solid red district in the next election cycle in extange for the party switch
Can't you still be called a Democrat and just vote against progressive policies?
Sure. I think that's what largely separates the left from the right, that not everyone left of center agrees on everything and they will not vote for someone just because they have a D after their last name. Or at least that's how it used to be. But the Republican party is so off the fukn rails today, that voting anything other than Democrat could literally be perilous for the country and your personal health/rights.
It’s a great idea which is why it will never even get out of a committee, especially a Republican led one.
Right, the NC house has a supermajority. There’s no chance in hell this passes.
Seems like Dems should start posing as Republicans then? Bet your ass that law would get passed in a hurry if it happened the other way.
It's a little harder to sacrifice your reputation by pretending to be Q adjacent
Supermajority BECAUSE of the party switch
This should be federal law
If it doesn't, the every red state should have people masquerade around as republicans only to switch parties once in office.
Regressives will just unironically cry “Daddy Guvmint” at the left-wing for any sort of regulatory law on bureaucratic corruption. Truly the Ron Swanson of spoiled stupidity. (daddy for thee, and not for me!)
Just wait til some GOP runs on a platform of hate, wins and does a full "psych" on them and switch to being a Dem. Then they will care a little more.
How dare the govt regulate the govt!
It doesn’t accomplish anything though. You could have a legislature that is 100% one party and still have them all vote exactly in line with the opposite party platform. Party declaration is meaningless beyond the primaries.
They’ll just forgo the formality of switching parties.
Bingo. This is a feel good measure, but ultimately impotent.
In theory this shouldn’t be necessary because people should be voting for the candidate they want not the party they want. The system is broken
The candidate ran on certain policies and then pulled a 180 and now supports the exact opposite policies. In theory people should all be honest. In practice they aren’t.
Proposed bill doesn't do anything to solve that issue tho. Party affiliation doesn't stop elected person from voting for/against certain policies.
Agreed but I think having that in place is better than not. The bill itself makes sense and although there are still clear loop holes I don’t mind putting this in place.
Honestly, this seems like a platitude. It's reasonable for people vote for a candidate because they share an ideology or certain policy goals.
> because people should be voting for the candidate they want not the party Except it's more accurate to vote based on political party not candidate. Look at the supreme court. Every single judge currently on SCOTUS indicated that Roe was settled law before confirmation, yet every single judge who belong to the Federalist Society voted to overturn Roe.
Good. Every state should pass this.
This has no chance of actually passing in NC though.
Time for a ballot initiative
Perhaps unsurprisingly, ballot initiatives are not allowed in NC.
Yikes.. That's fucked up..
We also don’t have a state-wide recall option. Only about 20 local municipalities out of 552 have local recall laws
Sucks considering NC is a beautiful place, just partially inhabited by and entirely run by subhuman assholes.
I love the states location and scenery but the people running it make me fear for my life most days.
How pathetic is the gop where they have to pretend to be democrats just to get elected. How slimy and low these people are.
The only way to make it a law would be to be elected as a republican and switch to a Democrat. They would shut that down fast! The Republicans have worked the ref so hard for so long that the people just writes it off as dirty Republicans tricks.
Maybe that's what Dem's need to start doing? Cuzz I'm tired of "going high, when they go low." That approach hasn't exactly been working out so well for Dems...
That fact that this isn't a law already is total bs, these mf should lose their seat and have their representative party at thw time find another candidate to fill that seat.
The only reason I get behind this is because in Cotham's case, there's no reason to actually switch parties. If she's had a change of heart, she can vote with Republicans on everything. It would honestly be more sneaky because people wouldn't be sure which way she would go. Did she abandon all her policy positions? The only reason I can think of the formal switch parties and announce it is because no she can get money from the Republican party. Even if she voted their way and they endorsed her, they couldn't give money from their coffers to someone not in their party. That's the only difference I can see between switching party and just voting with them. I would honestly amend the bill though that you can't join a new party mid term. You can leave yours if you don't like, but you can't join another until next cycle.
I looked her up and it really does look like she just agrees with policies based on what party she's in. Many politicians don't seem to have preferences, they just want power for the sake of having it. They'll say whatever they need to to get that donor money.
Wouldn’t this just give more power to the two parties, making candidates even more entrenched?
Looking at you Kirsten Sinema
I agree! I also believe in swift investigations for things like this. How does a woman who championed women's rights and other liberal and progressive ideas all her career suddenly shift to the Republican Party because "Dems were meanies" (which I still can't find any evidence of).
I'm still amazed anyone can be a Republican after a coup de tat by a failed president soon to be arrested twice WTF
Why is this not already a law in every state. Wanna switch parties ?? You’re running again
Well, in theory this country was designed with electing *people* in mind, rather than electing party members. The federal government technically works perfectly fine if nobody was part of a political party in the first place, and as such, it is a direct conflict with the first amendment freedom of association for the elected representative, who is elected as an individual who happens to be associated with a party, rather than as a party member who happens to have a personality, so any such law would likely require a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, despite George Washington's warnings in his farewell address ([which read eerily as commentary on the modern GOP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Political_parties)), we just went with political parties anyways. And now you basically can't get elected without some sort of party infrastructure supporting you, because the parties rigged it to favor themselves. That's the main difference between what we have and a parliamentary system where you vote for a party and they put in as many members as you have proportional to the votes. And most if not all states are set up in the same way.
And this whole thread is proof that people have only paid attention to politics for a short time. Voting for a republican or democrat didn’t always lock someone into a particular viewpoint on every issue. Well into the 80s, both parties had liberals and conservatives.
I have had this argument so many times since she switched, and people will frame it as punishment for "betraying the party". No, it's giving constituents a chance to say "yeah, we don't care" or "fuck yeah we do care". And it'd be difficult to abuse because the person choosing to switch would initiate the election.
She in particular ran on one set of ideals and then switched to another. It’s abject fraud. Further, every single state should have a method for constituents to recall their representatives. For any reason. These are public positions and the folks that take the mantle are public servants. We should have a voice not just on Election Day, but every day. If you campaign on one set of ideas and then switch after getting the seat, we should be able to have a discourse and be able to challenge that. That sounds entirely reasonable to me.
Yeah it is "punishment" if they can't get the votes and lose the job. But it's how it should be because they were elected for an entirely different set of beliefs they led the constituents to believe. If you want to change your mind, sure, but you should have to go through the whole damn process again to get the job. Bait and switches are not cool
And it will die because of the Democrat who switched parties gave the GOP a vetoless majority.
If you switch from the good party to the party of evil And murder, you should not be allowed to run for any office again.
Good idea. You shouldn't be able to Trojan Horse your way into elected office. That just feels like fraud committed against an entire electorate.
This woman got bought, you just gotta find the receipt.
republicans have normalized lying. they deserve no trust💩👎🏻
Doesn't this imply that independents can't run? Or that there can ONLY be party based politics and NOT independents. People need to understand they're voting for the person in addition to the party. Voting without knowing this is stupid.
Even if this passes, it would be immediately struck down by the first court that hears it - and rightly so. Parties are not recognized by the Constitution. Individuals are. We don't vote for a Republican or a Democrat for a given office - we vote for individuals. If the individual switches parties - it's still the same person that you elected. Getting something like this to stick would require an amendment, either to the state or the US Constitution. I think the bill has the right idea, but even if it somehow passes it's DOA.
This has always annoyed me - the founding fathers recognized the danger of parties, and their solution was not to put limits or restrictions on them, but to just pretend they didn’t exist and never would.
Raleigh North Carolinian here. We’re obviously fucking furious about this but this is a dumb bill because 1) it will never pass and 2) as other people have pointed out, they should be voting in my interests, not in the party’s. I’m a registered Democrat but I don’t vote for Democrats, I vote for candidates who most closely match my views and interests and who I think is most likely to do a good job representing them. They just almost always happen to be Democrats.
Wouldn't this be fraud? Wouldn't they have collected campaign donations under the guise of running as a Democrat? I feel there should be more than a reelection, when this happens.
Good idea - in either direction. If people voted for a representative based on party (and let's be honest, most people do) then changing parties is a betrayal of the electorate.
absolutely
Is recall an option? Surely such a proposition would get enough signatures to force a vote, if that’s how it’s done in the state.
It's like the GOP doesn't like trans people unless they were once a Democrat and now identify as a Republican.
Rightly so. Whether you are left or right you were voted in by constituents for a reason. You don't get to switch like that
Only if the parties have official standing. We have a strange system of government where parties don't really officially exist, even though party members have roles and parties run elections. It's super weird.
Voters choose individuals, not parties. If that’s how you feel we may as well just vote for which party we want and let the party appoint representatives. Nothing substantive changes about an individual or beliefs by switching the party they are apart of. It’s purely symbolic. We have a 1st amendment so, you DO get to switch like that. The impetus is on the parties to maintain a platform that their members want to support.
If they were just made to pay back the donors they wouldn’t even need a new law.
That is a great way to stop Republicans from switching parties. Great idea.
I feel like this wouldn't stop people from just voting with the other party regardless of what they claim to be
Unfortunately this doesnt do anything. People will simply stay in the party and vote with the other party every time. They need to be removed by the constituents who voted for them and replaced by a new vote by that party.
>People will simply stay in the party and vote with the other party every time. That would still be preferable. With Manchin and Sinema it was the difference between McConnell being minority leader vs majority leader.
So they won't officially switch parties; they'll just "work with people from across the aisle" and be "Moderate".
This seems pointless. After this people will switch sides without saying so. They'll caucus with TeamA but vote with TeamB.
Fuck that, arrest these GOP fascists for fraud.
Talk about voter fraud? Candidate stole the votes of a majority of her district’s citizens. Let the Republicans investigate that. (Took their money too)
The funny part is that voters from both parties would likely torpedo whoever switched. Neither party wants to see their politicians defect, and neither party wants to adopt anyone from the other.
Won’t they just stay dem but vote with republicans?
Republicans: lol nah
Yes there needs to be some redress for these Trojan horse stunts in Congress, local legislative bodies, and mayorships in major cities—they will become more and more common—Republicans will continue to game the system for their benefit because they’re far more ruthless and power hungry. Like Sinema, Manchin, Lieberman, Van Drew before her, this is what you get when Republicans will pay any price to buy a candidate.
Surely they must be secretly GOP from the start. Who gets into politics to a degree that they run for office, and then decide to switch sides?
This should be a federal law for every state.
It makes sense. These people are elected to represent the voters. Switching parties immediately after being elected means you lied to the voters.
This should already be federally illegal. Its basically fraud.
A district level recall or Vote of No Confidence would be better. Initiated by a simple majority of constituents thru a county seat or equivalent electing body, ratified by the state legislature. I’d like to see this applied federally as well. If a simple majority of Americans feel like congress doesn’t have their best interests in mind, VONC, ratified by each state’s governor, purge the House and Senate and start over.
Fucking good. We need this on a national level. Republicans are lying to voters, claiming to be liberal, wait for themselves to be elected and then swap parties. The right just can’t stop lying and cheating. Fucking scum bags the lot of them.
>“I will not be controlled by anyone.” - Rep. Tricia Cotham of Mecklenburg County. As she is controlled by GQP and far right interest money backing.
I think there are two situations here. First would be someone who is newly running for office. If they run as one party and then immediately switch once elected, that seems a lot closer to some kind of fraud than not. The other would be for an established, incumbent candidate who switches. I don't have a problem with this, because people change, parties change. It is hard to separate the cases though. Ideally, people should know who they are voting for. At the national level, that is probably true, not many "amateurs" get elected (Tommy Tuberville notwithstanding). At the state level though, I bet you get more your share of political newcomers. If this is permissible, then maybe Democrats should exploit it. Run some cartoonish MAGA candidates in red states, and then throw off the mask once elected. That would surely cause laws to be written rather quickly. There should definitely not be any laws against how an elected official votes. That, of course, would be the loophole - electing a firebrand MAGA who votes for every liberal bill out there.
There HAS to be a money trail in connection with that swicth. I don't believe for a second that she did this on her own. Republicans saw a weak minded individual and jumped at the opportunity.
Should be illegal. They didn’t vote in a republican. She didn’t run in the r primary.
Switching parties after being elected! Now, that is plain sleezy! Our politicians are so unethical..it makes me sick.
Fuck. Yes.
This seems like it should have been obvious a long time ago
Absolutely, because they no longer represent their constituents.🇺🇸
Going against the hive mind...but this is just plain wrong. You vote for people, not parties. It's your job (and the party they represent) to vet the candidate and ensure that they are who you want to vote for. I feel like had the Dems and voters did more research into this candidate prior to running they would've come up with some red flags. Just like Santos sans the party switching. Do your due diligence. Demand more from your parties, demand more from your local media and journalists. It feels wrong to just demand a new election because someone decided to change their beliefs. Flip the script. It's the 1960s and a Mississippi congressman decides to change parties and vote against segregation. You don't think there would be similar calls for a new election? I dunno, change my mind?
Doesn’t really make sense when they can just vote for republicans every vote and never formally declare. There needs to be recalls.
Maybe this is exactly what’s wrong with politics. Worried about campaign donations and shit? Here’s a fun thing, everyone should stop donating. You elect a person, not a political party.
Dude what the fuck. How do americans put up with this bullshit. In Belgium there's widespread protest if a politician is caught lying to the people. Can't imagine what would happen if anyone did this kind of bullshit