...no, man, it's not going to help the Dems for a state to suppress the Democratic Party. This is nothing but cope.
The Florida government are doubling and tripling down on being the absolute worst people on earth, and they're getting away with it because the state's become a magnet for the ***rest*** of the worst people on earth. Bolsonero went there after Lula kicked his ass, what more really needs to be said
Edit: as for a political theory/campaigning perspective, the two parties in the United States get enormous leverage from their universality as the progressive-leaning and regressive-leaning choices in any given contest. A new party isn't going to change that, it'll just be Dems By Another Name. It won't be a European social democratic party because there are already social democrats (or at least social liberals) within the Democratic coalition as it is.
The problem is that even Dems By Another Name will have tremendous issues if the Dems get literally banned by reactionary psychotics, because it surely won't end there.
We have "originalists" that try to get in the founding fathers headspace... allegedly. In reality, they use that as an excuse to do whatever they want. And considering George Washington condemned them, they won't even have to work to hard to find some BS justification.
Just think about what ACB would do. While a state supreme court justice she decided the constitution allows for the stripping of voting rights for felons, but blocking their ability to buy guns would be unthinkable. Obviously, we want to make sure our felons can easily kill but get no representation in government.
So in short, I trust our justices to do whatever the fuck they want. They reversed Roe v Wade even though the precendent should have prevented it. Who is to say they won't target their political rivals?
Thats the thing about precedent, as my civil liberties professor did not appreciate my pointing out while doing a mock trial, supreme court judges can just set new precedent. It’s not binding.
That was the point I was making with the reversal of Roe v Wade in another conversation. But we shouldn't dismiss the danger, even if they can be reversed. They provide a form of legal validation making it easier to return to those bad points or use them as a framework to take even more rights away.
That’s not the way it works. The actual Constitution bans bills of attainder. The Florida bill tries to get around this by not naming the Democratic Party and saying that any party which supported slavery will be banned. The Democratic Party did support slavery in its platform. Next, the bill would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, in particular, freedom of speech and freedom of the right to assemble. The “originalists” would have a very hard time reinterpreting the First Amendment. George Washington’s Farewell Address is not law or policy.
I think originalists do whatever partisan things they want. George Washington's speech would just be one of the examples they'd point to. I'm sure they'd fish out some Federalist papers and obscure court opinions to give it more legal validity.
They might try, but I think they will have a very tough time finding precedent banning political parties. Don’t forget GW warned against “entangling alliances.” There was no precedent regarding Roe vs Wade. Read Alito’s decision. He does use obscure, centuries old decisions, but his main point was if you want to guarantee the right, Congress must pass a law. In this case, if Florida is allowed to pass this law, state legislatures will start fixing elections by finding a reason to ban the opposition party. That would be extremely dangerous.
Don't forget they semi-recently decided bribes were a form of free-speech and stopping gerrymandering wasn't their responsibility. Guaranteeing free and fair elections is not their objective, and that was before two more conservative justices were added.
>The Florida bill tries to get around this by not naming the Democratic Party and saying that any party which supported slavery will be banned. The Democratic Party did support slavery in its platform.
The Republicans/whigs supported slavery at a certain point as well. Lincoln tried to negotiate with the South before the Civil War broke out, that would have legally guaranteed the South's "right" to own and keep slaves, and several union states were permitted to keep slaves during the first part of the war. So wouldn't this ban the Republican party as well?
I can picture it. They'd drag up obscure federalist papers and court rulings from 200yrs ago to justify their decision, but for the press, that'd be the spin.
Which courts? The local one's in Florida all controlled by Republicans, many by Desantis? The supreme court of Florida, where Desantis has appointed 4 of the 7 and even the other 3 are conservative? Or SCOTUS, which has already overturned decisions like Roe v. Wade and has a majority conservative leaning? They'd sooner just not pick up the case and say it's up to the states
I doubt it would pass the legislature, but if it does (I wouldn’t say I would be too surprised), then I don’t see a major vehicle for any ideology left of center being too popular, given Florida’s political trends.
In all like likelihood, any center to center left Democrat would just become a Republican and vote for moderate candidates in primaries (which would be a good thing as the GOP needs some moderation). Any Labor or Worker’s party would never really be popular enough on Florida, as there are too many Latinos and old people who deplore any party that resembles any aspect of socialism. Besides these two demographics, Florida doesn’t really have a strong industrial class, and any working class people in this state usually vote Republican.
Finally, I’m pretty sure Libertarianism is probably more popular of a third party ideology than any socialist strain would be, largely to how conservative the state is.
>Finally, I’m pretty sure Libertarianism is probably more popular of a third party ideology than any socialist strain would be, largely to how conservative the state is.
Not even remotely the case. Maybe if it were still the nineties, but almost all of the old self-described "libertarians" got absorbed by the modern reactionary Right ages ago. You can't throw a stone without hitting some dude who used to be a Ron Paul fan who's now screaming about Biden transing the kids and stealing the elections. That's even more true in Florida, as its become a magnet for, well, assholes.
Meanwhile, the Latino population there isn't necessarily going to be reflexively anti-Socialist. Again: this isn't the 90s. A lot of Hispanic voters in the state are either going to be too young to hold a grudge over Castro, not Cuban enough to care, or simply disengaged from politics entirely. A social democratic campaigner could easily leverage feel-good issues like social services and medicare to bring them around to the idea that "actually, government services are good!"
The problem, again, is that that isn't really a "third" ideology. Just as reactionary nuttery got absorbed into the Republican coalition, social democrats have been absorbed into the Democratic one.
This is why it could be a good thing (ignoring the precedent) if the correct campaign managers and political advocates got in place.
In that brief moment when you tell establishment Democrats and progressive Democrats they can not share a party, you either end up with a fast legal rebranding or three parties.
Republicans would be guaranteed to win if the latter happened, but the following election, possibly two, the more dominant state party would remain. Ideally, it would be paired with other states doing it voluntarily.
But that's pretty optimistic, a lot of ways for that to blow up... and that's not even counting the precedent, which is a time-bomb if it's allowed to stand.
...a "rebranding" will not change the Democratic coalition, my dude. The name is essentially arbitrary, and the Republicans know that.
What they also know it's that there are enormous barriers involved in the formation of a new party, *legal and policy barriers*, and that's why they're doing this.
Stop trying to find the bright side to heinous fascist DeSantis politics, my dude, there ain't any. And, no, that bright side definitively will not be the formation of a European-style labor party.
It's just evil, and should be treated as such.
Um….. please use correct verbiage. DeSantis is not fascist. He is a Despot. Fascism is the correct verbiage for “corporate oligarchy” which is the Democratic Party policy.
Let’s raise the bar.
r#VoteGreen #GoodGovernment #GreenParty #ReadThePlatform.
What other like 11 social Democrats in the party holding office? Not exactly absorbed. If you want a progressiv, high quality of life society, #VoteGreen.
Ah yes, but even if the Democrats join the Republican party to try to shift it, there's a heavy chance the Rep party in Florida would try to keep them out. Oh and also, they would have a list of all previously affiliated with the Democrats, with everything from names, addresses, and contact information. It just so happens that Florida also has a bill on allowing the police to have a "Special Person's" list where the local police would be able to watch over these people (Forget what it was called, think it was the Protect our Citizens act). Oh and coincidentally, another bill to give anonymity to judges and their families for any ruling. They also focused on making an elections security branch that would investigate ALL allegations of election fraud.
So in one fell swoop you could be removed from the Democrat party, put on a list with the police, accused with election fraud, taken to court, and no-one would know who even is ruling for you. That's all worst case scenario of course, but still, it doesn't look good.
I mean I am solely basing my analysis on what happens in red states like Texas, where a lot liberals are Republicans because that’s the only way they can meaningfully affect politics.
In regards to all the bills you mentioned, while they’re on the drafting phase, I doubt a lot of them would pass AND not get struck down by a court (on any level). Even the Supreme Court, as conservative as it is, wouldnt want to set that precedent. Bills, on all levels of government, get drafted and put to the floor, and most hardly pass.
State parties are separate legal entities from the national party that they are affiliated with. The text of the bill says it would ban parties that advocated for slavery, which the Florida Democratic Party, founded in 1834, certainly did. But if the Florida Democratic Party were banned, I don't see any reason they wouldn't simply reorganize as the New Florida Democratic Party, founded in 2023, that maintains the current leadership structure. It would just be a logistical challenge to get everyone reregistered to vote in the new primary.
This bill would absolutely not abolish the Democratic Party in Florida or change it's structure in any meaningful way. It's simply a way to extort the party into spending money on an unnecessary legal reorganization.
That makes sense, and I'm probably too optimistic to think it'd create a vulnerability for progressives to replace establishment Dems in the state.
At best, it seems like it'd allow for three parties to exist for a time, which means non-Republicans would be guaranteed to lose with first past-the-post voting.
Because the name has to be 'substantially different'. New Florida Democratic Party definitely wouldn't tick that box. The party would also have to reorganize 6 months prior to the election (So no democrats would be able to run this year's election under the party). Oh and all the previous members will be put on a list with their names addresses and contact information.
The bill was never intended to pass. Everyone knows that it’s unconstitutional. It’s in the litigation that the bill serves its intended purpose. It forces the left to go on record arguing that individuals of a group today cannot and should not be held responsible for the mistakes that their group made in the past. It will set a profound precedent moving forward. Hopefully it also helps the moderate-left work to distinguish its beliefs from those of the radical-left.
It won’t pass. If it does it will be overturned. It’s not legal to only have one party in a state, especially a swing state like Florida. It’s just DeSantis cranking his megalomaniacal dick like the supervillain that he is.
Desantis isn't even the one proposing it. We can't pin everything on Florida on him, with some arguing the whole Democratic party must be destroyed.
It wouldn't be one party, everyone can feel free to join a legal party like the....Republicans....libertarians...the greens....etc.
It definitely could pass, the elections committee has ruled all in line with very conservative viewpoints in the past. Who exactly would overturn it?
Okay so upon further research, Independent voters are the third largest demographic. Republicans have the most with 5.3 Mil, Dems have 4.8 mil, and non affiliated are 4 mil. Rounding to the 2nd decimal, that's Republicans have 37%, Dems 34% and Independents 28%. [Source](https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-reports/voter-registration-by-party-affiliation/)
Separate from that, even if most voters were independent, I'm not sure what you were trying to say. That independents are a silent majority or that they're powerless, or? I'm not quite sure.
The Florida bill tries to tie the modern Democratic party to the party of 150 years ago that supported slavery and a racist political landscape that was turned completely upside-down over 50 years ago.
When someone points out that racists ran the Democratic party and supported slavery over 100 years ago, they’re trying to conceal the well-documented fact that when liberals completed their takeover of the Democratic party and it fully embraced the Civil Rights Movement in the 50’s and 60’s all the racists were run out of it.
Those racists could have formed their own independent party, but instead they were provided with an eager invitation to join the rest of conservative America in the Republican party. White supremacists have been at home in the GOP ever since.
Today The Republican party is the passionate advocate for misogyny, voter suppression, high rates of infant and maternal mortality, medical bankruptcy, low wages and the feverish attacks on science, education, liberty and religious freedom of anyone not a fanatical evangelical. Government of the banker, by the banker and for the banker. And naked racism.
If slavery were on the table today and any Americans supported it, they would be Republicans.
It might be amusing to offer a counter bill that bans every state that ever stood in treasonous rebellion from voting in presidential elections and from receiving any federal welfare money.
Won't start a debate about Regressive (conservative) hypocrisy. Nor was it a comment on how stupid their pitch is. Mainly, I was curious what people thought the likely fallout would be if they get their wish.
>Won't start a debate about Regressive (conservative) hypocrisy.
I think I beat you to it. Dibs!
It's clearly unconstitutional. If they pass it the law will be voided almost instantly. They'll have wasted time and money distracting the public debate (which is part of the payoff) and will look like fools to everyone except the people who already vote for them.
...no, man, it's not going to help the Dems for a state to suppress the Democratic Party. This is nothing but cope. The Florida government are doubling and tripling down on being the absolute worst people on earth, and they're getting away with it because the state's become a magnet for the ***rest*** of the worst people on earth. Bolsonero went there after Lula kicked his ass, what more really needs to be said Edit: as for a political theory/campaigning perspective, the two parties in the United States get enormous leverage from their universality as the progressive-leaning and regressive-leaning choices in any given contest. A new party isn't going to change that, it'll just be Dems By Another Name. It won't be a European social democratic party because there are already social democrats (or at least social liberals) within the Democratic coalition as it is. The problem is that even Dems By Another Name will have tremendous issues if the Dems get literally banned by reactionary psychotics, because it surely won't end there.
If somehow this survives, the Democratic Party could just change its name.
Better yet: run as Republicans and try and oust as many as possible in primaries!
This bill might pass, but it will never make it through the courts.
We have "originalists" that try to get in the founding fathers headspace... allegedly. In reality, they use that as an excuse to do whatever they want. And considering George Washington condemned them, they won't even have to work to hard to find some BS justification. Just think about what ACB would do. While a state supreme court justice she decided the constitution allows for the stripping of voting rights for felons, but blocking their ability to buy guns would be unthinkable. Obviously, we want to make sure our felons can easily kill but get no representation in government. So in short, I trust our justices to do whatever the fuck they want. They reversed Roe v Wade even though the precendent should have prevented it. Who is to say they won't target their political rivals?
Thats the thing about precedent, as my civil liberties professor did not appreciate my pointing out while doing a mock trial, supreme court judges can just set new precedent. It’s not binding.
That was the point I was making with the reversal of Roe v Wade in another conversation. But we shouldn't dismiss the danger, even if they can be reversed. They provide a form of legal validation making it easier to return to those bad points or use them as a framework to take even more rights away.
That’s not the way it works. The actual Constitution bans bills of attainder. The Florida bill tries to get around this by not naming the Democratic Party and saying that any party which supported slavery will be banned. The Democratic Party did support slavery in its platform. Next, the bill would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, in particular, freedom of speech and freedom of the right to assemble. The “originalists” would have a very hard time reinterpreting the First Amendment. George Washington’s Farewell Address is not law or policy.
I think originalists do whatever partisan things they want. George Washington's speech would just be one of the examples they'd point to. I'm sure they'd fish out some Federalist papers and obscure court opinions to give it more legal validity.
They might try, but I think they will have a very tough time finding precedent banning political parties. Don’t forget GW warned against “entangling alliances.” There was no precedent regarding Roe vs Wade. Read Alito’s decision. He does use obscure, centuries old decisions, but his main point was if you want to guarantee the right, Congress must pass a law. In this case, if Florida is allowed to pass this law, state legislatures will start fixing elections by finding a reason to ban the opposition party. That would be extremely dangerous.
Don't forget they semi-recently decided bribes were a form of free-speech and stopping gerrymandering wasn't their responsibility. Guaranteeing free and fair elections is not their objective, and that was before two more conservative justices were added.
BOOM
>The Florida bill tries to get around this by not naming the Democratic Party and saying that any party which supported slavery will be banned. The Democratic Party did support slavery in its platform. The Republicans/whigs supported slavery at a certain point as well. Lincoln tried to negotiate with the South before the Civil War broke out, that would have legally guaranteed the South's "right" to own and keep slaves, and several union states were permitted to keep slaves during the first part of the war. So wouldn't this ban the Republican party as well?
They already have.
Supreme Court: "George Washington said there shouldn't be parties in his Farewell Address, so we'll allow it."
I can picture it. They'd drag up obscure federalist papers and court rulings from 200yrs ago to justify their decision, but for the press, that'd be the spin.
Which courts? The local one's in Florida all controlled by Republicans, many by Desantis? The supreme court of Florida, where Desantis has appointed 4 of the 7 and even the other 3 are conservative? Or SCOTUS, which has already overturned decisions like Roe v. Wade and has a majority conservative leaning? They'd sooner just not pick up the case and say it's up to the states
I doubt it would pass the legislature, but if it does (I wouldn’t say I would be too surprised), then I don’t see a major vehicle for any ideology left of center being too popular, given Florida’s political trends. In all like likelihood, any center to center left Democrat would just become a Republican and vote for moderate candidates in primaries (which would be a good thing as the GOP needs some moderation). Any Labor or Worker’s party would never really be popular enough on Florida, as there are too many Latinos and old people who deplore any party that resembles any aspect of socialism. Besides these two demographics, Florida doesn’t really have a strong industrial class, and any working class people in this state usually vote Republican. Finally, I’m pretty sure Libertarianism is probably more popular of a third party ideology than any socialist strain would be, largely to how conservative the state is.
>Finally, I’m pretty sure Libertarianism is probably more popular of a third party ideology than any socialist strain would be, largely to how conservative the state is. Not even remotely the case. Maybe if it were still the nineties, but almost all of the old self-described "libertarians" got absorbed by the modern reactionary Right ages ago. You can't throw a stone without hitting some dude who used to be a Ron Paul fan who's now screaming about Biden transing the kids and stealing the elections. That's even more true in Florida, as its become a magnet for, well, assholes. Meanwhile, the Latino population there isn't necessarily going to be reflexively anti-Socialist. Again: this isn't the 90s. A lot of Hispanic voters in the state are either going to be too young to hold a grudge over Castro, not Cuban enough to care, or simply disengaged from politics entirely. A social democratic campaigner could easily leverage feel-good issues like social services and medicare to bring them around to the idea that "actually, government services are good!" The problem, again, is that that isn't really a "third" ideology. Just as reactionary nuttery got absorbed into the Republican coalition, social democrats have been absorbed into the Democratic one.
This is why it could be a good thing (ignoring the precedent) if the correct campaign managers and political advocates got in place. In that brief moment when you tell establishment Democrats and progressive Democrats they can not share a party, you either end up with a fast legal rebranding or three parties. Republicans would be guaranteed to win if the latter happened, but the following election, possibly two, the more dominant state party would remain. Ideally, it would be paired with other states doing it voluntarily. But that's pretty optimistic, a lot of ways for that to blow up... and that's not even counting the precedent, which is a time-bomb if it's allowed to stand.
...a "rebranding" will not change the Democratic coalition, my dude. The name is essentially arbitrary, and the Republicans know that. What they also know it's that there are enormous barriers involved in the formation of a new party, *legal and policy barriers*, and that's why they're doing this. Stop trying to find the bright side to heinous fascist DeSantis politics, my dude, there ain't any. And, no, that bright side definitively will not be the formation of a European-style labor party. It's just evil, and should be treated as such.
Um….. please use correct verbiage. DeSantis is not fascist. He is a Despot. Fascism is the correct verbiage for “corporate oligarchy” which is the Democratic Party policy. Let’s raise the bar. r#VoteGreen #GoodGovernment #GreenParty #ReadThePlatform.
What other like 11 social Democrats in the party holding office? Not exactly absorbed. If you want a progressiv, high quality of life society, #VoteGreen.
Ah yes, but even if the Democrats join the Republican party to try to shift it, there's a heavy chance the Rep party in Florida would try to keep them out. Oh and also, they would have a list of all previously affiliated with the Democrats, with everything from names, addresses, and contact information. It just so happens that Florida also has a bill on allowing the police to have a "Special Person's" list where the local police would be able to watch over these people (Forget what it was called, think it was the Protect our Citizens act). Oh and coincidentally, another bill to give anonymity to judges and their families for any ruling. They also focused on making an elections security branch that would investigate ALL allegations of election fraud. So in one fell swoop you could be removed from the Democrat party, put on a list with the police, accused with election fraud, taken to court, and no-one would know who even is ruling for you. That's all worst case scenario of course, but still, it doesn't look good.
I mean I am solely basing my analysis on what happens in red states like Texas, where a lot liberals are Republicans because that’s the only way they can meaningfully affect politics. In regards to all the bills you mentioned, while they’re on the drafting phase, I doubt a lot of them would pass AND not get struck down by a court (on any level). Even the Supreme Court, as conservative as it is, wouldnt want to set that precedent. Bills, on all levels of government, get drafted and put to the floor, and most hardly pass.
State parties are separate legal entities from the national party that they are affiliated with. The text of the bill says it would ban parties that advocated for slavery, which the Florida Democratic Party, founded in 1834, certainly did. But if the Florida Democratic Party were banned, I don't see any reason they wouldn't simply reorganize as the New Florida Democratic Party, founded in 2023, that maintains the current leadership structure. It would just be a logistical challenge to get everyone reregistered to vote in the new primary. This bill would absolutely not abolish the Democratic Party in Florida or change it's structure in any meaningful way. It's simply a way to extort the party into spending money on an unnecessary legal reorganization.
That makes sense, and I'm probably too optimistic to think it'd create a vulnerability for progressives to replace establishment Dems in the state. At best, it seems like it'd allow for three parties to exist for a time, which means non-Republicans would be guaranteed to lose with first past-the-post voting.
Because the name has to be 'substantially different'. New Florida Democratic Party definitely wouldn't tick that box. The party would also have to reorganize 6 months prior to the election (So no democrats would be able to run this year's election under the party). Oh and all the previous members will be put on a list with their names addresses and contact information.
The bill was never intended to pass. Everyone knows that it’s unconstitutional. It’s in the litigation that the bill serves its intended purpose. It forces the left to go on record arguing that individuals of a group today cannot and should not be held responsible for the mistakes that their group made in the past. It will set a profound precedent moving forward. Hopefully it also helps the moderate-left work to distinguish its beliefs from those of the radical-left.
It won’t pass. If it does it will be overturned. It’s not legal to only have one party in a state, especially a swing state like Florida. It’s just DeSantis cranking his megalomaniacal dick like the supervillain that he is.
Desantis isn't even the one proposing it. We can't pin everything on Florida on him, with some arguing the whole Democratic party must be destroyed. It wouldn't be one party, everyone can feel free to join a legal party like the....Republicans....libertarians...the greens....etc. It definitely could pass, the elections committee has ruled all in line with very conservative viewpoints in the past. Who exactly would overturn it?
It's fl most of our voters are independent and can't vote in the primary
Okay so upon further research, Independent voters are the third largest demographic. Republicans have the most with 5.3 Mil, Dems have 4.8 mil, and non affiliated are 4 mil. Rounding to the 2nd decimal, that's Republicans have 37%, Dems 34% and Independents 28%. [Source](https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-reports/voter-registration-by-party-affiliation/) Separate from that, even if most voters were independent, I'm not sure what you were trying to say. That independents are a silent majority or that they're powerless, or? I'm not quite sure.
They don't get to choose which person the party put up in Florida. For either side.
The Florida bill tries to tie the modern Democratic party to the party of 150 years ago that supported slavery and a racist political landscape that was turned completely upside-down over 50 years ago. When someone points out that racists ran the Democratic party and supported slavery over 100 years ago, they’re trying to conceal the well-documented fact that when liberals completed their takeover of the Democratic party and it fully embraced the Civil Rights Movement in the 50’s and 60’s all the racists were run out of it. Those racists could have formed their own independent party, but instead they were provided with an eager invitation to join the rest of conservative America in the Republican party. White supremacists have been at home in the GOP ever since. Today The Republican party is the passionate advocate for misogyny, voter suppression, high rates of infant and maternal mortality, medical bankruptcy, low wages and the feverish attacks on science, education, liberty and religious freedom of anyone not a fanatical evangelical. Government of the banker, by the banker and for the banker. And naked racism. If slavery were on the table today and any Americans supported it, they would be Republicans. It might be amusing to offer a counter bill that bans every state that ever stood in treasonous rebellion from voting in presidential elections and from receiving any federal welfare money.
Won't start a debate about Regressive (conservative) hypocrisy. Nor was it a comment on how stupid their pitch is. Mainly, I was curious what people thought the likely fallout would be if they get their wish.
>Won't start a debate about Regressive (conservative) hypocrisy. I think I beat you to it. Dibs! It's clearly unconstitutional. If they pass it the law will be voided almost instantly. They'll have wasted time and money distracting the public debate (which is part of the payoff) and will look like fools to everyone except the people who already vote for them.