Having first been elected to the House of Representatives in 1964, one would think that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) would have the whole “get enough signatures from constituents to make it onto the primary ballot” step down to a science by now. This cycle, however, he made a
I'm not sure how it works at the congressional district level, but in Virginia statetwide offices, a political party gets an automatic slot on the ballot if they get X% of the vote in the previous election. The parties get to choose how they nominate (i.e., primary vs. convention). That's how we ended up with the Cooch on the gubernatorial ballot last year (the state GOP nominated by convention, screwing the moderate Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, and ultimately handing the executive mansion to Democrat Terry McAuliffe).
Not exactly; the US Senate seats are considered "statewide offices" and go by the same rules, in Virginia. The nuts and bolts of getting on a ballot, while subject to federal law, are laid out in state laws.
Jeez Louise, the good people of his district have selected this man to represent them in Congress 24 consecutive times. Obviously they like and want him so put him on the damned ballot.
Throughout his tenure, Conyers has consistently been one of the most progressive people in Congress. Look into this man's legislative history and then come back and tell me whether or not he needs to go.
John Conyers is not some superannuated hack and he deserves to be treated much better than this. He is one of the least recognized but most stalwart warriors for the progressive cause. He has earned a place in any progressive's pantheon of heroes.
Significantly different organization of government (Westminster vs. Madisonian systems of representative democracy, Canadian federalism vs. US federalism, et. al.) and significantly different national political histories complicate the analysis, neighbor. In any event politics is politics, regardless of where it is practiced, and as I understand it Canadian politics is hardly squeaky clean.
This is largely due to differences in the structure of government and the division of powers in the two countries. In the parliamentary system the legislature also has many executive powers, and in fact they elect one of their members to assume (effective) executive authority in the government. The executive not only takes charge of these governmental functions but also continues to serve as a Member of Parliament. In the US the legislature (Congress) and the executive occupy distinct branches of government and each has specific powers that do not overlap with the other. The US President is not a member of Congress, and is in fact constitutionally prohibited from holding both offices simultaneously. Simultaneously recalling all members of Congress, assuming that it could even ever be pulled off, would do nothing to alter the composition of the executive branch nor would it dislodge the chief executive. Similarly, removing the President would do nothing to change the party alignment or makeup of Congress. In the US the President can be from one party while the Congress is being controlled by an obstinate and fiercely adversarial opposition party, a situation that cannot exist in the parliamentary system. The US federal government cannot be brought down or changed outside of the regular election cycle.
The US government is structured to, among other things, promote extraordinary stability. Even in the thick of the Civil War members of Congress and President Lincoln himself served their regular constitutionally-set terms and had to stand for reelection. Removing elected members of Congress prior to the scheduled end of their term does happen occasionally, but only individually and only for serious (mainly ethical or legal) reasons. As for the Executive, since 1789 only one US President has left office prior to the end of his normal term for reasons other than death from illness or assassination. The composition and political makeup of the US government is never changed outside of the normal clockwork election cycle.
Finally, political parties in the US do not have the degree of authority over their members that is seen in parliamentary systems. It is more common for party leadership to constantly scramble to stay out in front of the wayward and chaotic membership than for the membership to fall in line behind the party leadership. The voters in the US do not "elect the party" like they do in the Westminster system.
There are people left in Detroit? Someone needs to mount a search and rescue.
Another day, another distraction from BENGHAZI!!!!1!
The incumbent needs signatures?
I'm not sure how it works at the congressional district level, but in Virginia statetwide offices, a political party gets an automatic slot on the ballot if they get X% of the vote in the previous election. The parties get to choose how they nominate (i.e., primary vs. convention). That's how we ended up with the Cooch on the gubernatorial ballot last year (the state GOP nominated by convention, screwing the moderate Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, and ultimately handing the executive mansion to Democrat Terry McAuliffe).
Not exactly; the US Senate seats are considered "statewide offices" and go by the same rules, in Virginia. The nuts and bolts of getting on a ballot, while subject to federal law, are laid out in state laws.
Jeez Louise, the good people of his district have selected this man to represent them in Congress 24 consecutive times. Obviously they like and want him so put him on the damned ballot.
Throughout his tenure, Conyers has consistently been one of the most progressive people in Congress. Look into this man's legislative history and then come back and tell me whether or not he needs to go.
John Conyers is not some superannuated hack and he deserves to be treated much better than this. He is one of the least recognized but most stalwart warriors for the progressive cause. He has earned a place in any progressive's pantheon of heroes.
Significantly different organization of government (Westminster vs. Madisonian systems of representative democracy, Canadian federalism vs. US federalism, et. al.) and significantly different national political histories complicate the analysis, neighbor. In any event politics is politics, regardless of where it is practiced, and as I understand it Canadian politics is hardly squeaky clean.
This is largely due to differences in the structure of government and the division of powers in the two countries. In the parliamentary system the legislature also has many executive powers, and in fact they elect one of their members to assume (effective) executive authority in the government. The executive not only takes charge of these governmental functions but also continues to serve as a Member of Parliament. In the US the legislature (Congress) and the executive occupy distinct branches of government and each has specific powers that do not overlap with the other. The US President is not a member of Congress, and is in fact constitutionally prohibited from holding both offices simultaneously. Simultaneously recalling all members of Congress, assuming that it could even ever be pulled off, would do nothing to alter the composition of the executive branch nor would it dislodge the chief executive. Similarly, removing the President would do nothing to change the party alignment or makeup of Congress. In the US the President can be from one party while the Congress is being controlled by an obstinate and fiercely adversarial opposition party, a situation that cannot exist in the parliamentary system. The US federal government cannot be brought down or changed outside of the regular election cycle.
The US government is structured to, among other things, promote extraordinary stability. Even in the thick of the Civil War members of Congress and President Lincoln himself served their regular constitutionally-set terms and had to stand for reelection. Removing elected members of Congress prior to the scheduled end of their term does happen occasionally, but only individually and only for serious (mainly ethical or legal) reasons. As for the Executive, since 1789 only one US President has left office prior to the end of his normal term for reasons other than death from illness or assassination. The composition and political makeup of the US government is never changed outside of the normal clockwork election cycle.
Finally, political parties in the US do not have the degree of authority over their members that is seen in parliamentary systems. It is more common for party leadership to constantly scramble to stay out in front of the wayward and chaotic membership than for the membership to fall in line behind the party leadership. The voters in the US do not "elect the party" like they do in the Westminster system.
And yet the state of Michigan voted in Trump. I am not impressed.