Trump is NOT the end of democracy, but the response to Trump by various groups/individuals very well might be.
The United States does NOT have national elections, we have 50 separate state elections that are required to operate within certain, and limited, constitutional constraints. That being the case there is a legal argument that each state can determine who may, or may not, appear on the ballot(s). This is a legal theory that has never been truly tested in deference to allowing the people to make the final decision. The legal theory of the state electoral supremacy is in full bloom this election season. So let's explore this a little further.
IF any state, by whatever means, can determine who may or may not be on the ballots then any state can and then what is the purpose of having an election at all? Every election will be a "Hobson's Choice" from the standpoint of the citizen. It the state can exert that power then what is to stop them from doing so with statewide or local elections? The end result is that every individual state, depending on who's currently in power, can create a situation where only their particular group will ever be in power.
While the notion of the state making those determinations may sound seductive if your particular group is in power, is that what you really want? What is your alternative if the group you currently support no longer represents what you believe? Your electoral choice is reduced to a variation of what already exists. Iran, among other nations, is a good example of that consequence. Back to Hobson's Choice.
The question is ultimately going to end up in the Supreme Court and it's a thorny question indeed. If they decide that the states do NOT have that power then we have taken one more step towards nationalized elections. On the other hand to decide otherwise is to provide the various states the power to achieve exactly what I've discussed in the previous paragraphs. Neither decision is a particularly good decision.
The United States does NOT have national elections, we have 50 separate state elections that are required to operate within certain, and limited, constitutional constraints. That being the case there is a legal argument that each state can determine who may, or may not, appear on the ballot(s). This is a legal theory that has never been truly tested in deference to allowing the people to make the final decision. The legal theory of the state electoral supremacy is in full bloom this election season. So let's explore this a little further.
IF any state, by whatever means, can determine who may or may not be on the ballots then any state can and then what is the purpose of having an election at all? Every election will be a "Hobson's Choice" from the standpoint of the citizen. It the state can exert that power then what is to stop them from doing so with statewide or local elections? The end result is that every individual state, depending on who's currently in power, can create a situation where only their particular group will ever be in power.
While the notion of the state making those determinations may sound seductive if your particular group is in power, is that what you really want? What is your alternative if the group you currently support no longer represents what you believe? Your electoral choice is reduced to a variation of what already exists. Iran, among other nations, is a good example of that consequence. Back to Hobson's Choice.
The question is ultimately going to end up in the Supreme Court and it's a thorny question indeed. If they decide that the states do NOT have that power then we have taken one more step towards nationalized elections. On the other hand to decide otherwise is to provide the various states the power to achieve exactly what I've discussed in the previous paragraphs. Neither decision is a particularly good decision.
