Pennsylvania elects an honest Republican for once

[General Zod]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... -seat?lite

Leaders of the Republican Committee of Luzerne County, Pa., are trying to figure out whether they can oust a reputed white supremacist who was elected to the committee with one vote – his own.

Steven Smith, co-founder of a racist group called the Keystone State Skinheads, was elected to one of two committee seats for his district, Pittston City's Ward 4, during Pennsylvania’s April 24 primary election.

Follow @msnbc_us

Pennsylvania election law allows any registered Republican or Democrat to write in their name to become a member of the County Committee. Smith was elected with only one write-in vote, which he has since acknowledged was his own, said Terry Casey, chairman of the Luzerne County Republican Party.

“We unequivocally denounce Mr. Smith and his abhorrent views and would like to make it clear that in no way do his personal views reflect the views of the Republican Party,” the Luzerne County Republican Committee said in a statement issued this week.

The county GOP’s executive committee will meet to discuss what action, if any, it can take in response to Smith’s election, Casey told the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader. No action is likely until after the next county convention is held to elect a new chairman, which won’t be until late June at the earliest, Casey told msnbc.com.

“I’m not sure what procedure will be introduced,” he said.

“I have heard many people stating they’re very, very unhappy with this situation and are looking to remedy it. I would be surprised if there isn’t such a thing proposed.”

The GOP committee’s current bylaws don’t include a provision that would allow a member to be expelled for his beliefs.

Watch US News crime videos on msnbc.com

Smith told the Times Leader he intends to serve out his four-year term and will resist any effort to remove him. "I’m community-minded and wanted to get my foot in the door,” he said, explaining why he sought the political post.

News of Smith’s election victory went viral after he posted an announcement titled “I won election to the Republican Party’s County Committee,” along with a picture of his certificate of election, to an online forum called WhiteNewsNow.com.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party spread word of Smith’s election by posting a link on its website to a Southern Poverty Law Center report on Smith’s white supremacist ties. Luzerne County GOP officials accused state Democrats of trying to "create a political football" out of the issue.

According to SPLC, the 41-year-old Smith is a longtime racist activist with a criminal record. Keystone State Skinheads, the group he co-founded, is now known as Keystone United.

At least he's completely open about being a racist.

[Raw Shark]

This is exactly what everybody else in that county deserves for not voting.

[Darth Fanboy]

Its not like he holds a real office. He ran in a primary for a position within the state's Republican committee.

So does everyone in the county deserve it? Well no just the Republicans, and I'm not familiar with PA elections so I don't know if only registered republicans could vote in that election or if independents could as well.

[Raw Shark]

So does everyone in the county deserve it? Well no just the Republicans, and I'm not familiar with PA elections so I don't know if only registered republicans could vote in that election or if independents could as well.

Fine, this is what everybody else in that county who was eligible to participate in that election and chose not to deserves for not voting, you pedantic bore.

[Zwinmar]

Maybe it will open their eyes that voting is a good thing? Most likely not.

[Darth Fanboy]

Yes, insult me for being boring because you were either too fucking lazy to read or too stupid to understand what you were reading.

This is not a real position that answers to the public, its a position within the republican party at the county level. Unless you are a registered Republican and think this hurts your image, then there is fuck all reason to complain, or insult people who had no say in the matter. Especially if you want to see the GOP embarrassed, which I admit I don't mind one bit.

If anything this is a great reason to have primaries in different states on the same day. If Mitt hadn't been declared everything but the official candidate, then maybe the PA primary doesn't fly so far under the radar. But then again primaries in the US are just evidence of how the political duopoly harms this country.

[Raw Shark]

Yes, insult me for being boring because you were either too fucking lazy to read or too stupid to understand what you were reading.

Yes, I am so stupid that I thought the fucking Democrats in that county were to blame for this, and clearly did not just assume that everyone who wasn't retarded would get what I meant. Protip: You can see the screen better if you pull your head out of your ass.

This is not a real position that answers to the public, its a position within the republican party at the county level. Unless you are a registered Republican and think this hurts your image, then there is fuck all reason to complain [snip]

That is exactly why they are complaining, but they chose to stay home, so I think that it's hilarious and that they can shut the fuck up about it.

[Darth Fanboy]

Yes, I am so stupid that I thought the fucking Democrats in that county were to blame for this, and clearly did not just assume that everyone who wasn't retarded would get what I meant. Protip: You can see the screen better if you pull your head out of your ass.

*ahem*

This is exactly what everybody else in that county deserves for not voting.

This is why this subforum on here can sometimes be a festering hole of shit, and it's because of oversensitive dipshits who sees someone disagree with their conclusion and immediately goes into this ridiculous posture as if their very reputation was at stake.

I participate in the discussion by questioning your analysis, which I think is inaccurate and oversimplified (now I know there's a heaping helping of dumbass ignorance behind it as well) and apparently in your middle school mindset you jump right into defensive mode, as if someone would dare question you! The thought!

But then again that's what happens when you treat the forum as if you were expecting a mindless echo chamber and not discussion. Please though, continue to use your highbrow insults and keep posturing because surely that will cover up my previous rebuttal*.

(*p.s. speaking of rebuttal, you smell like butts, immaturity FTW)

[Phantasee]

I think I might hold more power than this guy in the provincial PC party, and I was acclaimed to my position, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. Process broken, Republicans (and decent people everywhere) don't like the outcome, process will be fixed. What a non-story.

[Darth Fanboy]

It begs the question of if whether or not a political party could or would assert itself as a private group and would then be able to expel members of its own ranks for having beliefs incoherent with the organization. Like the exclusion of homosexuals in the boy scouts, (disclaimer: I am against that exclusion, however its the most prominent example of a private group including/excluding at its discretion) can an American Political party discharge or bar one of its registered members from holding a party position within its own organizational structure?

Not that I think the Republicans in this case will assert this if they proceed with attempts to kick this guy out, I have no idea what they would do. But i'm curious as to how that would work, especially given the role the Occupy movement and the Tea Party have played in recent years and how American political groups are finding themselves as coalitions of centrist and extreme voters with less overall unity than party leadership would care to admit.

[Phantasee]

Any organization has to abide by its own constitution. According to the article, the trouble is that their constitution contains no provision for removing officials for having beliefs inconsistent with the principles of the organization.

[General Zod]

Any organization has to abide by its own constitution. According to the article, the trouble is that their constitution contains no provision for removing officials for having beliefs inconsistent with the principles of the organization.

Chances are they probably won't make any either, since that would open them up to the possibility of being sued.

[Phantasee]

I don't think so, I've seen similar clauses in many society constitutions. And if they can pass a constitutional amendment, and he doesn't do a 180 on those beliefs, he's removeable. I think. I'm not sure if you can do that retroactively, but I'll defer to actual lawyers on that.

[Zaune]

According to the article, the trouble is that their constitution contains no provision for removing officials for having beliefs inconsistent with the principles of the organization.

You say that like the inability to silence dissent with the threat of expulsion is a bad thing.

[Phantasee]

Those sorts of clauses are for situations like this. It's not to silence dissent and I don't think those kinds of clauses can be used in that manner. Besides, free speech rights apply to the government, not private organizations. Same rule we have on this board.

[General Zod]

Those sorts of clauses are for situations like this. It's not to silence dissent and I don't think those kinds of clauses can be used in that manner. Besides, free speech rights apply to the government, not private organizations. Same rule we have on this board.

I don't think this really counts as a private organization. In any case I could see a clause being introduced where members let on with only one vote require some sort of approval by the committee. But I think anything trying to stifle his approval because of his views would fall flat on its face.

[Zaune]

Those sorts of clauses are for situations like this. It's not to silence dissent and I don't think those kinds of clauses can be used in that manner.

Wanna bet? I mean, just how on Earth are they supposed to make it possible to expel people from the party for "ideological incompatibility" and not leave enormous scope for abuse? It wouldn't even have to be used much; just the threat of it would make people wary of going against the groupthink lest they have some committee grilling them for hours about their devotion to the Cause.

[D.Turtle]

Wanna bet? I mean, just how on Earth are they supposed to make it possible to expel people from the party for "ideological incompatibility" and not leave enormous scope for abuse? It wouldn't even have to be used much; just the threat of it would make people wary of going against the groupthink lest they have some committee grilling them for hours about their devotion to the Cause.

You simply have very high standards of "ideological incompatibility" required in order to throw people out of a party. As in, you require them to go against the very foundational principles of the party, and not just disagreement on a certain aspect. Other democratic parties in other democratic countries manage just fine. In fact, in Germany political parties have to have a court that - among other things - has the power to kick people out of the party.

[General Zod]

Wanna bet? I mean, just how on Earth are they supposed to make it possible to expel people from the party for "ideological incompatibility" and not leave enormous scope for abuse? It wouldn't even have to be used much; just the threat of it would make people wary of going against the groupthink lest they have some committee grilling them for hours about their devotion to the Cause.

You simply have very high standards of "ideological incompatibility" required in order to throw people out of a party. As in, you require them to go against the very foundational principles of the party, and not just disagreement on a certain aspect. Other democratic parties in other democratic countries manage just fine. In fact, in Germany political parties have to have a court that - among other things - has the power to kick people out of the party.

Except this is an open position. Anyone from either party can be elected.

[Simon_Jester]

Kicking people out of the party doesn't necessarily mean they lose their elected position- but it does mean in future that they can't run for office on the party name. Which matters in elections where people bother to vote (unlike this one).

Those sorts of clauses are for situations like this. It's not to silence dissent and I don't think those kinds of clauses can be used in that manner.

Wanna bet? I mean, just how on Earth are they supposed to make it possible to expel people from the party for "ideological incompatibility" and not leave enormous scope for abuse? It wouldn't even have to be used much; just the threat of it would make people wary of going against the groupthink lest they have some committee grilling them for hours about their devotion to the Cause.

This would tend to promote splintering of political parties, which I would argue is a good thing. It seems to me that the US would probably be better off with five parties that each represent a 20% slice of the electorate than it is with two that represent a 50% slice. There'd be a lot more room for negotiation, and serious consideration of policies that are popular with something like 60-70% of the electorate, but wildly unpopular with the hard-core wing of one of the Big Two.

[D.Turtle]

Except this is an open position. Anyone from either party can be elected.

Wrong, this is an election for a party office, restricted to party members:

Pennsylvania State election code allows any registered Republican or Democrat to write their name in to become a member of the County Committee. The Bylaws of the Luzerne County Republican Committee indicate that the only qualification for election to the County Committee be that one has been a registered Republican for the two years preceding their election. There is no other eligibility requirement in this regard. Also, there is no express provision in the bylaws of the LCRC that would authorize the Executive Committee or the District Committee to 'expel' a member of the Committee for his or her 'beliefs.'

The GOP County Commission still wants to get rid of him:

'The knee-jerk reaction should be that we should throw him out,' Casey said, but the party has bylaws it must follow. 'The minute you start parsing off who can hold a seat it becomes a slippery slope.'

He said none of the members of party's county executive committee 'agree(s) with what he stands for.' But there's a line between personal feelings and the rules.

'We are being very careful with how we proceed legally,' Casey said on Monday. 'We don't want to engage in a frivolous lawsuit.'

...

Casey noted one thing being looked into is whether Smith's prior conviction for making terroristic threats and ethnic intimidation, for which he received a 60-day sentence and probation, is enough to bar him from serving.

Luzerne County Election Bureau solicitor Mike Butera said Smith's criminal conviction might disqualify him from holding public office, but it does not affect his ability to hold an elected political party position. That determination will be based on the bylaws of the party.

'It's not a government position. It's a party position. You have to look at bylaws of the Republican Party to see what they say about qualifications for committeemen,' Butera said.

It is completely dependent on the party bylaws, which are (apparently) inadequate to deal with a case as this. This is mostly a result because party membership in the US is not something (relatively) special, and thus it is quite difficult to throw people out of a party.

[Phantasee]

We're dealing with this issue ourselves in the PCAA right now. Currently, the constitution mentions 'member in good standing' as a requirement for several things, sometimes the sole requirement, but that isn't really defined anywhere, and the only real interpretation available is "has paid his $5 membership fee for the year". We want to be as inclusive as we can while balancing the danger of outside influences trying to buy their way in to damage us from the inside. Which wasn't really a problem, until recently (due to local political realities).

It's a solveable problem, though. And we won't be silencing dissent, not through a rule. Organizational behaviour and intertia is more important for that than explicit rules.

[General Zod]

Except this is an open position. Anyone from either party can be elected.

Wrong, this is an election for a party office, restricted to party members:

Pennsylvania State election code allows any registered Republican or Democrat to write their name in to become a member of the County Committee. The Bylaws of the Luzerne County Republican Committee indicate that the only qualification for election to the County Committee be that one has been a registered Republican for the two years preceding their election. There is no other eligibility requirement in this regard. Also, there is no express provision in the bylaws of the LCRC that would authorize the Executive Committee or the District Committee to 'expel' a member of the Committee for his or her 'beliefs.'

I fail to see how this makes my post wrong. Or are you just being pedantic?

[General Zod]

Pennsylvania State election code allows any registered Republican or Democrat to write their name in to become a member of the County Committee.

Pennsylvania State election code allows any registered Republican or Democrat

any registered Republican or Democrat

How big do I need to make the font?

[Zaune]

Kicking people out of the party doesn't necessarily mean they lose their elected position- but it does mean in future that they can't run for office on the party name. Which matters in elections where people bother to vote (unlike this one).

And what's to stop their former party running against them, out-spending them by an order of magnitude and employing every dirty political trick in their repertoire, out of sheer spite?

This would tend to promote splintering of political parties, which I would argue is a good thing. It seems to me that the US would probably be better off with five parties that each represent a 20% slice of the electorate than it is with two that represent a 50% slice. There'd be a lot more room for negotiation, and serious consideration of policies that are popular with something like 60-70% of the electorate, but wildly unpopular with the hard-core wing of one of the Big Two.

I dare say an electoral system with more than two parties would be beneficial to the United States, but I sincerely doubt any tool to make party discipline stronger will have that effect, at least not by itself.