Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alex Crisafulli's avatar

Below is my answer to two others who commented elsewhere on this article:

First of all, Alexandru, thank you for asking a very important question bluntly, but also with civility and respect.

I actually agree with some of your premises. I am not a Democrat. I also think Biden has been a good president who became unelectable after his debate performance.

You call the replacement of Biden with Harris a “soft coup.” It could indeed be seen as such. I think the larger problem is that Biden won the nomination without a real primary process being allowed by the very Democratic establishment that you say later deposed him in that “soft coup.” Furthermore, he won the nomination in 2020 through a similar process of that Democratic establishment rallying around his candidacy (versus letting a fuller primary process evolve).

Both political parties have become deplorably guilty of this. I wrote an article titled Anointed? https://crisafulli.substack.com/p/anointed in which I argued that Donald Trump’s ascendency to the presidency in 2016 was the reaction of his base of supporters against having their nominees handpicked by the political establishment and donors. Ironically, Trump engineered tight control of the Republican apparatus and won nominated in 2024 without participating in a single debate and shutting down the primary process as quickly as he could (even though the strength and support of his base was stronger than I expected at that time and he won the primaries, anyway).

My argument is that the electoral system of the United States demands different standards than those of political parties. If the Libertarians or Greens want to nominate somebody without participation of their membership, that’s their right – just as it’s the “right” of the Democrats and Republicans to do variations of the same. People have the right to leave political parties under such circumstances and to not vote for candidates who do such things.

But it is not the right of any individual, political party or other institution to override the will of the American people as expressed through the electoral system (even though the electoral system might not reflect the results of the popular vote). People can’t be expected to just renounce their citizenship and “leave” the United States if the electoral system itself is “rigged.”

@Mary Scholl says “that’s the Constitutional process of electing the president if no one gets to 270 [electoral votes].” However, many elements of the electoral process are archaic mechanisms which stem from before the United States evolved into the modern era and the predominantly two party system we have today, and for decades if not centuries they have not been used. It is bad enough if the process which leads to a contingent election happens naturally (for example in a three-way race). It is another thing to purposely engineer an outcome whereby nobody gets to 270 electoral votes by frustrating the counting of votes and thwarting their certification before the process even makes it from the local and state levels to the federal one. Or to attempt to thwart the certification at the federal level as occurred in 2020 and 2021. In 2024 the goal would be to PROVOKE a contingent election that would negate both the popular vote and the electoral one.

That’s why I define it as an “electoral coup by politicians” that differs from whatever political parties might do within the framework of their own institutions.

Expand full comment
Adam Cheklat's avatar

If the worst does come to pass, then I’m your ace up North America’s sleeve.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts