Recent Questions - Politics Stack Exchange most recent 30 from 2020-02-23T22:28:11Z 1 Is there anyone who holds political opinions for disingenuous reasons? Sam Hill 2020-02-23T22:02:46Z 2020-02-23T22:02:46Z <p>For example, say I support something (eg Islam) that I expect to be confined to the third world or ethnic neighborhoods that I don't actually want to live under, myself, but want to keep as a fail thing to genocide nonwhite. Is this a valid political position and will my opinion be respected?</p> -2 How is an odd in political election forecasts calculated? [closed] Tim 2020-02-23T19:23:37Z 2020-02-23T20:45:37Z <p>How is an odd in political election forecasts calculated?</p> <p>For example, Bernie is predicted to win the majority of votes with an odd of "<a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1 in 2 (46%)</a>". It is neither 1/(1+2) about 33% or 1/2 i.e. 50%.</p> <p>Thanks.</p> 3 Is Hillary Clinton a super delegate in 2020? Evan Carroll 2020-02-23T19:09:19Z 2020-02-23T21:02:40Z <p>Does Hillary Clinton get super-delegate status 2020? I know the list is generally viewed as "party insiders" but when is it named? Will she be the kind of insider that gets to vote after the pledged delegates?</p> 1 When are the results for Texas's early primaries published? Evan Carroll 2020-02-23T18:41:36Z 2020-02-23T19:00:44Z <p>I live in Texas. I just voted in the primary. When are these results published? Do they get published daily? Do they get published before the primary at all? Do we wait until the primary results to see them?</p> 1 What happens if no candidate reaches the viability threshold in a primary? CDJB 2020-02-23T17:25:09Z 2020-02-23T17:58:22Z <p>As I understand it, most state primaries have a viability threshold of a certain percentage of the popular vote - 15% in most states - below which the candidate receives no delegates. This would seem to imply that it is theoretically possible for no candidate to meet the threshold if there are 7 or more candidates; as is currently the case for the Democrats. </p> <p>Is my understanding correct, and is there any contingency clause in place for the unlikely event that this occurs? Would the state just not be represented by any delegates in the national convention?</p> 1 Test or drill to verify the functioning of a judicial system by ordinary people [closed] modern 2020-02-23T12:42:55Z 2020-02-23T17:52:54Z <p>Is there any mechanism in any judicial system to test its efficiency by designing a fake or test crime scheme to verify the functionality of the judiciary? For example, is there a method for a student to detect what problems exist in the administrative system and conduct codes of their University?</p> 1 Is it possible for someone to run for Senator and (be) Representative at the same time? Fizz 2020-02-23T03:33:05Z 2020-02-23T15:03:58Z <p>In the US, can someone run for Senate while</p> <ul> <li>running for a House of Representatives seat at the same time, or</li> <li>(run for Senate) while still holding a seat in the House of Representatives?</li> </ul> <p>Since a state might have "safe" Representative seats in some districts, but contested Senate seats, can this kind of "upgrade with a backstop" strategy be employed by some politician(s) or is there some formal rule against it?</p> -4 Why do left-wing people have such big trust in politicians? [closed] Daniel Mårtensson 2020-02-22T22:24:39Z 2020-02-22T22:54:32Z <p>I wonder why I keep hearing from left-wing people that politicians destroy and they mess up everything, and also politicians = corrupt etc. I always heard that from people in the industry.</p> <p>But still, left-wing people have big trust in politicians and don't trust no other than just politicians. Why? Did they run out of ideas on who to trust?</p> <p>I'm talking about Bernie Sanders voters. They don't like politicians, but still they want to increase the government power. Isn't that the same thing that big businesses want to do? Everybody that makes money wants to have a big government.</p> <p>I don't get it why people on the left wing trash-talk politicians, but still they trust politicians more than ever before.</p> <p>It feels just weird that if you are tired of an "elite", then you should vote for a stronger "elite".</p> -2 Which US law transfered the power to declare war from Congress to the President? [closed] user1454024 2020-02-22T22:07:17Z 2020-02-23T00:18:19Z <p>The last few wars have been declared by Presidents without an act of congress. Yet the Constitution says that only congress can declare war. </p> <p>What is the specific legal justification that Presidents now use to declare war?</p> -2 Could a U.S president serve more than two terms, under the current law? [duplicate] Mawg says reinstate Monica 2020-02-22T20:01:49Z 2020-02-22T22:00:05Z <p>I was reading <a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a>, and it said :</p> <blockquote> <p>under the 22nd Amendment, “no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice.â€?lt;/p> </blockquote> <p>I had not been aware of the exact wording.</p> <p>I will take the current present as an example, but this question applies to all presidents, current and future, under current U.S law.</p> <ol> <li>If trump wins and completes a second term, is there anything to prevent him running as vice president thereafter? Let's say a pence/trump ticket.</li> <li>if president pence then dies in office, would his vice-president (trump) not then became president, thus serving a third term?</li> </ol> <hr> <p>[Update[ this is not a duplicate of <a href="">Is Bill Clinton eligible to become Vice President?</a>, which was specific to one person.</p> <p>Although I chose the current president as an example, I made it clear that this is a generic question.</p> <p>The question (linked above) which this is suggested to be a duplicate of says:</p> <blockquote> <p>Observing the <a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">line of succession to be the president</a>. Among the first 10, there is one person ineligible to be president by birth.</p> </blockquote> <p>Which referred to a named president at a certain moment in time.</p> <p>In general terms, if a president who had already been elected twice were the highest eligible person on the list of succession when the president did, could he or she serve a third term as president?</p> 0 Why are staggered elections only used for upper parliamentary chambers? Ijon 2020-02-22T19:21:39Z 2020-02-22T23:18:25Z <p>In the Wikipedia list of <a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">legislative bodies which use staggered elections</a> only upper chambers of national parliaments can be found.</p> <p>Why? Is there a reason why staggering the elections for the lower chamber would be a bad idea?</p> 6 Why don't the Democrats use the national popular vote for their presidential primaries? newenglander 2020-02-22T17:01:58Z 2020-02-23T17:51:41Z <p>I've heard that abolishing the electoral college is so popular with Democrat politicians and Democrat voters. I know the electoral college is different from how the Democrats choose their candidate for president, but I'm still wondering why they don't have one nation-wide primary for their presidential candidates and get rid the current system with delegates and a state-by-state process.</p> 4 To what extent are nuclear weapons a precondition for global power or influence? CDJB 2020-02-22T12:22:33Z 2020-02-23T13:21:45Z <p>Clearly the possession of a nuclear arsenal - or at least the ability to build one - ensures that a country will be taken seriously on the global stage and will wield a certain amount of influence with major international players such as the US. This can be seen by the constant rumblings from North Korea and Iran.</p> <p>To what extent are nuclear weapons necessary to ensure influence on the international stage? Is there a distinction on this basis between established states, who may be more economically developed, or with more existing diplomatic relationships, and newer states that may see the only insurance policy against regime change instigated by foreign powers as being a credible nuclear threat?</p> -3 What's the reason for overusing of the word "revolution" in 1969? [closed] elyar abad 2020-02-22T06:56:46Z 2020-02-22T10:36:34Z <p>According to <a href=";year_end=2008&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=7&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;content=revolution" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this Ngram</a> there had been a rise in using the word "revolution" through 1986 and 1969.</p> <p><strong>What could be the reason?</strong></p> <p><em>Any answer is appreciated!</em></p> 0 Legacy commitment of a new government [closed] Narasimham 2020-02-22T03:38:25Z 2020-02-22T07:55:00Z <p>A commitment is made by a political party's ministry in power to a segment of people through an agreement. Then the party is voted out in election. What happens to commitments and contracts earlier entered into on behalf of the previous government? </p> <p>Are there irrevocable financial contracts in provisions of law? </p> <p>How are the discharge of commitments transferred to a newly elected government?</p> <p>Can a broken contract party be made legally liable /brought to justice and if so in which democratic courts?</p> <p>In a breach of trust/cheating cases, how are groups of public protected against a smart few from potential losers?</p> <p>EDIT1:</p> <p>We can leave out broader international laws to start with. Question is about a basic <em>Rule of Law</em> within a country/state pertaining to matters of economic development/ investment. Running context in South India: On an agreed condition to build a democratic capital city many farmers together invested massive 33,000 acres of land, in a failed deal when government changed. </p> 0 How many superdelegates have endorsed voting for the plurality delegate winner to be the nominee? Keshav Srinivasan 2020-02-22T01:52:25Z 2020-02-22T04:09:41Z <p>On Wednesday’s Democratic Presidential Debate in Nevada, candidates were asked if they think that whoever gets a plurality of the pledged delegates should ultimately become the Democratic nominee, even if they haven’t gotten a majority as the rules require. Only Bernie Sanders said yes to that, which is unsurprising given that he currently seems most likely to become the plurality delegate winner.</p> <p>But the ones who will ultimately decide whether that principle is followed are the delegates themselves. How the process works is that if no one gets a pledged delegate majority on the first ballot, the pledged delegates get unbound and then they along with the superdelegates try to form a majority behind a candidate in subsequent ballots. They could coalesce around the one who got a plurality on the first ballot, but they could also coalesce around one of the runners up, or even around a candidate not in the race.</p> <p>Now no pledged delegates have been selected yet. But my question is, have any superdelegates endorsed this principle that the plurality delegate winner should win the nomination? If so, how many?</p> -3 Books on judicial activism in the UK [closed] Lady in England 2020-02-22T00:42:17Z 2020-02-22T10:37:00Z <p>In line with <a href="">Increase judicial oversight of the UK executive?</a>, I want to read books on UK judicial activism, the more recent the better because of <a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Miller II</em> [2019] UKSC 41</a>. </p> <p>I found just piecemeal articles on Google. And all books I found are written for the US Supreme Court, which may not assist because US has codified constitution but UK doesn't. Or they're too old to have factored in Brexit. </p> 14 What happens in a brokered convention? Why is the prospect of one seen as a threat to Sanders' presidential hopes? CDJB 2020-02-21T16:43:00Z 2020-02-23T00:24:33Z <p>With six (technically eight including Tulsi Gabbard &amp; Tom Steyer) candidates currently still in the field for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination, it seems increasingly likely that no one candidate will command an absolute majority of delegates at the 2020 Democratic National Convention - this is known as a brokered or contested convention. </p> <p><a href="" rel="noreferrer">In the news</a> and <a href="" rel="noreferrer">within circles of supporters of Bernie Sanders' campaign</a>, there seems to be certain amount of anticipation or trepidation, depending on the source, that a contested convention could be used to deprive Sanders - or any other candidate - the nomination; assuming the candidate has achieved a plurality but not a majority of delegates.</p> <p>What happens if no candidate controls a majority of delegates at the first round of voting? Are there any rules as to how the Democratic candidate is selected in further rounds? Are the fears of campaign supporters justified?</p> -4 Is it a concern to the US, that leading their leader in handcuffs out of the White House would look weak to other countries? [closed] Thomas Hirsch 2020-02-21T16:15:45Z 2020-02-21T18:00:21Z <p>I am wondering how for example something like the "Nixonian Deal" (Nixon leaving office "voluntarily" in exchange for being pardoned later) could occur. What kind of leverage does a President have in such a situation?</p> <p>Is the concern more about the bad publicity, that presumably would ensue? Or is the concern even more practical, as the President is also the head of the executive, and could possibly simply order the people who would come to detain him to stand down? Or is there possibly even the fear that a whimsical and/or vindictive President could "declare" a civil war?</p> 0 Does the US president have more power over their country than any other elected person has in their own country? [closed] Anush 2020-02-21T14:25:33Z 2020-02-21T18:08:39Z <p>I was having an argument with a friend over the following question.</p> <blockquote> <p>Does the US president have more power over the US than any other elected person on Earth has over their own county?</p> </blockquote> <p>The argument in favor is broadly:</p> <ul> <li>Unilateral control over all aspects of the US military and its ~700 billion of funding.</li> <li>Broad <a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">executive order powers</a>. </li> <li>Appointment of ~6000 federal employees.</li> <li>Appointment of all federal judges and also the US Supreme Court justices. (Subject to approval by the Senate.)</li> <li>Total control of the federal justice system including prosecution lawyers.</li> <li>Ability to veto any legislation.</li> <li>Unilateral pardon powers for any individual who has committed or is accused of a federal crime.</li> <li><a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Executive privilege</a></li> </ul> <hr> <p>The question is intended to be restricted to politicians elected by internationally recognise free and fair elections.</p> 17 What is the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism? CDJB 2020-02-20T20:59:23Z 2020-02-23T17:02:24Z <p>Both ideologies seem to have a dictatorship-like system of governance, no tolerance of dissenting opinions, and an executive which holds absolute power. </p> <p>What is the difference between these two ideologies? Is one a subset or precondition of the other; that is to say, is it possible for a government to be totalitarian without being authoritarian, or vice-versa?</p> 2 Can a US President realistically pardon enough people to sway an election? Erin B 2020-02-20T15:49:08Z 2020-02-23T18:13:38Z <p>Slightly inspired by <a href="">this question</a>, is there a limitation on the number of pardons a president could offer, such that it could sway the outcome of the next election?</p> <p>Take for example, Florida, typically a swing state, with an <a href="" rel="noreferrer">incarcerated population large enough to substantially sway the vote</a> should every individual in the state be pardoned. </p> <p>Florida was the determining factor in <a href="" rel="noreferrer">previous elections</a>, so is there a reason that a sitting president wouldn't just pardon an entire prison population a week before an election, in order to influence the votes? </p> <p>(Assuming that pardoned individuals would feel indebted to vote for their pardoner.)</p> <p>Edit: Because there seems to be some misconceptions, I understand it's not a good or practical idea. Instead, what I'm asking is "Is this possible?"</p> 9 Does the US President have the "right" to micromanage the US Department of Justice? BobE 2020-02-18T15:51:45Z 2020-02-22T14:07:16Z <p>Derived from an earlier question <a href="">DOJ's impossible job</a>, the question is based on the comment:</p> <blockquote> <p>"Trump claims that he has the absolute right to micromanage the AG and he is probably correct."</p> </blockquote> <p>The comment string on this become Q&amp;A has become very long, so it might be appropriate to examine this assertion (the right to micromanage) as a principle question.</p> <p>In asking this question, I've taken some liberty to infer that the commenter intended to say 'micromanage the DOJ' and conflates the concept of rights versus powers. </p> <p>In keeping with the basic premise of, is there any factual/legal basis to assert that the President has a right or power to "micromanage" civilian employees of the DOJ?</p> <p>As an example, President Trump made it abundantly clear that he was displeased with Mueller and his team. And yet, Trump did not dismiss anyone on the Mueller team, which he certainly could have if the President has the right or power to micromanage the DOJ. </p> <p>Obviously the President has the right and power to unseat the manager of the DOJ, On that score there is no question. That is not the question I'm interested in. Rather, <strong>does the President have either a right, power or authority to countermand the AG's decision, while keeping the AG in place</strong> (effectively making the President the Manager of the DOJ staff)?</p> 4 Consequence of 2019 Novel Coronavirus constituting a Public Health Emergency of International Concern Andrews 2020-01-31T02:15:50Z 2020-02-23T18:59:12Z <p>On 2020.01.30, the Director-General of Emergency Committee convened by the WHO declared that <a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the outbreak of 2019-nCoV (2019 Novel Coronavirus) constitutes a PHEIC (<strong>Public Health Emergency of International Concern</strong>)</a>.</p> <p>Actions by country/region:</p> <p><a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hong Kong declares coronavirus emergency</a>.(2020.1.25)</p> <p><a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Italy declares state of emergency over coronavirus</a>.(2020.1.31)</p> <p><a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">U.S.A declared a public health emergency (PHE)</a>.(2020.1.31)</p> <p><strong>My question:</strong></p> <p>What are the consequences of PHEIC, to China and to other countries?</p> <hr> <p><strong>Update:</strong></p> <p><a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">COVID-19 Global Cases by Johns Hopkins CSSE</a></p> 20 Is Libertarianism left wing or right wing? Pablo 2020-01-22T21:03:11Z 2020-02-23T16:43:29Z <p>In my country, libertarianism is associated with a pure right political ideology. They held more right wing positions than those who are elected and refered to as "right", or even "far right". For what I see in my feeds in internet, in United States it seems to be similar, or at least they are identified as right wing. </p> <p>But according to <a href="" rel="noreferrer">Libertarianism - Wikipedia</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics</p> </blockquote> <p>and there is </p> <blockquote> <p>Left-libertarian ideologies which include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist, New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school.</p> </blockquote> <p>and</p> <blockquote> <p>In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the term libertarian . The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States</p> </blockquote> <p>Is this so? Are there "left wing" and "right wing" libertarians today and libertarianismm originated as a left wing ideology, or are all libertarians are right wing?</p> 6 Who is meant by "enemy" and "conspiracy" in Kennedy's speech? elyar abad 2020-01-11T12:52:24Z 2020-02-23T10:07:49Z <p>President John F. Kennedy had a speech on April 27, 1961; famously called "<a href="" rel="noreferrer">THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS</a>". In that speech, he mentions a hidden enemy with concealed acts. <strong>Who is it?</strong></p> <p>The President have referred to the issue mainly in this part:</p> <blockquote> <p>Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.</p> <p>If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.</p> <p>It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.</p> <p>Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.</p> </blockquote> 44 Is Communism intrinsically authoritarian? CDJB 2019-11-28T18:59:50Z 2020-02-22T18:42:35Z <p>As a consequence of the recent developments in China, I’ve heard a lot of commentary which characterises authoritarianism as an inevitable consequence of a Communist state.</p> <p>How true is this statement? Is Communism by definition, inherently authoritarian? If not, are Communist states doomed to fall into authoritarianism in practice? Are there examples of Communist states either today or that have existed in the past which escape this definition?</p> 3 Is there evidence that Gotabaya Rajapaksa uses politically motivated kidnappings? sandun dhammika 2019-09-24T08:21:26Z 2020-02-22T19:05:40Z <p>This question is about the Gotabaya Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka presidential election candidate. </p> <p>Many people accuse him of being involved with kidnapping people with white vans. "White van" is a famous topic and a strong reason why many people do not vote for him. I need to mention that I never witnessed Gotabaya kidnapping people with my own eyes, but it's a strong gossip around here. Nobody can say it's 100% right or wrong (highly gray area). </p> <p>Since he is now running for this year election, this white van topic is a hot topic. </p> <p>One argument his followers point out is that similar things have happened in Singapore, USA and Japan. Is that true? Have people who spoke against him been kidnapped and killed?</p> 2 Was the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement called "confirmatory" at the time? Fizz 2019-04-07T10:33:07Z 2020-02-22T17:10:02Z <p>In the context of a 2nd Brexit referendum <a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer">discussion</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Peter Kyle Labour, Hove</p> <p>Last week, 268 Members voted for the principle of a confirmatory ballot—the largest number of votes for any alternative Brexit proposition up to that point. The principle has effectively been used twice in the past 20 years to solve complex, divisive issues.</p> <p>The first occasion was on the Belfast or Good Friday agreement. Many people, institutions and organisations were asked to give a lot to cement the deal, but they gained a lot together despite sections of Northern Irish society strongly rejecting it. <strong>The Good Friday agreement was put to a <em>confirmatory</em> ballot that confirmed the deal</strong> and led to a decisive end to the arduous process and a peace that has endured to this day. I do not want to risk undoing those gains, which is another reason why we need to unlock our politics. [...]</p> <p>The second occasion was the alternative vote referendum in 2011. [...] </p> </blockquote> <p>Was the word "confirmatory" used to refer to the Good Friday referendum <em>at the time</em> of its passing? (Not necessarily in law, but press or public debates etc.) Or is this a retrofitting of the "confirmatory" term?</p> 16 When may the President of the United States order military action without congressional approval? 2578 2017-04-08T18:33:56Z 2020-02-23T04:15:04Z <p>The USA has many times in the past taken military action with only the President's order to back it up legally. <a href="" rel="noreferrer">It was Jefferson that set the precedent of using the military to enforce foreign policy</a> when he ordered the assault on the Barbary Pirates, though there was some measure of congressional approval (I've often wondered why this discussion was not had after the <a href="" rel="noreferrer">Whiskey Rebellion</a>, but that was different in a few ways). Fast forward to the past two decades and there are numerous examples of the president ordering military assaults on sovereign nations unilaterally, meaning, without any discussion or approval from Congress. The most recent example is that of <a href="" rel="noreferrer">current President Trump ordering a missile strike on Syrian forces believed responsible for a chemical attack on Syrian citizens.</a></p> <p>From my reading, it seems to me that at least some congressional approval is required for any military action, per the Constitution. Many pundits certainly agree. However, many still implicitly support unilateral presidential military orders by not objecting to President Trump's order, and even applauding it. Further, some argue that the Constitution mandates a formal declaration of war if there is to be <em>any</em> military action. </p> <p>What is the line here? At what point must the president seek congressional approval to order military action? Is it based on targets, scale of the attack, or something else? At what point is a formal declaration of war necessary? Is scale a factor, considering Vietnam and Korea? I have to be honest, it seems like a damn free-for-all with zero checks and balances, and <a href="">it's just a matter of time until the president unilaterally plunges the world into nuclear war.</a></p>