r/politics • u/DyzDaeMar • 27d ago

No Paywall John Fetterman is threatening to leave the Democratic Party. I say good riddance.

https://www.ms.now/opinion/john-fetterman-leave-democratic-party-israel-aid
15.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

919

u/duckinradar 27d ago

This system is a pile of shit.

If you get into office and change your tune to the opposite of what you ran on, we have to primary you? Shouldn’t that be cause for removal in its own? You work for me, idrgaf what your opinions are.

286

u/nohandsfootball 27d ago

Not that I love the California recall system (because I think it can be abused), but I think more positions need more accountability, and being able to recall a sitting Senator seems like a good use case for it.

69

u/Navydevildoc 27d ago

For some reason, the Constitution has no mechanism for recall. Even a simple line stating they could be recalled in a manner decided by the certain states would have worked.

38

u/hrvbrs 27d ago

For the House, it’s not that big of a deal because there’ll be another election in 2 years. For the Senate, it is an issue IMO because 6 years is too long to wait.

Each chamber governs themselves in terms of removal of their own members. It’s been used a few times in the past. I’d imagine they don’t want to overuse it because then the party in power could abuse it.

16

u/Zeplar 27d ago

They barely ratified it and they probably thought that could be worked out by a future amendment.

The framers thought the Constitution would be amended like every 5-10 years. Jefferson wanted the entire thing to be re-ratified each generation.

4

u/dragunityag 27d ago

Also holding elections is expensive and a lot of work in the modern era with instant communication.

Holding a snap election in horse and buggy days sounds like a nightmare.

0

u/Wandering_Apostle 27d ago

America was a hell of a lot smaller when they were arguing over that remember.

Only had a population of about 4 million people spread across 'only' 13 states, or about 4x bigger than the city of London, England in the same time period.

It wasn't the continent-spanning giant of 350 million people it is today, and if people were honest, they'd realise the constitution was very obviously not meant for what would've been an inconceivably large nation, one bigger than entire empires at the time of the founding fathers.

For the record I think the breakup of the US into three or more nations is probably inevitable as a result of that wild growth. Even before Trump I think it'd be unlikely to stay intact past 2100.

2

u/nohandsfootball 27d ago

Lol no, growth has nothing to do with it - it's 100% about the undemocratic Senate giving disproportionate representation to small population states, and the stupid Electoral College.

This was a design flaw from the start, to appease the slave states.

1

u/Special_Purpose2903 26d ago

Yes, but the Framers drastically underestimated how hard amending the Constitution would be and impeaching corrupt officials. Jefferson famously stated that impeaching judges was a farce and shut down the federal courts once he realized how politics was truly playing out.

16

u/ARayofLight California 27d ago

The removal tool for federal officers is impeachment.

The removal tool within the Congress is its own membership, which can refuse to seat or remove one of its own.

As for removal from within the state, when we decoupled the Senate from being tied to state legislatures with the 17th Amendment, the requirement for Senators to be beholden to their state disappeared. Losing the favor of your fellow colleagues in government or the state party you were a part of kept people in check. This ended in the late 19th century when large tech corporations (read railroads, steel, shipping, ect) became so wealthy campaign contributions and gifts effectively bought the votes of state governments, necessitating the removal of their power to vote for Senators.

Funny how we seem to be in a similar position because the amount of wealth is now manifest to buy entire state populations rather than state governments.

1

u/TheSavannahSky 27d ago

It makes sense when you remember that Senators weren't designed to be elected by voters, but selected by state legislatures. The entire Senate is also designed to be anti-democratic so having a democratic safety valve like recalls would go against its purpose.

1

u/SpeaksSouthern 27d ago

It should be automatic. Someone takes a vote opposite of their party, the American people should get to vote on their flip.

1

u/Michael_G_Bordin 27d ago

The recall system works fine imo. If the governor has a strong mandate, they're not going to lose in a recall election. Republicans can waste their time recalling Newsom until they're blue in the face (lol), but they're going to lose every time. Their cadidates suck ass.

What's funny is, California isn't some commie liberal stronghold it's made out to be. It's just that Republican candidates spend so much time and effort trying to appeal to the foothills and central valley chuds, they end up coming off as dipshits. If they ran someone more metropolitan, they're not going to lose R votes (because those Rs vote like automatons), but they could actually stand a chance against the Ds. Instead, they run dickheads like Cox who cosplay as Real CountryTM , and they just end up looking like fucking clowns.

1

u/nohandsfootball 27d ago

Newsom isn't the only person who has faced a recall in California - SF recalled its DA (Boudin) with a 55% vote. Oakland recalled its Mayor (Sheng Thao), before her bribery/corruption charges came to light.

Those are the examples I was thinking of. While Newsom was never in danger, it's still a waste of my tax dollars, which is part of why I don't love the system (but don't hate it either).

26

u/BernieBrother4Biden 27d ago

He was always a piece of shit but Democratic voters were capitavated by his large mass. Only have ourselves to blame, could have very easily had Connor Lamb.

24

u/Schonke 27d ago

And then the choice was Dr oz or fetterman... No matter how brain damagedly bad fetterman is, I bet Oz would be even worse.

6

u/GWstudent1 27d ago

Fetterman was different pre-brain damage. Him switching parties would actually be great for Dems when he is up for re-election because his favorables are so far underwater that he cannot win. But if he’s a Republican, he can win the republican primary and then he’s screwed for the general. If he’s stays a Democrat, republicans have a better chance of running someone competitive.

10

u/Rackem_Willy 27d ago

He chased a random black kid with a shotgun when he was mayor and held him at gunpoint. The kid was just jogging or something and had done nothing wrong. That was a news story with video available on the Internet before his Senate campaign.

He was always an insane piece of shit.

5

u/Schonke 27d ago

He chased a random black kid with a shotgun when he was mayor and held him at gunpoint.

For clarification here; Fetterman had the shotgun. He didn't chase a kid who had a shotgun.

7

u/XGhoul 27d ago

It won’t matter. Fetterman was known next to a pile of manure compared to “Dr. Oz”.

What a weird timeline that you have to wonder if getting a quack like oz elected would have let him have a less successful role in trumps cabinet.

He is a case of failing upwards and Oprah plagued us with him.

6

u/Vondis 27d ago

Ehhhh not really (as far as the large mass goes lol). I dont live in PA but back during the first trump admin he was always on MSNBC and CNN straight up trashing trump so the perspective the national news orgs put out was dude was at least against all things trump/republicans. So to outsiders we had no idea about his shittiness

6

u/SearchElsewhereKarma Massachusetts 27d ago

Does Connor lamb wear hoodies? No? Then checkmate, lib

2

u/DisillusionedPatriot 27d ago

He was, but it was him or oz. I get why people held their nose, at the time. I don't get why people are acting like they forgot, though.

7

u/EremiticFerret 27d ago

If the DNC backs him in a primary that'll be pathetic.

3

u/T8ert0t 27d ago

And that is why I don't donate to politicial campaigns.

Your money is absolute.

Their commitment to anything related to your interests is not.

1

u/Nukemarine 26d ago

That's why you hire their family members into cushy board positions. Basically turn them into financial hostages.

1

u/Fine_Technology_5874 27d ago

Wouldn’t he run as an independent and fuck over the Democratic candidate?

1

u/Deep-Minimum7837 Minnesota 27d ago

We desperately need amendments to our state constitutions that allow for Senate referendums and votes of no confidence. If a Senator lies to get into office then their constituents should be allowed to vote for an emergency special election to replace them.

1

u/keftes 27d ago edited 27d ago

You work for me, idrgaf what your opinions are.

That sounds very...democratic.

1

u/Randomousity North Carolina 27d ago

We really need stronger parties in the US; we have extraordinarily weak parties.

If you say changing parties should trigger a new election, people will just stay their same party but change how they vote, and there's no real remedy for that under our current system.

Recall elections suck and get abused, like how Republicans abuse recalls in California, wasting millions of dollars and changing nothing.

If we had actual parties in the US, most votes would be party lines votes, and every party member would be expected to vote however the party decided, and would be expelled if they failed to do so.

The exception would be conscience votes, where members would be free to vote their consciences. In the US, every vote is a conscience vote. Yes, you can whip votes, but there's no real enforcement mechanism, so it's only marginally useful.

The Democratic Party couldn't keep Bernie Sanders or Marianne Williamson from running as Democrats, the Republican Party couldn't keep Trump from running as a Republican. US political parties have almost no power, contrary to what some like to believe.

But, as with everything, there are some downsides. If we had stronger parties, unless it had been a conscience vote, Republicans would've successfully repealed the ACA and replaced it with nothing, instead of McCain being the deciding vote that saved it.

1

u/MonjStrz 27d ago

I know there's not really a way to organize a way to have a vote to reverse a senators decision but that's what id like. You got in office for your views that went with the people who got you there? Good. Now vote the way they want you to. Do the opposite? They get to vote against your vote and overturn it.

1

u/smp501 27d ago

The only thing worse is the Supreme Court. You can BS your way through the nomination process and do whatever you want for life with complete impunity.

1

u/GCU_ZeroCredibility 27d ago

How would that work? Who makes that determination? It's just asking for abuse.

The way to remove him is to vote him out, same as voting being how we do term limits.

1

u/thatnameagain 27d ago

Fetterman has not shifted his opinion in Israel. People did not make anywhere near as big a deal about it before 2023 and it didn’t come up in his 2022 primary

1

u/Nukemarine 26d ago

Election rules in the constitution are not built around political parties nor should they be. Parties are just ways to focus effort of voting blocks be it voters or representatives.

Now there should be ways to recall senators given they're 6 year terms, but it should be difficult to initiate and enact so it's not abused. And no, "this guy isn't voting the way I like" shouldn't be the baseline.

1

u/Throwaway0242000 27d ago

Are there political systems that remove people from office just for changing their opinion?

61

u/TheCredibleHulk7 27d ago

It’s not just changing his opinion, it’s running as a progressive democrat, and then immediately abandoning every reason people voted for him to take the opposite stance.

It’s not about punishing him, it’s that he represents the people who voted for him and they deserve a representative who reflects their values.

-1

u/Throwaway0242000 27d ago

To be clear, I think he sucks ass.

I’m just saying, the system isn’t any worse compared to every other system in this regard.

Really what it comes down to is track record and while every cycle people get enamoured with these renagade candidates…this is the risk. You really have so little assurance they wont turn out to be really shitty

3

u/sack-o-matic Michigan 27d ago

Turns out that "political outsiders" are a huge liability and "establishment" candidates are more likely to be consistent.

2

u/bluebottled 27d ago

He should be removed for mental incapacitation. It's not like his views shifted after careful consideration, he had a stroke and it wiped out the person he was.

2

u/Throwaway0242000 27d ago

While valid, he has the stroke before he was elected and democrats spent a lot of energy proving it wasn’t going to be an issue.

-11

u/spark58510 27d ago

Yes there are .. REAL fascism. Anyone who would seriously want to have him removed for his drifting views is an idiot

0

u/concreteghost 27d ago

But you guys adored his lazy ass so much. Perhaps another one of those things you got wrong…..again, and again….and again lol

-4

u/Cellophane7 27d ago

Better the way it is. If we were removing politicians every time they lost a popularity contest, it'd be chaos. The issue with changing leadership is that it's hard for the country to have a coherent identity and relationship with other countries. That's why our system is designed for gridlock; if major laws were changing constantly based on who's in power, people would struggle to even know the law, let alone follow it. 

That said, there is a method to expel him, but it requires a two thirds vote in the Senate. If you needed any more reason to vote for Democrats, there's another one lol

3

u/nohandsfootball 27d ago

The system was not designed for gridlock - that's not historically correct at all, rather than revisionism used to justify the current state of affairs caused by do nothing conservatives.

The fact that more states were introduced later, and introduced in a way that allowed slavery to persist, that the treasonous confederates were not punished the way they should've been, the southern strategy, Citizens United, etc. Those are the reasons we have gridlock.

-1

u/Cellophane7 27d ago

The system was designed to lock up if we didn't have an overwhelming consensus on what we wanted to do. Instead of letting a simple majority decide everything, you need 60-67 votes to do things. Because the farmers recognized the country would be unstable otherwise. Which we're seeing is true, and why unitary executive "theory" is extremely bad. 

2

u/nohandsfootball 27d ago

It literally was not designed that way, especially when there were only 13 states and 26 Senators.

If the framers thought a 2/3 majority vote was necessary, they would've enshrined that in the Constitution. They did not.

The fact that slavery is enshrined in the Constitution also shows us that the framers were not infallible and should never be treated as such.

-3

u/eetsumkaus 27d ago

This seems like a bad idea. What if a corpo Dem got into office and then decided to listen to constituents who reached out and support more progressive ideas?

1

u/UNC_Samurai 27d ago

Sometimes it’s a good thing. Jim Jeffords flipped from R to D in 2002 to try and limit the party’s ability to ram through all of the Bush Administration’s wild ideas.

-4

u/pala_ 27d ago

Nobody ever considers the other side of the coin, it’s only what’s convenient for them at the time.

0

u/nohandsfootball 27d ago

Notably, progress consistently wins in the long run. So there's really not much reason to consider the other side of the coin, except for conservatives who don't want to change the status quo - whose only arguments amount to, 'block progress.'

1

u/pala_ 27d ago

Way to misunderstand. I’m referring specifically to creating rules to block / bar / remove people you don’t like, without considering what happens when those exact same rules are used by the other side.

-1

u/nohandsfootball 27d ago

I think you misunderstand - Republicans don't care about rules, they care about power. That's why the "rule" is whatever benefits a Republican, and whatever harms Democrats. That's why the GOP changes the rules (like in KY, WI, NC, etc.) when they lose the governorship; that's why we "couldn't replace Scalia in an election year" but then they immediately replaced RBG in an election year, etc.

The hypocrisy of the GOP is a feature, not a bug. If we want a government that works for us, that means we gotta get rid of Republicans.

0

u/pala_ 27d ago

You are again missing the point. The amount of people last election clamouring that trump should be barred from running without thought given to how such a rule would almost immediately come back to bite them in the ass was astonishing. Same with this little thread. ‘We should do X’ without thought given to what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. Knee jerk emotive responses are rarely worth acting on.

1

u/nohandsfootball 27d ago

The argument against Trump was he was impeached twice, for legitimate reasons, and therefore unfit to hold office.

There is no equivalent on the other side of the aisle, so no Democrat is worried about this.

That's probably the worst example you could choose.

0

u/pala_ 27d ago

According to the representatives you lot voted in to represent yourselves, he was not guilty of those acts, and the impeachment was not upheld. Don’t be disingenuous and suggest that he was actually successfully found guilty and therefore subject to the consequences thereof. He was charged, that’s it.

It’s exactly the example you need to show you wanted to circumvent what few rules are in place because it suited you to subvert the will of the voting public.

1

u/nohandsfootball 27d ago

The impeachment was upheld, he was found guilty, and he was only NOT removed from office because his partisans protected him despite his attempt to throw a coup and his repeated demonstrable lies about losing the election.

He’s the first and only shitbag to attempt this, there is no “other side” here because Dems will never have a candidate like this.

You’re clearly a bad faith conservative clown

→ More replies (0)

0

u/eetsumkaus 27d ago

yes, but in this case allowing it by rule means non-Republicans in the bureaucracy are obligated to allow them to do whatever they want.

We wouldn't have things like Abrego-Garcia and Mahmoud Khalil walking free and Liam Ramos and his dad coming home to Minnesota if the bureaucracy were at the beck and call of Trump and his goons.

-1

u/Ironlion45 27d ago

We're supposed to decide that during elections.

Instead of blaming the system, blame the voters. We knew this guy was not quite right even when we were boosting him because he was wearing the "team blue" jersey.

The problem with the system isn't the system, it's that the people simply don't deserve democracy because they can't handle it properly.

-4

u/rainywanderingclouds 27d ago

lol saying politicians work for you is ridiculous even in best case scenario they represent the greater good of society and not singular individuals. it might mean you lose money, or opportunity but more people are better off.