[EL] Labour Party leadership election

[John Tanner]

It also appears to differ in that union members and possibly others may not need to pay the fee.  That’s not at all clear from the article, and I may be misreading or perhaps the payment is extracted via union dues.  

Here in the US, though, while parties can and sometimes do bar people of questionable loyalty from being party candidates, I am unaware of successful implementation and enforcement of a loyalty oath or ideological test or device to vet potential voters, much less the requirement that the voters pay a fee to vote in the party caucus.  (I differentiate the sadistic practice of requiring people to go out at night in January weather in Iowa to stand around in a room for hours with a bunch of other people who really need to more balance in their lives, all in order to vote.)   All there reason to celebrate the throwing off of the British yoke in an appropriate fashion. https://johntannersbbqblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/july-4-2014/ <https://johntannersbbqblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/july-4-2014/> 

> On Sep 12, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Soren Dayton <soren.dayton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would point out that the analogy may not be that strong. There is a basis for the party to reject membership. In a caucus like you describe, the party doesn't get to reject people who show up. Here, one of the big logistical challenges was vetting the people who signed up and kicking out the Tories, the even farther Lefties. There is some evidence that they were overwhelmed and just got it wrong.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/labour-leadership-election-rejected-supporters-express-their-anger <http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/labour-leadership-election-rejected-supporters-express-their-anger>
> 
> I would also note that the Canadian system, at least, uses a similar model in which people speak of "selling party memberships" so that you can join a candidate selection convention. 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:31 AM John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I was struck by the similarity between the reformed Labour Party franchise - a poll tax - and the Virginia Republican Party’s plan back in, I think, the mid-1980s to charge party members to vote in the party caucus - a plan which Pam Karlan persuaded the courts to block. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/labour-party-election-jeremy-corbyn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/labour-party-election-jeremy-corbyn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>  I’m sure someone will remember the name of the case. 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150912/3a9104b3/attachment.html>