American Politicians Stand For Two Parties

[TheNordicBrit]

I've noticed that US politicians sometimes defect to a minor party, stand for them (usually in Presidential elections), then defect back to their original parties and still carry some clout and stand for their original party again.

I was wondering if it was possible for a US politician to stand for two different parties in two different elections that happen on the same day. For example, if Ron Paul had stood for the Libertarian Party in the 2012 Presidential Election, could he have stood for his Texan Representative district for the Republicans at the same time?

Or what about in 2004, had Kerry chosen John McCain to be his running mate in the election, could McCain have stood as a Democrat on the national scale, but as a Republican in the Arizonan Representative election?

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Yep, it is possible.

 

[Emperor Julian]

I was wondering if it was possible for a US politician to stand for two different parties in two different elections that happen on the same day. For example, if Ron Paul had stood for the Libertarian Party in the 2012 Presidential Election, could he have stood for his Texan Representative district for the Republicans at the same time?

I don't know if Texas law permits someone to be on the ballot for Representative and Vice President at the same time. I'd guess it does, since Lyndon Johnson was on the ballot for Senator and Vice President at the same time. If it does, then Paul could have run for both at the same time, assuming the Republicans in his district still nominated him.

 

[SlideAway]

It would depend on state law. Some states have official party registration, some don't. Some states allow people to be nominated by a party they aren't a registered member of, others don't.

Also relevant to this discussion is electoral fusion, whereby multiple parties can nominate the same individual. The candidate is usually listed multiple times on the ballot - once for each party. (So, for example, you could vote Barack Obama on the Democratic line in New York or on the Working Families line.) Electoral fusion was common in the US in the 19th Century (the Populists used it to win several races), but since the early 1900s it's only legal in a handful of states. New York is the most prominent of these, though Connecticut, South Carolina, and a couple other states also allow it.

 

[Emperor Julian]

It would depend on state law. Some states have official party registration, some don't. Some states allow people to be nominated by a party they aren't a registered member of, others don't.

Also relevant to this discussion is electoral fusion, whereby multiple parties can nominate the same individual. The candidate is usually listed multiple times on the ballot - once for each party. (So, for example, you could vote Barack Obama on the Democratic line in New York or on the Working Families line.) Electoral fusion was common in the US in the 19th Century (the Populists used it to win several races), but since the early 1900s it's only legal in a handful of states. New York is the most prominent of these, though Connecticut, South Carolina, and a couple other states also allow it.

Perhaps some Supreme Court could rule that outlawing Electoral Fusion is Unconstitutional?

 

[katchen]

I've noticed that US politicians sometimes defect to a minor party, stand for them (usually in Presidential elections), then defect back to their original parties and still carry some clout and stand for their original party again.

I was wondering if it was possible for a US politician to stand for two different parties in two different elections that happen on the same day. For example, if Ron Paul had stood for the Libertarian Party in the 2012 Presidential Election, could he have stood for his Texan Representative district for the Republicans at the same time?

Or what about in 2004, had Kerry chosen John McCain to be his running mate in the election, could McCain have stood as a Democrat on the national scale, but as a Republican in the Arizonan Representative election?

I guess that's the difference between Democratic Party nationally and Democrat Farmer Labor Party in Minnesota And there's some history behind the distinction.
For that to really work, we'd need states to amend their constitutions to provide for automatic runoff elections by voter preference (voters rank candidates in order of preference). A voter could vote for a candidate of a minor party and give a candidate from a major party second preference and vice versa. The winner would be the one with the majority of votes, if not necessarily first choices. That way a candidate from a minor party can endorse a major party on second preference and vice versa and enough from each get in to form a coalition and governing majority. And everyone knows to whose voters political debts are owned.
That's how it's done in Australia and it could work well here.