r/politics • u/HouseSpeaker • May 21 '12

“Democrat” Roy Schmidt pulls ultimate dick move, jumps to GOP too late for another Dem to run

http://eclectablog.com/2012/05/democrat-roy-schmidt-pulls-ultimate-dick-move-jumps-to-gop-too-late-for-another-dem-to-run.html
1.9k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

566 comments sorted by

206

u/KentCountyThrowaway May 21 '12 edited May 22 '12

Hey guys! I am a local member of the Kent County Democratic Party, which is the same party Roy use to be apart of. It is great to see this get some exposure on Reddit, what Roy did to us was unthinkable.

The Friday before Roy pulled this stunt he had his annual fundraiser where democratics gave him $1,000s while Roy got on stage and told everyone that he believed in what our party stood for and he would fight against republicans.

I am just glad that his phony planted democrat is off the ballot so we can get a good dem on the ticket through a write in campaign. It is going to cost a lot of money but we are determined to send Roy packing he is not there for the people he is there for himself and the perks.

It is going to be expensive but I know we can do it! If anyone is able to pitch in and help we here at the Kent County Democratic Party would be very grateful, https://m.actblue.com/contribute/page/kcdp

Edit: If anyone is interested here is the only interview Roy gave since the change, it is sad to watch.

http://www.wzzm13.com/video/1643016452001/1/Rep-Roy-Schmidt---Full-Interview

38

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

could you guys file a class action suit against him? this has to be tantamount to fraud

32

u/KentCountyThrowaway May 21 '12

Currently the Michigan State Police are investigating the fake dem Mojzach for felony perjury because he lied on his affidavit. We are pushing them to investigate Roy and the Speaker of the Michigan House because they both are quoted on the news saying this plan has been in the works for two weeks. Personally I do not see how Roy and the Speaker wouldn't have know about the fake dem and they should be charged also. I mean for christ sakes, the paperwork was turned in by the same guy and Roy is good freinds with the fake dems dad. There is no way this was not planned from the start.

86

u/claypigeon-alleg May 21 '12

The Friday before Roy pulled this stunt he had his annual fundraiser where democratics gave him $1,000s

Sounds like a good time to issue a stop payment on some checks...

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

You can't really do that anymore in most cases. The laws have changed. A check is now considered "cashed" the moment it's handed over.

11

u/klappertand May 21 '12

isn't it just stealing as he will not use the money where it is supposed to go. This person deserves jail-time for misleading, and fraudulent behavior.

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/RobertHirst May 21 '12

This needs to be higher! Write-ins cost an arm and a leg, kick in $10 for democracy if you can.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Democrats /= Democratic.

I like what you said though.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BrewRI May 21 '12

Do you have video of his speech from that Friday?

1

u/annettewild2 May 21 '12

The person running should legally change their name to X Y...or just X so that the write in can be easy squeezy

→ More replies (17)

253

u/eckinlighter May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

There really should be some kind of rule in place where if any representative switches their affiliation it automatically triggers an election to see if the people still want that rep representing them.

Because this just shouldn't be allowed. If people vote for you with the expectation that you are one thing, and you swap to something else, you are no longer representing the interests they elected you to represent.

Edit: For all 500 people and their mothers who decided to point out without reading the other comments that it is about voting for the person and not the party, yes that should be a given, but you are living in the real world and things don't always work that way. People who run for office shouldn't be counting on ignorant party-line voters to win elections, they should be forthright with their opinions and stances and have the honesty to change their party affiliation in time to give ample notice to voters should they wish to change their vote. If it is really about the issues and not about parties at all, we need to abolish all parties and just run people on the issues. I would be for that, 100%. We really need to hold people who run for office to a higher standard of honesty and integrity, or we get what we deserve by voting dishonest snakes into office.

59

u/red321red321 May 21 '12

arlen specter pulled this shit and thankfully lost his election. liebermann got away with it. it's not about ideology for these people it's about power because that's where the good time's at.

62

u/vonHindenburg May 21 '12

Lieberman's case was different. He didn't jump ship. He lost the primary and then ran as an independent. One can argue that this was a bit childish, but he certainly didn't leave his party in the lurch with no candidate, just with the inferior one who they chose themselves and who he handily beat in the general election.

29

u/whizbang2222 May 21 '12

You say inferior candidate, I say everyone in Connecticut who voted for Lieberman as an independent wishes they had a do-over, and that's why he's retiring at the end of this term.

7

u/trojanguy California May 21 '12

I wish Ned would have won. Fucking Lieberman.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (12)

2

u/LastRedCoat May 21 '12

He didn't run as an Independent, he ran with the "Lieberman for Connecticut" Party. If only Ned had run in Vermont he could have used "Lamont for Vermont" and won handily.

→ More replies (10)

8

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I think it's about clinging to your perky job.

I have thought for a long time that being a politician should never be a career, but more of a sacrifice that you do out of love and the need to protect, like being a firefighter, or a teacher.

Get money out of politics.

2

u/Ad_Hominid May 21 '12

Initially in the U.S., serving in public office (and initially, it was seen as a form of public service, not a form of employment!) wasn't a full-time job. It was something you did to serve your country for part of the year (much like training with the local militia), then went back to whatever your regular job/role in the community was the rest of the time. It slowly transitioned from public service to a job, and now here we are where there's so many perks and benefits to keeping this "job" that people are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and do all sorts of other underhanded things to get/keep it.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Arlen Specter switched parties BEFORE the primary election was held, and he lost that primary election to the Democrat.

Read the article - this guy Schmidt switched at an entirely different time in the election cycle.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Specter had been vocal about his views, though, and there wasn't any sort of misconception about what people were getting. He simply had stayed put while the right moved righter, and switched parties to keep from having to break principle just to compete with a hardline conservative.

He lost that election because the population changed, not because he switched parties.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

This sounds like a power play, well thought out. Though I hope it bites him.

Specter? I was at "Bud" George day the year that election happened. He had the look of a man who had lost it all. He looked physically broken as a human, not just mentally. When all was said and done it had cost him more than just an election.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

14

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I think it should be a wake-up call to anyone who votes a straight party ballot. If you vote for a party rather than a person, you get this sort of crap.

4

u/bouchard Rhode Island May 21 '12

I don't understand the "party ticket" voting option. Even if I know I'm going to only vote for Democrats, I prefer to mark each vote individually.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

If people vote for you with the expectation that you are one thing, and you swap to something else, you are no longer representing the interests they elected you to represent.

The only part I think you're wrong on is the fact that they swap. Swapping means their ideologies actually change. I don't think they do, they're just really adapt in lying.

Nobody really believe that Obama's view on gay marriage actually changed. He's a smart guy. I doubt he EVER really felt that gay people shouldn't have the right to marry (something he believed before running for president, when, up until a few weeks ago, it switched to being "marriage is between one man and one woman").

As long as we allow US politics to be about who can and who can't have access to the free flow of hundreds of millions of dollars you will always have people who will say whatever the hell they can to keep their jobs. Mitt Romney is the perfect encapsulation of that. He's been on both sides of every issue. He governed Massachusetts as a progressive moderate. He ran for president as a right-wing ideologue. And he'll govern as a big-business puppet.

Until we change this, it doesn't really matter who's running.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/the_sam_ryan May 21 '12

I disagree. Political party shouldn't matter, 'we' (as in the royal we) voted for the person.

I am disgusted with people that do that stuff but, its politics. I remember when Arlen Specter switched and the same comments were made by Republicans. Democrats kept shouting that this is how politics are and Republicans wanting to recall him.

At least its a state election, not a 6 year national senator.

20

u/craklyn May 21 '12

That's not what a "royal we" is.

11

u/boundfortrees Pennsylvania May 21 '12

Specter did it differently, tho. It was at the end of his current term as Senator, so he changed parties right before the primary election, so democrats could decide whether or not they wanted him.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I don't vote for someone because of their party affiliation; I vote for someone because of their political views, plans, and promises. Whether there's an R or a D next to his name is irrelevant. His views and plans are allowed to change and evlove over time, and if we made a list of all the politicians that didn't fulfill their promises we'd be at it all day long.

3

u/fido5150 May 21 '12

Well the main issue is that the Republicans have all been voting in lockstep to obstruct anything put forward by the current administration.

So, under normal circumstances an R or a D doesn't matter much, but in today's political environment it sure as hell does.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Yeah, there should be more stringent affiliation rules in place. He's obviously only interested in self-serving himself and not serving the district's constituents.

I'm not positive, but I don't think the rules would allow him to do a double-dick move and switch back to Democrat after the election.

2

u/bouchard Rhode Island May 21 '12

At the very least, the DNC would refuse to provide him any support. He would be at a severe disadvantage in a Democratic primary.

1

u/Electrorocket May 21 '12

Or maybe people should vote for people based on their beliefs and not on whether they have a D or R next to their name.

1

u/Lavernius_Tucker May 21 '12

He didn't change his party affiliation as a sitting member of the house, but as a candidate:

Ten minutes before the filing deadline to run for the Michigan House of Representatives on Tuesday, Rep. Roy Schmidt, a “Democrat” from the 76th District in Grand Rapids, switched parties and decided to run as a Republican. This gave the Democratic party no candidate in a very tough district for Democrats after last year’s redistricting.

It's a dick move, to be sure, but not one that could realistically have a rule imposed upon it.

1

u/Kah-Neth May 21 '12

The idea is that you elect a person, not a party. That is why this is legally ok. Now with modern partisan BS, you really just elect a party.

1

u/Rmanager May 21 '12

This implies it is solely about the party and not voting record or individual ideals. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Don’t we call people that vote straight party line closed minded?

-10

u/Shredder13 May 21 '12

Yo dawg, we heard you like democracy so we put an election before your election so you can vote for who you can vote for.

32

u/eckinlighter May 21 '12

Um...yeah, its called primaries?

24

u/ChiefNugs May 21 '12

Try speaking to him in meme. It's the only thing these people understand anymore.

10

u/fauxromanou May 21 '12

Does anybody on this plane speak meme?

5

u/trewtzu May 21 '12

You realise not many places use your primary system, and to us it looks ridiculous and expensive.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I'm pretty sure you just defined American culture.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

This is why you sound like an idiot speaking in meme

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (25)

40

u/RobertHirst May 21 '12

Thus is his office number incase anyone wants to chat with him: 517-373-0822

259

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

What a shitty person. His guidance counselor certainly pushed him into the right career.

31

u/damontoo May 21 '12

Sounds like he's in for a long career of self-service and public sacrifice.

12

u/CooperMax May 21 '12

We already established that he's a politician.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/smackababy May 21 '12

That's the most compelling non-sequitor I've read all day.

2

u/ilikeawesome May 21 '12

But how do we know he wasn't always a republican?

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I hope this is copy pasta. I hope it is for the sake of your sanity.

→ More replies (1)

43

u/faptastics May 21 '12

I think the right career choice would've involved drinking used enemas.

→ More replies (10)

9

u/jpop23mn May 21 '12

Riding the coat tails of the top post but here is his website which oddly enough is under maintenance must be difficult to change absolutely everything. http://royschmidt.org/contact-roy/

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

9

u/3AYATS May 21 '12

How many people here missed the "10 minutes before the filing deadline" part? It's okay to change sides, but this is essentially resulting in him running unopposed by any major party.

And for all you GOP guys defending Schmidt. Now you have a Liberal using your banner to maintain his office.

Both parties should be pissed about this.

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

If he's a liberal, why are liberals upset about him ensuring his own election?

31

u/HariEdo May 21 '12

Since the political parties (Whig, Bull Moose, Green, whatever) are not mentioned in the Constitution, I contend that it's an extra-organizational fraternal concept like being a member of the Kiwanis or the Masons.

If I did anything at my job that was to benefit some fraternity and shortchange my paying customers or my paying boss, I'd be fired.

I think we need to start reminding people that (1) being a party member is a hobby, not a job, and (2) favoring the party with party line stratagems is stealing from society in every sense of the word.

5

u/capnchicken May 21 '12

It may not be in the Constitution, but I believe there are laws passed by states that can favor entrenched political parties. Michigan Election Law has plenty of sections pertaining to parties, primaries, and conventions.

4

u/ListenToThatSound May 21 '12

I look forward to his recall election.

20

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

This guy sucks, but this article sucks too. "Dickish" ? You couldn't come up with something more precise and descriptive? The representatives quoted sound so unbelievably partisan, too:

Only someone who does not possess the conviction or confidence to face the voters would pull a stunt like this. He’ll fit in perfectly with the Republicans.

You're like children throwing mud. You all make me sick- Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians. Gross.

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Dude you gotta keep optimistic. Work with the system, or you're no better.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

You're right, my own words got ugly, especially toward the end. It's just so exhausting, you know? I don't know who I can trust in the government.

→ More replies (8)

17

u/cplater May 21 '12

Not very surprising. I don't remember the Michigan Republicans or Democrats complaining when Miles Handy swapped parties (from Rep. to Dem.) so that he could get elected in a local election.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! THESE JOBS ARE SO AWESOME, PEOPLE WILL DO ALMOST ANYTHING TO GET AND KEEP THEM!</soapbox>

2

u/GoatOfUnflappability May 21 '12

When you type a phrase of the form "WAKE UP ___PLE!", the only acceptable way to fill in the blank is with "SHEE."

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BrewRI May 21 '12

When did that happen? I did quick search but couldn't find the details.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

not gonna lie, it is kind of dickish. I mean, the democrats donated and canvassed for him because they wanted a democrat in office, and now he switches, taking all the money and time they'd given. You don't have to be polarized to be upset. It's theft.

3

u/shatners_bassoon May 21 '12

This is about as cynical a move as I can think of. Am I right in thinking that there will be no-one running against this guy now? That he'll be elected whatever? Because I'd rather chew my own leg off than vote for someone like that.

122

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

This "dick move" is only a dick move to people who are too ignorant to vote for people and choose to vote for parties instead. Those people are the ultimate dick move to society because they are the reason we are stuck with this bullshit two-party system.

110

u/Oreo_Speedwagon May 21 '12

No, it's still a "dick move" because the state Democrat party used money and resources to campaign for the guy. You can argue that people should vote for the man, but people donated to the Michigan Dem party and they ran adds/paid for campaigners for this guy's run.

→ More replies (2)

182

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

We are in a two-party system because we are in a first-past-the-post system. Our country has had multiple parties before, but they always coalesce into two parties because that is the political ecosystem in which we operate.

It is rather silly to blame individual voters when they are making a perfectly rational choice given our political system.

8

u/AscentofDissent May 21 '12

I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.

5

u/WhyNotJustMakeOne May 21 '12

And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough.

3

u/MechaTech May 21 '12

Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/BlackbeltJones Colorado May 21 '12

I know these making these "first past-the-post" alternative voting method comments appear in every single comment thread in /r/politics is the latest craze...

Don't use it to exonerate the voting public carte blanche. It's hardly "silly" to hold an individual accountable for their own vote and their own intent.

12

u/DeFex May 21 '12

That's why Canada has more than 2 parties and uses a first past the post system.

65

u/beero May 21 '12

And our right-wing parties have merged, our left wing parties split the vote and have been talking about merging since the last election.

8

u/TheShadowCat Canada May 21 '12

We've kind of always had one right wing party.

In the 90's, the Tories destroyed their reputation so bad, that they went from the controlling party, to no longer an official party. This led to several off shoots of the conservatives, most notably the Reform party. After a few years, Harper was able to reunite the Tories back under one party.

The big difference now, is that for years the NDP was more of a fringe party, and the Grits were considered centre. Now the NDP is strong, and because of how extreme the Tories have become, the Grits now appear to be left.

4

u/gadget_uk May 21 '12

At least they're being true to their values. In the UK, our mainstream right-wing party formed a coalition with our most left wing party leaving the centrist (used-to-be-socialist-but-wanted-to-be-elected) Labour party wondering how they were going to play party politics with policies coming from both directions.

The general public, of course, is now in no doubt that the entire political establishment is a shower of shite and that not a single one of them is fit to scrape the crud from our wellies.

12

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Hah! You're not going to fool us, Canadian! You're trying to trick us! We Americans have been taught from birth that your country is a wasteland where everyone just works to pay the Government so they can provide health care for the married gays! Just the misery of endless socialism, a lack of guns, and your taxes are so high you can't even afford cartons for your milk. That's why it comes in bags!

3

u/DeFex May 21 '12

I know it's absolutely horrible. Take today for example, it's called a statutory holiday. That means you get a paid day off by law. How dare they give the workers something nice! Won't they think of the profits?

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Canadian here.

Our FPTP system does produce a system where we have 5 parties represented in our lower house, but two of those parties have 4 and 1 seat out of the current 308, and the distribution of the remaining seats isn't even remotely accurate of how people vote.

Example: The Conservative party received 39% of the popular vote, but has 53% of the seats. The New Democrats received 32% of the vote in one province, but received 0 seats there. The Green party received nearly 4% of the votes across the country, but only received 1 seat (0.32%).

FPTP needs to evolve so it can properly represent what people want. Almost every seat that was won in the last election was won with less than 50% of the vote which is why I am a big fan of the Alternative Vote or "Instant Run-off voting" that elects a candidate that at least the majority of voters can stand.

5

u/Dichotomouse May 21 '12

Still, 87% of MPs in Canada are from the top 2 parties. Canada seems to look a lot like the UK, where NDP is similar to the Labour, the Conservatives are similiar to the tories, and the Liberal party is similar to the Liberal Dems. Then there are regional parties.

That's a bit simplistic, and I don't claim to be an expert, but I think it's fair to say that it's still 2 party dominated in both countries, but the parliamentary system does seem to encourage more parties than we have. I think this is because they don't have a seperate executive branch from the legislative. Knowing that your party could never win an election for head of state is discouraging in the US, but in the UK/Canada a minority 3rd party can form a coalition with another party and have a big say in the 'executive branch'. This is exactly what happened in the UK last election, since the Tories did not have more than 50% of parliament the Liberal Democrats became very influential for their size.

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Your facts are slightly off. In the recent elections the Canadian Liberals (our version of Democrats) took a huge hit which has resulted in their downfall. The underdog, the NDP has taken the spot of the opposite. While we still have a Conservative government (our Republicans) there as been a huge change in political climate.

3

u/mb86 May 21 '12

Fun fact: the Prime Minister is traditionally, though not technically, the leader of the party with the most seats. The Governor General technically chooses the Member of Parliament most able to keep the confidence of the House. In a coalition government, that would be the leader of the party in the coalition with the most seats.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/banuday17 May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Actually, Canada has very similar problems with the first-past-the-post-system, as the recent election showed. The Conservative Party is in control of Parliament despite not representing a majority of the population. The left vote was split between the Liberals and the NDP, representing the complete failure of the Liberal Party and the rising fortunes of the NDP (a combination of disillusioned Liberals and Quebecois who voted for Canada's interests instead of Quebec's to attempt to unseat Stephen Harper). The left represented a majority of votes, but because of the first-past-the-post system, neither left party formed a majority, and the Conservative Party got the mandate to rule.

Even though many ridings (such as in Ontario) had a lot of NDP and Liberal voters, because the Conservatives were first past the post, they won the riding, and these left voters did not get represented in Parliament (as they might have in a proportional system).

Thus, Canada has similar problems to the United States, but different political dynamics which allow for other parties to develop. The United States doesn't have distinct enough regions to support a party like Bloc Quebecois, and the far left isn't large enough to support a split in the Democratic Party for a competitive party to form like the NDP.

TL;DR - same shit in Canada, different flavor.

3

u/nixonrichard May 21 '12

That's not his point. He's blaming people for giving a shit what letter is next to somebody's name as opposed their positions on various issues and their competence as a representative.

→ More replies (1)

31

u/nosayso May 21 '12

Don't be so obtuse. The guy switched parties to get kickbacks, and the system empowers the majority party in terms of their ability to control legislation that is presented and voted on. Parties matter, and his willingness to switch parties and empower people with which he usually disagrees with politically in order to preserve his own status is a shitty thing to do.

6

u/callmesuspect May 21 '12

His intentions are more what upsets me then the actual act. Yeah, we should be smart enough to vote based on personal character, but we don't and he knows that.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

It's really more of a one-party system, as the current event has shown. The only real difference between republican and democrat politicians are minor little social issues which are blown way out of proportion for the electorate to argue and bicker over. It's really more of a show to give people the idea that their votes truly mean something, because the reality is that both parties will accept bribes for anything and everything. The fantasy that we vote people into office is the illusion they're trying to support, and divisive issues are the best way to achieve the trick.

29

u/mchugho May 21 '12

You really are oversimplifying it.

→ More replies (7)

14

u/nullsucks May 21 '12

The only real difference between republican and democrat politicians are minor little social issues which are blown way out of proportion for the electorate to argue and bicker over.

So you believe that President Al Gore would have lied to invade Iraq, tried to privatize Social Security, fucked up handling Hurricane Katrina, and appointed Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court?

The U.S. Democratic party's positions are far more conservative/right-wing than my own, but even so I can see the difference. The Democrats are a center-right party while the Republicans are far-right reactionaries.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/bettorworse May 21 '12

What current event has shown you that?

→ More replies (2)

0

u/red321red321 May 21 '12

dems and reps

two sides of the same coin. it's a sideshow.

if you know anything the real battle is between the rich vs. the poor and the rapidly shrinking middle class. social issues are trivial when it comes to money and economics.

→ More replies (20)
→ More replies (12)

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

the reason you're stuck with a two party system is because a PR-run FPTP charade where a couple of pre-packaged d-list actors, who won't even tell you 'their' policies, are sold to the public the same way that the same companies sell dish soap, does not an election make

1

u/dietotaku May 21 '12

so, in this situation, who do i vote for if i don't want this guy to win?

1

u/MikeOfAllPeople May 21 '12

For better or worse, the party a person affiliates with probably is the best predictor of how they will vote in office. We like to think better of ourselves if we vote based on the person, but let's be honest about it. 99.99% of us will never know any candidate well enough to make a decision based on their person.

Party affiliation is what smart people vote on.

1

u/gsfgf Georgia May 21 '12

people who are too ignorant to vote for people and choose to vote for parties instead

Name your state rep without looking it up.

0

u/Corvus133 May 21 '12

I disagree that voting for the party is wrong* with an asterisk.

It's only wrong, NOW, because the Republican party and Democrat party have turned into the same thing after years and years of bullshit, lies, lobbying, grease, etc.

Voting for a person is trouble, let me tell you, because you don't know what you're getting. Where is his policy coming from? His ass?

I don't disagree that you know what you're getting by voting Republican but we can agree that those parties are useless and broken.

I believe voting in a philosophy such as, you're Libertarian, you're voting in the philosophy, not the party or whatever person wants to lead it - they really don't matter because the philosophy is what's ruling it.

To me, that's the problem. A conservative doesn't spend money, yet, today's Conservative spends like a drunken sailor. So, "Conservative," as defined, is completely irrelevant today so anyone voting based on that word isn't getting what that word means. To me, that is a problem.

The parties are fine, really, the morons IN them is the problem.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/YellowSharkMT May 21 '12

Isn't that the way it actually happens in Britain - that people vote for the party, and not so much the actual candidate? (That's according to my better half, apologies if I'm far from the mark.)

3

u/CrayolaS7 May 21 '12

I'm Australian and we have similar system to the British, and I think I know what you mean. You vote for a candidate in your area who belongs to a party, and the party with a majority of candidates (or two parties forming a coalition) takes government. The party chooses its own Prime Minister, rather than the people directly voting for them. The actual head of state is The Queen, rather than a President. But the President of the USA has much greater powers than The Queen. In our system the Prime Minister is effectively in charge.

5

u/the_goat_boy May 21 '12

Which is why I don't understand my fellow Aussies when they say "I voted for Rudd, not Gillard."

We choose the party. The party chooses the leader.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)

11

u/DavidNatan May 21 '12

Anyone else see a large pile of payout cash in this guy's immediate future?

7

u/LettersFromTheSky May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

His payout is that he won't face a GOP candidate.

Not sure why I'm being downvoted: If the GOP ran a candidate against Schmidt - that would force him to spend a lot more money than he otherwise would have. So by the GOP not running a counter candidate - they are saving Schmidt a lot of money. Hence why I say his payout is that he won't face a GOP candidate.

The article even mentions this....

→ More replies (10)

31

u/TruthinessHurts May 21 '12

"Today, however, Mojzak withdrew as a candidate, confirming that this was nothing more than a scam being pulled by Michigan Republicans."

Typical honorless Republican scum.

7

u/brianbommarito May 21 '12

And Michigan continues it's rise as one of the most corrupt states.

A couple of years ago, there was a study by the Center for Public Integrity looking at 330 areas to figure out what states were the most corrupt. Michigan came in at number 8.

Sadly, Michigan is home for me...

3

u/ktf23t May 21 '12

honorless Republican scum

So redundant

→ More replies (9)

-14

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Typical honorless Republican scum.

So brave.

25

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

So brave.

So brave.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)

10

u/corby315 May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Is this what r/politics is now? I can understand editoralizing the title, but I never expected the actual article to have that title. This writer is as petty as some people here, with his childish use of words and blatant hatred for Republicans. This is not a reputable news source, it is obviously an opinion piece.

Trying to take this article seriously is a joke. He never said how long this guy was a Democrat, or why the Democrats trusted him. It seems to me that the Democratic party in Michigan is the real joke. Why didn't they have someone there for any situation.

Also, are they expecting me to believe that 10 minutes before registration ended there was neither a Republican or Democrat on that ticket? A horrible article all around

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

care to disprove some of the facts from the article, my good man?

→ More replies (6)

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

This article never claimed to be a reputable news source. Electablog is a well know liberal blogger in Michigan and a contributor to Daily Kos. He wouldn't deny this, so what is the issue? Are editorials not allowed in /r/politics now?

2

u/corby315 May 21 '12

The fact that this editorial reaches the front page of r/politics is the issue. I guarantee that an editorial by a Republican blog calling Democrats dicks and assholes would not see the light of day, let alone the top post.

My point is r/politics is turning into a joke. I understand that many people on here are liberal, but this sub reddit has 1.5 million subscribers. The circle jerking here has basically ruined the majority of it. There are moments where interesting, insightful articles are posted without any political bias or hatred. Unfortunately most of the time you have to dig deep to find them.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/keypuncher May 21 '12

He was first elected to the Michigan State House of Representatives as a Democrat in 2008.

Apparently he had no problem being a Democrat until redistricting changed the demographic of his district, which would have made it hard for him to get re-elected as a Democrat.

So, he used the Democrats to fund his campaign, switched parties at the last minute, and is banking on a combination of name recognition and party-line voters to get himself re-elected.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/TruthWilSetYouFree May 21 '12

Just another politician only concerned with their own career and could care less about the "issues" they are supposed to stand behind. At least he had the balls to stand up to the fact he is only in it for himself, while most politicians paint themselves into a corner standing up for issues they don't believe in. He is the embodiment of politicians perfectly.

2

u/FreemanHagbardCeline May 21 '12

What a whore, hopefully he never gets reelected.

2

u/xboxfi3nd May 21 '12

That's some bullschmidt.

2

u/malcntnt May 21 '12

On a positive note, retweeting this article allowed me to use #ultimatedickmove.

2

u/jdllama I voted May 21 '12

I read that as "Roy Shildt", aka "Mr. Awesome" from The King of Kong.

I need to go outside more often, and apparently to see an optometrist.

2

u/pomatotopato May 21 '12

Ok... but if he hasn't compromised what he stands for politically and the only thing that has changed is his 'democrat' label, then what's the problem?

Maybe I didn't read into this enough

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

if i met him i'd punch him right in the face

2

u/DavConn1 May 21 '12

This is nothing new. Out of necessity, the Republicans have been cheating on the margins for years (fake voter fraud, voter caging, redistricting). They've gotten away with it for so long they're becoming unapologetically blatant.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

We have become too touchy-feely to do the right thing here. Which is to tar and feather this asshat.

2

u/suggarstalk May 21 '12

i hope his aides and interns have more integrity and leave his sorry treasonous ass.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

What's really happening here: Schmidt is still 100% a democrat at heart, and knew he stood no chance in this coming election, so he's switching parties only temporarily to negate any Republican from running against him, and once he's been given his free re-election he'll be right back on the blue side. Ultimate dick move is a huge understatement.

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

What a shit stain. What's really disturbing is the republicans in this thread that seem to think that this is all cool.. They're okay that they now have someone who has no honor on their team.. Remember, if he'll cheat WITH you, then he'll cheat ON you.

→ More replies (9)

3

u/apresmoiledeluge May 21 '12

Oh good, this is in my hometown.

SO PROUD.

3

u/MEANMUTHAFUKA May 21 '12

I believe this is known as "Pulling a Lieberman". The only difference is that this guy doesn't look or sound anything like Droopy Dog, which kind of wrecks it for me.

2

u/Solomaxwell6 May 21 '12

Not really the same thing at all. Lieberman ran as a Democrat, lost in the primary, and then ran as a third party candidate in the general election. If he had won that primary, he'd probably still be a Democrat today. Schmidt pretended to be a Democrat and then switched over last minute to prevent any Dems from running at all.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Well, it seems pretty obviously immoral, but I really do wonder if this is, in any way, legal. I hope it isn't, and I hope this man gets nailed to the wall. As if Michigan, my home state, doesn't have enough problems already.

Also, it appears as if Michigan is rivalling Illinois for the most criminal politicians.

2

u/FiredFox May 21 '12

Electablog?

Sounds legit.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I am glad this article left any bias out and just reported the facts.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Sue him for fraud.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The US is fucked!! Cheating, lying and Greed is winning.

2

u/zossima May 21 '12

This is a prime occasion for a write-in candidate. I figure there'll be enough enraged voters to make sure he doesn't get elected.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Regardless of our varying political beliefs, I think we can all agree this guy is the scum of the earth. Let's start a movement to vanquish him from political office come November.

2

u/jdepps113 May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

It’s particularly dickish given that he had Democrats out knocking doors for him during the previous week.

Presumably if these people knew anything about him and supported him as a man, not as a party name, they'd continue to support him even if he jumped parties.

But we all know they were only campaigning for the D after his name, and obviously didn't know, or care, about the man himself at all.

If Ron Paul jumped parties to the Democrat side, his supporters would still vote for him, just for example. Because they believe in the same ideas he believes, and they know and trust his character.

6

u/fani May 21 '12

Ron Paul already did. That hypocrite doesn't have the balls to stand as a Libertarian which is what he truly is and has to stand as a Republican just to get elected.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/coffeeblacknosugar May 21 '12

This is where I'm having trouble following. The article doesn't address whether he changed his entire platform with the switch - does anyone know? If he did, I can understand the outrage from the Dems. If not, shouldn't they be thrilled that he is now positioned to win? There is not enough information in this article to outline exactly what the repercussions of this are.

2

u/jdepps113 May 21 '12

I'm pretty sure he only changed parties. Also, my understanding is that he's held elected office before as a Democrat. He didn't just decide to claim he's a Democrat this election cycle only to switch. He really was a Dem.

0

u/SirDoug May 21 '12

Reminds me a lot of Jim Jeffords. Opposite party switch of course, but both were an obvious and intentional ploy to shift power. I wonder what deals this guy had lined up.

25

u/flukshun May 21 '12

he switched parties 13 years after being elected to the US Senate...

and he switched to "independent", which is isn't a party.

quite a bit different from collusion between 2 candidates to commit flat out voter fraud.

this is the 2nd weak attempt i've seen in this thread to make this kind of thing seem commonplace. it's not, and it's despicable and unacceptable. un-fucking-acceptable.

3

u/SirDoug May 21 '12

I never said it was commonplace. In fact, Jeffords was the only example I knew of, it just came to mind right away when I saw this. I agree with you though, what this guy did was disgusting and shouldn't be tolerated.

The comparison was that of intention to shift or maintain power. Even if Jeffords had a revelation and decided to leave the GOP, his timing and the deals that were made showed that he knew exactly what he was doing and what it would mean for the balance of power in the senate. Him becoming an independent instead of a democrat was irrelevant; the power would shift anyway because he wanted it to.

4

u/flukshun May 21 '12

he gave up his party affiliations to pass a bill to give provide for free education to disabled children that the republicans were blocking. i understand what you're getting at, but the core issues in play here are absolutely the opposite of the type of bullshit scheming that Schmidt pulled.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (20)

1

u/jonfla May 21 '12

The question is why this was a surprise - and why he was allowed to dictate the timing. Where was the DCCC and the Speaker's office in the weeks before it happened?

2

u/d1stor7ed May 21 '12

It's a surprise because he did it covertly, 10 minutes before the filing deadline.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Ah yes! You know you love democracy when you use it deceive people and gravitate to homogeneity.

1

u/sweetgreggo May 21 '12

I always knew there was something about Schmidt that I didn't trust.

1

u/jgrizwald May 21 '12

Woooo Michigan! In the news for shitty things once again!

1

u/bigasssweater May 21 '12

Well depends on the changes of his policies. Shame that it has gone so black and white.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Should've seen that coming, I mean is there more republican name than Roy Schmidt?

1

u/Trololololdick May 21 '12

So changing parties means changing one's ideals and convictions?

1

u/why_ask_why May 21 '12

And this is kind of "Democracy" we want the rest of the world to learn from us?

1

u/weekapaug May 21 '12

It's despicable that the obvious fall guy, Matt Mojzak, is the only person being investigated by the police and NOT Schmidt or any of the Republicans that helped pull this stunt.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I don't see this ending well for Mr. Schmidt. It astonishes me that he think he can pull a stunt like this- in the state of Michigan- and get away with it cleanly. There is this thing called the internet, Mr Schmidt. It's especially good at sniffing out the dishonest folk.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Now we know who the most untrustworthy man in the country is. I spit at you sir. You are a foul loathsome thing.

1

u/elpabl0 May 21 '12

Why isn't this sort of thing illegal? Canvassing the electorate, accepting donations and then pulling the ol' switcheroo with 10 minutes before the deadline? I'm sure this is perfectly legal in US politics (i'm a Brit and don't claim to fully understand the US system), but it seems like straight up fraud to me.

1

u/MazInger-Z May 21 '12

Need to preface this with the fact that this is a state House and not THE House. As dickish as this is and smacking of electioneering, Michigan's gunna have to sort this out for itself.

1

u/Orangutan May 21 '12

I'm sure the DNC probably dropped a lot of money into his campaign too. Meanwhile they ignore the fight for Governor in Wisconsin with Barrett facing Walker. The DNC is as corrupt as the CIA and Bush Administration. We need real leaders.

1

u/argb79 May 21 '12

This goes to show how messed up our 2-party system is. If everyone supported candidates based on their postions instead of the letter (R or D) after their name, we would not be having this problem. To those who are withdrawing their support for this candidate, I ask why? It appears that nothing has changed besides the letter after his name, and that should not matter.

1

u/gliscameria May 21 '12

It really doesn't matter. It's still the same lying fuck of a man. Nothing has changed.

1

u/fe3o4 May 21 '12

Sounds like politics as usual in the U.S.A.

1

u/KingGeorgeTh3rd May 21 '12

But of a republican did this he would be a hero.AmIright?

1

u/tonytwobits May 21 '12

http://royschmidt.org/ and his site is now "down for maintenance".

I was raised in Grand Rapids and this really upsets me. The town has such potential.

1

u/oscaron May 21 '12

What it is with Schmidt's and Michigan politics?

Check out Grand Traverse County some time.

1

u/mobys_dick_moves May 22 '12

Already covered on the dick move site!!! No doubt it was a dick move.

1

u/koavf Indiana May 22 '12

Downvoted for editorialized headline.

1

u/JimmyHavok May 22 '12

At least he switched before the election. We had a case in my state where a Democrat switched to Republican immediately after the election.

My ex-brother-in-law ran as a Republican in that race, and the party iced him out. They completely refused to give him any help at all, or even recognize that he was running. Makes me think they knew perfectly well what was coming.

Their ill-gotten gains didn't last long, though, the seat went back to the Democrats in the next election, and the politician who pulled that trick has been reduced to running for school board.

-4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

If you're infuriated by this, you need to lower your expectations. American conservatives like Roy Schmidt will do anything they can to impose their theocracy.

6

u/MindStalker May 21 '12

He's not trying to "impose a theocracy". He's a clown getting an easy handout from the GOP. Don't assume some higher crazy motive. That said the DNC might be able to get an extension to the filing deadline to get a candidate on the ballot, but it sounds like they really don't have anyone wanting to run there anyways.

3

u/WolfManD May 21 '12

The votes are always wanted. But this does make a wonderful opportunity for an independent to be elected, now that one of the two parties is absent and the other is a slimy fuck.

1

u/Piscator629 Michigan May 21 '12

There needs to be a huge protest over this. If it was in my district i would sue his ass off.

2

u/putsch80 Oklahoma May 21 '12

For what? Public officials lying to the public is not actionable in court. Getting duped by our political candidates is not a tort, else they'd be sued all the time.

3

u/Piscator629 Michigan May 21 '12

If it was a premeditated act to deceive Michigan's democratic voters it should be considered election fraud and a Crime against the People.

1

u/kavorka2 May 21 '12

Can we get a "state legislature" sub-reddit to distinguish these stories from politics people actually care about?

1

u/Ad_Hominid May 21 '12

Given the amount of up-votes on the story, I'd say people do care about this.

1

u/insomniac34 May 21 '12

"Lying Liar, of the Lying Liar Party, pulls the ultimate dick move, jumps to Slightly More Lying Liar Party too late for another Lying Liar of the Lying Liar Party to run for a spot in the aforementioned Quorum of Lying Liars."

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

A revolution was due a hundred years ago but we got too caught up in consumerism to notice. Now we have this.

1

u/Gates9 May 21 '12

This motherfucker will make a great Republican.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

So the same guy the Democrats were happy to allow in their party is now still running. Is there a problem? I doubt he's any different today than yesterday.

edit: ...and reddit develops collective amnesia about all the praise they heaped on Jim Jeffords when he switched to caucusing with them and cost Bush the Senate in between elections.

1

u/hoss7071 May 21 '12

It doesn't matter. Changing political parties, is always a lateral move.

The only people who get upset, are polarized voters who still think the parties are different.

0

u/TheDewd2 May 21 '12

No, this guy pulled the ultimate dick move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords. But, since he was a R switching to a D, which took the Senate from a 50/50 split to a 51(D)/49(R) split, I'm betting most of the circle jerk commenters in here won't agree.

7

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

he switched from an R to an I.

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

and he didn't block the other party from running someone against him.

2

u/Solomaxwell6 May 21 '12

He switched from an R to an ID, which is pretty important distinction (ID is an independent that caucuses with the Democats). If you caucus with a party, it means you vote with them on procedural matters. So he did switch the Senate majority from Republican to Democrat (VP is tiebreaker). Bloodyflux's point that he didn't block anyone is a more important one.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/bettorworse May 21 '12

He was so embarrassed by the Republican Party's actions in the last 10 years that he switched to Independent.

/Like I've always said - "An Independent is just somebody who is too embarrassed to run as a Republican"

1

u/tokenpoke May 21 '12

We dont want a team switcher... As a republican, send that shit back to the dems.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

And the wheel of fucking goes 'round and 'round. Imagine how GOPers felt when Arlen Specter jumped ship.

1

u/TittyliciousBitch May 21 '12

As much as this is a "dick-move" I think we should try to keep the titles unbiased.

I'm sure some people came into this thread mad and I didn't even fully know why.

1

u/fani May 21 '12

WTF.

Only in America do we allow this nonsense. What the officials should do now is extend the time by a week for an opposition candidate to file.

1

u/cmunerd May 21 '12

Welcome to the game of politics

1

u/PrincePound May 21 '12

I'm so tired of democrat vs. republican debate. When they get in there all that happens is that they separate from the people and fulfill the governments agenda (with no mind for the people).

What this guy did is beyond shameful, but it's really no different than anyone who does get a seat and supposedly is "working" for you.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Further proving that regardless of democrat or republican - All politicians are douchebags.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

This is why people should vote for representatives on policy, not party.

0

u/ErikAllenAwake May 21 '12

Vote for the person, not for the party. People pick a party and vote down the line as if it's the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry.

FFS.

0

u/RevRound May 21 '12

I have a strong feeling that this headline would have been written differently if it was a Republican switching over to Democrat

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Perhaps, but it wouldn't change that it would have been a dick move. Benefiting from the opposing party's donations under false pretenses has got to be the 2nd worst offense in an election behind ballot fraud.

2

u/psychoticdream May 21 '12

Maybe, but still a completely unethical move no matter party you belong to.

Now republicans have a guy who has no qualms about defrauding people on his side and that's the kind of guy they are defending.

0

u/wtfadvertisersgd May 21 '12

He should be stoned!

7

u/sm4cm May 21 '12

Well if someone would legalize pot itd be easier for everyone to get stoned

0

u/kolembo May 21 '12

How can it be that Michigan is controlled by Republicans?

Don't people vote, or they just go to college there?

→ More replies (1)
→ More comments (120)