There are sound and principled reasons, entirely within the bounds of liberal democratic theory, for why they aren't holding elections. But it is extremely obvious if they did, Zelenesky would be re-elected in a landslide. - ThreadSky

andycraig.bsky.social • 1 day ago

There are sound and principled reasons, entirely within the bounds of liberal democratic theory, for why they aren't holding elections. But it is extremely obvious if they did, Zelenesky would be re-elected in a landslide.

Reposted from Adam Kinzinger

Zelenskys support in Ukraine went up 15 points to 67 after the Oval Office meeting.

Comments

nowhere.bsky.social•23 hours ago

Will they be able to sufficiently secure the next election from attacks?

yeargain.bsky.social•10 hours ago

relatedly, I fully expect that the Trump administration would, relying on the United States's historic role in international election observation, accuse the Ukrainian government of rigging the election, which would be catastrophic for international election integrity and neutral observation

tomwwhittington.bsky.social•5 hours ago

He’s polled behind zaluzhny recently, not that it’s clear he’s running. So it’s not inconceivable that he’d lose.

But regardless I’d be curious to hear about the reasons. I often feel that if Lincoln did an election in 1864 (and ‘62) there’s not really an excuse. But I’d be glad to be wrong on this

juanpablodewes.bsky.social•4 hours ago

Regardless of the technicalities, the US doing something 150 years ago isn’t a reason that other countries have to do the same thing today.

tomwwhittington.bsky.social•5 hours ago

(To be clear I think Zelenskyy is popular, just saying that support for him is not limitless)

andycraig.bsky.social•4 hours ago

There was no constitutional mechanism in US law for postponing the 1864 election. It was remarkable that it was still conducted as it was, I've written about that, but it's remarkable because it was so extraordinary with few other parallels. Democracies postponing elections in wartime is typical. 1/

andycraig.bsky.social•4 hours ago

And in particular, the Ukrainian constitution forbids holding elections under martial law, and the reason for that isn't just wartime practicality, it's to guard against legitimizing sham elections if martial law powers are being abused. Those emergency powers touch on free speech and such.

/x

andycraig.bsky.social•4 hours ago

add.: Most famously, this is why the UK parliament elected in 1935 sat until 1945, well beyond the usual five-year max. rule. But in their system, that sort of constitutional change could be made by simple act of Parliament, which they did. In the US it would require a constitutional amendment.

tomwwhittington.bsky.social•4 hours ago

That is helpful thanks! Do you happen to have a link to what you’ve written about 1864?

andycraig.bsky.social•4 hours ago

libraryofcontext.bsky.social•3 hours ago

Zaluzhny has said that questions about elections should wait and now Ukraine should be focused on preserving their state.

lowrhoufo.bsky.social•3 hours ago

And like if Zaluzhny did over take him for unforeseen reasons, that wouldn't do what Trump wanted it to at all.

If it weren't either of them, you'd get Uranilo Plutochenko whose entire campaign would be powerpoints about how to spin up a nuclear program

hoodiecraw.bsky.social•3 hours ago

Afaik Uranilo Plutochenko would currently win by something like 239:235 seats, so might be a less stable situation then...

lucystag.bsky.social•4 hours ago

I'm middling on the elections thing, but it's awesomely convenient for a dictator to hold occasional 99 percent meeee elections while putting a different leader's back against the wall, then going "look! He's a tyrant!" as you try to take over.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply