Alana Moceri

El absurdo sistema de primarias de Estados Unidos

El caucus de Iowa, la primera votación de las elecciones primarias para elegir al candidato en el país, fue -utilizando un lenguaje propio de Trump- un auténtico desastre. Ahora bien, esta no es más que la punta del iceberg del caótico, imperfecto y, francamente, absurdo sistema de escoger a los candidatos presidenciales en Estados Unidos y que, en su forma actual, se remonta a 1972. El sistema de primarias no está incluido en la Constitución —de hecho, sus artífices ni siquiera creían en los partidos políticos—, sino que se ha desarrollado de forma aleatoria en los órganos nacionales y estatales de los partidos y es una anomalía en comparación con otras democracias del mundo. Sin embargo, no está nada claro que el fiasco de Iowa vaya a ser suficiente para generar cambios en el sistema de elección del llamado “líder del mundo libre”. (leer articulo en esglobal / read English version)

The absurd U.S. primary system

The first-in-country Iowa caucus was—to use Trumpian language—a total disaster. However, this are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the unruly, imperfect and, frankly, absurd U.S. system of choosing presidential candidates that has existed in its current form since 1972. It is not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and in fact, the framers of the constitution didn’t even believe in political parties. Instead, this system has evolved haphazardly within the national and state party institutions and is an anomaly compared to other democracies in the world. Yet, it is far from certain that the Iowa fiasco will be enough even to bring about change in the system the elects the so-called “leader of the free world.”

Entrevista en El Mundo en 24h

 

El mundo en 24 horas - 07/02/20

 

Entrevista con Las Mañanas de RNE

Hablé con las Mañanas RNE sobre el discurso del estado de la Union de Trump, la tension con Nancy Pelosi y el desastre en Iowa.

"El 'impeachment' de Trump no ha cambiado las opiniones"

 

Iowa va primero sin ninguna razón

Si usted es de Iowa, tiene el privilegio de reunirse con todos los candidatos a las elecciones presidenciales que desee, y además su voto es más poderoso que cualquier otro en las primarias de Estados Unidos. ¿Por qué? Porque desde 1972 su estado fue el primero en celebrar las primarias, lo que otorga a sus ciudadanos un papel decisivo en el desarrollo de las nominaciones de cada partido.

No hay ninguna razón para que esta situación se mantenga, pero la tradición persiste y voy a explicar por qué esta costumbre es perjudicial para la democracia estadounidense. (leer tribuna en El Español / English version)

Iowa goes first for no good reason at all

If you are from the state of Iowa, you have the privilege of meeting every presidential candidate you wish to meet, and your vote is more powerful than any other primary vote in the country. Why? Because since 1972 your state has gone first in the primaries, giving the people of Iowa a profound impact on who becomes the nominees for each party. There is no reason whatsoever for this, yet the tradition persists and I’m going to explain why this tradition is damaging to American democracy.

Impeachment as a legal or political process: Trump and Republicans are trying to have it both ways and they’ll probably get away with it.

As soon as Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States, impeachment became a very fashionable topic. Since then, I’ve spent a lot of time explaining impeachment with the most important point being that it is a political rather than legal process and decision. While the treason and bribery part in the U.S. Constitution is straightforward, the exact meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” isn’t. Despite that, there is consensus among impeachment scholars that it is an institutional mechanism that exists to remove officials who abuse their power from office.

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell certainly knows this because he actually told reporters that “This is a political process. I’m not impartial about this at all.” Yet, Trump’s all-star team of lawyers have concluded their impeachment defense, making a legal argument that amounts to “no crime, no impeachment.” They reject the House impeachment not because Trump didn’t abuse the power of the presidency but because he did not commit an ordinary crime. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if Trump abused his powers by attempting to bully Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 presidential campaign for his own benefit. It doesn’t matter if Republicans allow John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Advisor to testify and corroborate this. What does is whether or not there was a violation of established law.

Will Catalan Separatists Be the Downfall of Spain’s New Coalition Government?

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s new Cabinet was sworn in last week, marking the official start of Spain’s first coalition government since its democratic transition in the 1970s. Sanchez’s Socialist Party won a general election in November but failed to secure an outright majority in the legislature. After weeks of negotiations, the lower house of Spain’s parliament earlier this month narrowly approved Sanchez’s proposal for a coalition with the far-left Podemos party, by 167 votes to 165, with 18 abstentions. (read my article for the World Politics Review)

Entrevista con la Tarde de la COPE

Puedes escucharlo aquí sobre las :30.

Entrevista sobre el impeachment con Las Mañanas de RNE

Hablé con Las Mañanas de RNE sobre el impeachment.

Juicio político contra Trump: Un proceso histórico