Another argument why it will be Kamala: the Democrat establishment knew Biden would not last through a second term when they cancelled the primaries. But they thought Biden could make it through the 2024 election before passing the torch. So they were cool with Kamala back in January.
The only reason why they might go against Kamala would be if they thought she was unelectable -- and there was a clearly more electable candidate sitting on the bench.
The former is likely true, but the bench is shallow and the chaos of a brokered convention might lead to bad optics.
Staged fluff vs. a real convention has been the MO of the gay space aliens behind the curtain for as long as I can remember.
Wonderful overview of a system that almost no American understands (and is perhaps meant NOT to understand).
"...the DNC really can unilaterally fill any vacancy in its national ticket, even when the vacancy is merely of a presumptive nominee, then staging a coup that bypasses the will of the Democratic voters is remarkably easy!"
I find it interesting that: Every state has laws governing primary elections, controlling such things as who can be on ballots, how they are counted, and how it is decided who the winner is. It seems that laws govern all of the primary process, up until the delegates are awarded to a particular candidate. I.e. the end, when the parties control the actual results and outcome. NO laws regulate that.
Laws govern EVERYTHING, but NOT the way the OUTCOME may be decided? I.e. by unelected powerful insiders. Oversight? Mistake? "Democracy"?
The party (in effect the major donors) controls the selection of candidates.
The same donors also control the media, through the same mechanism; the flow of funds to each media organisation, in this case via advertising rather than donations but the effect is the same.
The media duly talk up the candidates and make an loud and constant noise about the election. "democracy is on the ballot!",, most critical election ever, etc. You know the litany.
The voters, including party members, are thus distracted from the oligarchic control of the selection process, THE ONLY PROCESS THAT MATTERS, and persuaded/conditioned to focus all their time, their efforts, their passion, and their attention, on the election, WHICH HARDLY MATTERS AT ALL.
Yes, various donor factions are advantaged by various candidates, but certain eternal verities are consistently observed across all candidates. For example, the blessing of AIPAC, and a public commitment to the defense of Israeli interests is the minimum requirement to become a candidate for any high office.
In this manner the illusion of the people governing the nation is maintained, while the royal oligarch class maintains its power and wealth at the expense of everyone else.
That power and wealth is regularly increased by means of regularly engineered crises which the control of the parties (and through them the entire edifice of politics, including the legislature) provides them.
And that, in a repulsive nutshell, is politics throughout the West today.
That is perhaps the clearest, truest explanation of the U.S./Western political system that I have ever read anywhere. Brilliant, really. But it gets one thing wrong, ScuzzaMan, something I now finally understand after reading your nutshell explanation.
You say: The donors fund the media via advertising money. The media creates a narrative dictated to them by the donors. The narrative determines which politicians are elected, and the politicians control the government. The government then funnels money and privilege to the donors? Like a loop?
That makes a lot of sense. You get things right that no one seems to understand. At least won't say in public. You are right that the media is crucial. But maybe money is secondary. Instead of money driving the system, maybe the currency of the government/political system is power. So the source of the system is not donor money, it is the power that government regulators to, for example, put people in prison or to kill them. The government regulators have the power to create monopolies and favor one business over another.
Everyone else is playing a game of politics that's not unlike poker. They're competing to win the power that the government regulators have.
Because for one thing, most media doesn't get its revenue from advertising, for example the movie industry, book publishing, so donors can't control them, and yet they are as far left as the rest of the media. In a way, the media is the key to the whole system. Protected by the 1st Amendment from government control and intervention, the media are not lackeys of the donors, the media is the headwaters of leftism.
It’s probably a parallel discussion to the structure of modern politics. More of a ‘how did it get to be this way and why it is trapped in this loop?’, perhaps.
There’s a complex interplay between power and money. The “public servants” with power but without money tend to leverage their power to acquire money. Think Nancy Pelosi.
The wealthy without power tend to leverage their money to acquire power (or at least control over the powerful). Think Bill Gates.
The wealthy AND powerful are most dangerous and typically most invisible. Exceptions such as President Donald Trump are perceived as dangerous by all except their most ardent supporters, because they can’t be as easily led and controlled as the others who’re still pursuing what they don’t possess.
But these are just scattered observations that I haven’t tried to integrate at this point. Worthy of further consideration and discussion, certainly.
"...scattered observations that I haven’t tried to integrate..."
Yes, that's me, too. I am trying to come up with a clear and correct understanding/explanation of the system.
What is the true role of the media?
What is the true role of donor money?
What is the true position of the government regulators in the system?
Most people seem to think that a few mega-wealthy individuals control the system from behind the scenes. I wonder if that is true or an illusion. How does the system really work?
Thank you for this dive into the rules for how the process ought to work. But remember, we are talking about Demoncrats here. They love to pass intricate laws and regulations, but those laws and regulations are applied only to people they do not like. For the Demoncrats themselves, the rules are whatever they need to be today.
It is also interesting that you highlight the incompatibilities between different laws & rules. This is another feature that is important to Demoncrats. That way, they can do whatever they want in any particular occasion, and point to whichever rule or regulation supports that action.
Local example -- the Demoncrat County Commission in my area established land use provisions which (a) prohibited development on ridgelines, to protect "viewscapes", and (b) gave priority to the erection of windmills, for "green energy". Of course, the only place it makes sense to erect a windmill is ... on a ridgeline. However, the contradiction between the two policies did not disturb the Demoncrat commissioners. And local Demoncrat lawyers rubbed their hands in glee, anticipating the never-ending land use cases they would get paid to pursue.
Agreed with all of the above. I thought it worthwhile to "steel man" the situation and assume that we actually had rule of law and see what outcomes were possible.
Some very interesting insights into the Democratic Party decision making. I don't doubt the Republican Party has its own "quirks" too.
At an even more fundamental level, "first past the post" electoral systems plague the US and the anglosphere in general. FPTP systems are easier to game, easier to gerrymander, and less reflective of voter wishes than proportional representation systems.
Proportional representation give fringe movements a bigger seat at the table.
Approval Voting or Range Voting would allow multi-way contests at the district level, but would heavily favor candidates that are centrist. Those wanting to start new parties with new ideas would have to think gradual vs. radical.
Approval is where you vote for all the candidates that you find acceptable.
Range is where you rate each candidate on a scale, much like judging a gymnastics event. Grade point average is a form of range vote for valedictorian. Range and approval avoid the vote splitting problems inherent in ranked choice schemes. If you like two candidates equally, you can rate them equally.
How do Approval and Range voting handle manipulation by one side or the other - e.g. in Approval voting I'd only approve "my" candidate and in Range voting give a trash score to everyone except "my" candidate.
Worst case gaming for Range Voting is honest plurality voting. By honest, I mean that it never pays not to give your favorite candidate ten stars in a 0-10 range ballot. Those worried about Lesser of Two Evil dilemmas might also give a 10 to their more likely fallback candidate -- which is simply Range degenerating into Approval.
For Ranked Choice if there are strongly divisive candidates with respective enthusiastic bases, unifying moderates get eliminated. Consider a country with strong Nazi and Communist parties which hate each other passionately. Throw in several flavors of centrists. If the Nazis and Communists can each get a hair over a third of the first choice votes, then all the moderates get eliminated, even if they are the second favorite of the Nazis and Communists.
Such divided extremism is common in tribal countries. Take Iraq. You might have a Sunni extremist, a Kurd separatist, a Shiite extremist, and an assortment of ideological parties (capitalist, social democrat, etc.). The three tribal parties hate each other so they rank their tribal opponents last and put the more unifying candidates in between. But since these tribes are strong and make up most of the country, the moderates are likely to be eliminated. Expect civil war.
With Range Voting, a unifying leader is likely to emerge victorious, as each tribe will give zeroes to the opposing tribal candidates.
A very large fraction of our military spending has gone to picking up the pieces in failed republics and democracies due to tribalism. Range Voting is an extremely important cause.
BTW, here is an online demo of the various voting systems in action using the 2020 presidential race. Back when it first came out, Andrew Yang was doing well for Range and Approval. As time passed, Bernie Bros has taken over.
Fair points. I will say that fringe movements can still wreak havoc in FPTP systems. Worse, take over one or both of the "natural parties of government".
They are wreaking havoc in large part because many districts are one-party districts. When we don't run RINOs or independents in deep blue districts, the crazies get elected just as in proportional representation. Graphical demonstration here:
As we hang from the tree of woe, I cannot help but think that, like the vultures that surround us, so too are the vultures which surround and would feed upon our federated republic. The dinner bell rang many years ago, 1860 to be exact, and the vultures have been circling ever since. I found your recitation of the demonrat party rules as informative as they are irrelevant. International banking interest and the Federal Reserve (I know, I repeat myself) are the ones calling the shots. The only peaceful solution to this whole problem is the secession of States or parts there-of who seek to re-establish the original constitutional order established in 1789 and usurped in 1861. We must make the necessary correction/clarifications to the 1787 constitution with a particular emphasis on requiring a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass legislation. (George Mason and John C. Calhoun). Majoritarianism must be removed. The unanimous consent required by the Articles of Confederation were a bridge too far, but simple numeric majorities in the legislatures is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. We are not now, nor have we ever been a single "nation." We are a constitutional federation with what was supposed to be an EXTREMELY limited general government and powerful State governments. How we live in Virginia is nobody else's business but our own. As President Jefferson Davis once said, "we ask only to be left alone." That principle applies to every other State. I think we would all be amazed at how peaceful things would be in this union if everyone minded their own business. Immigrate to whatever State best reflects your principles. True adherents to the principle of diversity will leave those they disagree with ALONE! Peaceful secession NOW. It will drive the vultures away!
Understood. It does not escape my notice, however, that the "evil" Soviet Union under Gorbachev had the vast majority of its States secede without a violent war in the 1990's. As a Christian, I am obligated and truly believe in advocating peaceful secession. It is possible. Perhaps, by advocating peaceful secession, I can convince enough people that we ultimately control how this moves forward. If we want peace and turn to God, we can have it. It is as simple as saying no to the powers that be. I also know that the Demonics who control this world in the short term will never allow peaceful secession to occur. As always speak to peace but be prepared to defend home and hearth. What is past is prologue. Have a vulture for lunch. It will take your mind off your woes! LOL
If ever there was a case to support your work, then this article is it. By your putting the knife between your teeth and diving into the swamp with this exhaustive report is, in my estimation, what sets you and the many astute writers on the Tree Of Woe and on Substack in general apart from all the pundits on the public squares across the internet. Well done and thank you. I'll become a paid sub as soon as possible.
This is exactly how Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee and orchestrated all of it. In 2018 the entire world witnessed Joe Biden was not fit to serve and only now - is withdrawing? You would have to be an imbecile not to know all of this was premeditated. For 2 years they said there would be no debates whatsoever and then presto magic, they invite Trump to a debate and feign astonishment? I would like to know who threw him under the bus? They claim he only listens to Jill.
How does Hillary pull this off? First and foremost that woman harbors so much anger and resentment she would never, ever allow another "woman" to steal what she vehemently believes is rightfully hers. Toss in another huge dosage of voter fraud and when Trump loses again this time they'll blame Bobby Kennedy Jr. for being the spoiler which is why it was so imperative he made him his VP - for no other reason than this very scenario. The ten million votes he's bound to garner seals Trumps victory.
What are the rules for being able to remove Vance as Trumps VP - and what is the latest date?
Fascinating, complicated, and likely irrelevant.
Today's Democrats are Borg. Harris will be the nominee.
Another argument why it will be Kamala: the Democrat establishment knew Biden would not last through a second term when they cancelled the primaries. But they thought Biden could make it through the 2024 election before passing the torch. So they were cool with Kamala back in January.
The only reason why they might go against Kamala would be if they thought she was unelectable -- and there was a clearly more electable candidate sitting on the bench.
The former is likely true, but the bench is shallow and the chaos of a brokered convention might lead to bad optics.
Staged fluff vs. a real convention has been the MO of the gay space aliens behind the curtain for as long as I can remember.
Wonderful overview of a system that almost no American understands (and is perhaps meant NOT to understand).
"...the DNC really can unilaterally fill any vacancy in its national ticket, even when the vacancy is merely of a presumptive nominee, then staging a coup that bypasses the will of the Democratic voters is remarkably easy!"
I find it interesting that: Every state has laws governing primary elections, controlling such things as who can be on ballots, how they are counted, and how it is decided who the winner is. It seems that laws govern all of the primary process, up until the delegates are awarded to a particular candidate. I.e. the end, when the parties control the actual results and outcome. NO laws regulate that.
Laws govern EVERYTHING, but NOT the way the OUTCOME may be decided? I.e. by unelected powerful insiders. Oversight? Mistake? "Democracy"?
"Democracy" indeed
The party (in effect the major donors) controls the selection of candidates.
The same donors also control the media, through the same mechanism; the flow of funds to each media organisation, in this case via advertising rather than donations but the effect is the same.
The media duly talk up the candidates and make an loud and constant noise about the election. "democracy is on the ballot!",, most critical election ever, etc. You know the litany.
The voters, including party members, are thus distracted from the oligarchic control of the selection process, THE ONLY PROCESS THAT MATTERS, and persuaded/conditioned to focus all their time, their efforts, their passion, and their attention, on the election, WHICH HARDLY MATTERS AT ALL.
Yes, various donor factions are advantaged by various candidates, but certain eternal verities are consistently observed across all candidates. For example, the blessing of AIPAC, and a public commitment to the defense of Israeli interests is the minimum requirement to become a candidate for any high office.
In this manner the illusion of the people governing the nation is maintained, while the royal oligarch class maintains its power and wealth at the expense of everyone else.
That power and wealth is regularly increased by means of regularly engineered crises which the control of the parties (and through them the entire edifice of politics, including the legislature) provides them.
And that, in a repulsive nutshell, is politics throughout the West today.
That is perhaps the clearest, truest explanation of the U.S./Western political system that I have ever read anywhere. Brilliant, really. But it gets one thing wrong, ScuzzaMan, something I now finally understand after reading your nutshell explanation.
Please tell me.
“The wise man seeks correction.”
You say: The donors fund the media via advertising money. The media creates a narrative dictated to them by the donors. The narrative determines which politicians are elected, and the politicians control the government. The government then funnels money and privilege to the donors? Like a loop?
That makes a lot of sense. You get things right that no one seems to understand. At least won't say in public. You are right that the media is crucial. But maybe money is secondary. Instead of money driving the system, maybe the currency of the government/political system is power. So the source of the system is not donor money, it is the power that government regulators to, for example, put people in prison or to kill them. The government regulators have the power to create monopolies and favor one business over another.
Everyone else is playing a game of politics that's not unlike poker. They're competing to win the power that the government regulators have.
Because for one thing, most media doesn't get its revenue from advertising, for example the movie industry, book publishing, so donors can't control them, and yet they are as far left as the rest of the media. In a way, the media is the key to the whole system. Protected by the 1st Amendment from government control and intervention, the media are not lackeys of the donors, the media is the headwaters of leftism.
It’s a theory.
I like it.
It’s probably a parallel discussion to the structure of modern politics. More of a ‘how did it get to be this way and why it is trapped in this loop?’, perhaps.
There’s a complex interplay between power and money. The “public servants” with power but without money tend to leverage their power to acquire money. Think Nancy Pelosi.
The wealthy without power tend to leverage their money to acquire power (or at least control over the powerful). Think Bill Gates.
The wealthy AND powerful are most dangerous and typically most invisible. Exceptions such as President Donald Trump are perceived as dangerous by all except their most ardent supporters, because they can’t be as easily led and controlled as the others who’re still pursuing what they don’t possess.
But these are just scattered observations that I haven’t tried to integrate at this point. Worthy of further consideration and discussion, certainly.
Thank you for your thoughts.
"...scattered observations that I haven’t tried to integrate..."
Yes, that's me, too. I am trying to come up with a clear and correct understanding/explanation of the system.
What is the true role of the media?
What is the true role of donor money?
What is the true position of the government regulators in the system?
Most people seem to think that a few mega-wealthy individuals control the system from behind the scenes. I wonder if that is true or an illusion. How does the system really work?
Bravo!
Seems like the Democratic Party is not that democratic wink
wink wink
Western "democracy" is not that democratic. And our freedom is an illusion. The whole thing is bullshit.
Thank you for this dive into the rules for how the process ought to work. But remember, we are talking about Demoncrats here. They love to pass intricate laws and regulations, but those laws and regulations are applied only to people they do not like. For the Demoncrats themselves, the rules are whatever they need to be today.
It is also interesting that you highlight the incompatibilities between different laws & rules. This is another feature that is important to Demoncrats. That way, they can do whatever they want in any particular occasion, and point to whichever rule or regulation supports that action.
Local example -- the Demoncrat County Commission in my area established land use provisions which (a) prohibited development on ridgelines, to protect "viewscapes", and (b) gave priority to the erection of windmills, for "green energy". Of course, the only place it makes sense to erect a windmill is ... on a ridgeline. However, the contradiction between the two policies did not disturb the Demoncrat commissioners. And local Demoncrat lawyers rubbed their hands in glee, anticipating the never-ending land use cases they would get paid to pursue.
Agreed with all of the above. I thought it worthwhile to "steel man" the situation and assume that we actually had rule of law and see what outcomes were possible.
Some very interesting insights into the Democratic Party decision making. I don't doubt the Republican Party has its own "quirks" too.
At an even more fundamental level, "first past the post" electoral systems plague the US and the anglosphere in general. FPTP systems are easier to game, easier to gerrymander, and less reflective of voter wishes than proportional representation systems.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/proportional-representation
https://protectdemocracy.org/work/proportional-representation-explained/
https://uk-engage.org/2013/08/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-a-proportional-representation-pr-electoral-system/
Proportional representation give fringe movements a bigger seat at the table.
Approval Voting or Range Voting would allow multi-way contests at the district level, but would heavily favor candidates that are centrist. Those wanting to start new parties with new ideas would have to think gradual vs. radical.
What are "Approval" and "Range" voting?
Approval is where you vote for all the candidates that you find acceptable.
Range is where you rate each candidate on a scale, much like judging a gymnastics event. Grade point average is a form of range vote for valedictorian. Range and approval avoid the vote splitting problems inherent in ranked choice schemes. If you like two candidates equally, you can rate them equally.
https://rangevoting.org/
How do Approval and Range voting handle manipulation by one side or the other - e.g. in Approval voting I'd only approve "my" candidate and in Range voting give a trash score to everyone except "my" candidate.
What are the problems with ranked choice schemes?
Worst case gaming for Range Voting is honest plurality voting. By honest, I mean that it never pays not to give your favorite candidate ten stars in a 0-10 range ballot. Those worried about Lesser of Two Evil dilemmas might also give a 10 to their more likely fallback candidate -- which is simply Range degenerating into Approval.
For Ranked Choice if there are strongly divisive candidates with respective enthusiastic bases, unifying moderates get eliminated. Consider a country with strong Nazi and Communist parties which hate each other passionately. Throw in several flavors of centrists. If the Nazis and Communists can each get a hair over a third of the first choice votes, then all the moderates get eliminated, even if they are the second favorite of the Nazis and Communists.
Such divided extremism is common in tribal countries. Take Iraq. You might have a Sunni extremist, a Kurd separatist, a Shiite extremist, and an assortment of ideological parties (capitalist, social democrat, etc.). The three tribal parties hate each other so they rank their tribal opponents last and put the more unifying candidates in between. But since these tribes are strong and make up most of the country, the moderates are likely to be eliminated. Expect civil war.
With Range Voting, a unifying leader is likely to emerge victorious, as each tribe will give zeroes to the opposing tribal candidates.
A very large fraction of our military spending has gone to picking up the pieces in failed republics and democracies due to tribalism. Range Voting is an extremely important cause.
BTW, here is an online demo of the various voting systems in action using the 2020 presidential race. Back when it first came out, Andrew Yang was doing well for Range and Approval. As time passed, Bernie Bros has taken over.
https://quiz2d.com/g2020/
Note how complicated a ranked choice ballot is when there are many candidates. Note also how difficult it is to report the results.
Range Vote subtotals from precincts can be added up to make the Range Vote total. This is NOT the case for Ranked Choice!
Thanks for taking the time to explain it. cheers!
Fair points. I will say that fringe movements can still wreak havoc in FPTP systems. Worse, take over one or both of the "natural parties of government".
They are wreaking havoc in large part because many districts are one-party districts. When we don't run RINOs or independents in deep blue districts, the crazies get elected just as in proportional representation. Graphical demonstration here:
https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/rule-8-leave-no-district-unchallenged
(And more recently, I have done series on building better RINOs.)
After the failed assassination of Trump's ear it became undeniable that he will be installed. All this Dem circus is just that.
You forgot the rule that the system really runs on:
“Either play ball with our choice, or, you won’t get a seat at the table when we push them through, anyway.”
As we hang from the tree of woe, I cannot help but think that, like the vultures that surround us, so too are the vultures which surround and would feed upon our federated republic. The dinner bell rang many years ago, 1860 to be exact, and the vultures have been circling ever since. I found your recitation of the demonrat party rules as informative as they are irrelevant. International banking interest and the Federal Reserve (I know, I repeat myself) are the ones calling the shots. The only peaceful solution to this whole problem is the secession of States or parts there-of who seek to re-establish the original constitutional order established in 1789 and usurped in 1861. We must make the necessary correction/clarifications to the 1787 constitution with a particular emphasis on requiring a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass legislation. (George Mason and John C. Calhoun). Majoritarianism must be removed. The unanimous consent required by the Articles of Confederation were a bridge too far, but simple numeric majorities in the legislatures is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. We are not now, nor have we ever been a single "nation." We are a constitutional federation with what was supposed to be an EXTREMELY limited general government and powerful State governments. How we live in Virginia is nobody else's business but our own. As President Jefferson Davis once said, "we ask only to be left alone." That principle applies to every other State. I think we would all be amazed at how peaceful things would be in this union if everyone minded their own business. Immigrate to whatever State best reflects your principles. True adherents to the principle of diversity will leave those they disagree with ALONE! Peaceful secession NOW. It will drive the vultures away!
Deo VIndice.
Indeed. I am (unfortunately) skeptical that a peaceful secession will be permitted, if it's even tried. Of course, it's my job to be woeful.
Understood. It does not escape my notice, however, that the "evil" Soviet Union under Gorbachev had the vast majority of its States secede without a violent war in the 1990's. As a Christian, I am obligated and truly believe in advocating peaceful secession. It is possible. Perhaps, by advocating peaceful secession, I can convince enough people that we ultimately control how this moves forward. If we want peace and turn to God, we can have it. It is as simple as saying no to the powers that be. I also know that the Demonics who control this world in the short term will never allow peaceful secession to occur. As always speak to peace but be prepared to defend home and hearth. What is past is prologue. Have a vulture for lunch. It will take your mind off your woes! LOL
They'll ask him to take a seat and pull out. Nothing set yet, they're still trying to couch it in terms that will cushion the chaos it causes.
Fascinating article, thank you.
The endorsements of Harris could come so fast by virtue of them being but compliance to a direction from above; naturally.
Oh dear, oh my..
I’ve only today noticed this sad skeleton, although I trudge this way often.
Your research is much appreciated.
My first thought on hearing of Joe’s capitulation was:
“Oh boy, an old school convention!
A back room deal or huge floor fight! Anything but the usual slick production.
Maybe the limo donors will force the party to the center!”
I’m disgusted with both parties and both candidates.
“Hisss!”
If ever there was a case to support your work, then this article is it. By your putting the knife between your teeth and diving into the swamp with this exhaustive report is, in my estimation, what sets you and the many astute writers on the Tree Of Woe and on Substack in general apart from all the pundits on the public squares across the internet. Well done and thank you. I'll become a paid sub as soon as possible.
Thank you, that's really kind! It's good to know there's an audience for these sorts of deep dives.
Oh there is when it is written well like this.
This is exactly how Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee and orchestrated all of it. In 2018 the entire world witnessed Joe Biden was not fit to serve and only now - is withdrawing? You would have to be an imbecile not to know all of this was premeditated. For 2 years they said there would be no debates whatsoever and then presto magic, they invite Trump to a debate and feign astonishment? I would like to know who threw him under the bus? They claim he only listens to Jill.
How does Hillary pull this off? First and foremost that woman harbors so much anger and resentment she would never, ever allow another "woman" to steal what she vehemently believes is rightfully hers. Toss in another huge dosage of voter fraud and when Trump loses again this time they'll blame Bobby Kennedy Jr. for being the spoiler which is why it was so imperative he made him his VP - for no other reason than this very scenario. The ten million votes he's bound to garner seals Trumps victory.
What are the rules for being able to remove Vance as Trumps VP - and what is the latest date?
Good thoughts.
I don't know about the rules for removing Vance - is that in the air? I have been knee deep in "democracy"!
They'll ask him to take a seat and pull out. Nothing concrete yet, they're still trying to couch it in terms that will cushion the chaos it causes.
Excellent, thank you.