ARTICLE: Is Government Legitimate Without the Right to Vote?

[goldcatt]

i think that because the partisan system is older than our government and was assumed into our government in the run-up to the election of the second congress, it is a non-distinguishable and inseparable part of how our political system works.

countries with a plurality of parties have problems which i feel are directly attributable to their system of partisan participation and the fact that it does not achieve the moderation that ours does.

i argue that examples of close-margined elections in the US are subject to this system and are different than those issues raised by multi-party systems. in those set-ups, it is not uncommon for a candidate to receive the highest amount of votes, but only have 20% or 30% of the voters support with the remainder shared among other contenders. i say such a weak mandate is not acceptable on a routine basis. not in congress; not in the exec.

i think that a two party system provides more opposition and accountability than marginal parties could offer. we need not look any further than the republicans who have been reduced to a marginal party (without the capacity to throw even a filibuster). they were unable to moderate government in a way i feel is effective or characteristic of typical american politics. when they're back into their own next year, i think our government will have more balance than you propose is possible with blocs.

there's less subtlety in this for me. i see multi-party governments as chaotic. as annoying as individuals who have chosen to support policy exactly as a party has organized it may seem, it is more sensible than the fist-fights and deadlocks in southern europe.

Therein lies a fundamental difference in what we each value in government, I think. I prefer good policy rather than stable electoral politics, and would welcome more rough and tumble in order to shape that policy rather than a choice limited to two mostly unresponsive, self-serving and ideologically static private interest groups that have both failed to address fundamental policy issues - whether they had a mandate or not. Our system is fundamentally different from those of southern Europe and rather than becoming unstable, is designed to absorb vigorous debate within branches as well as between them and among the various levels of government.

The protection of those two major parties by the government basically only serves to prop up shells of private organizations that have failed, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, many others as evidenced by the increasing number of nonpartisan voters. In some States, nonpartisans disillusioned by the two parties and the system that supports them are now the largest registered group of voters. This demonstrates a problem: that the two-party system may be efficient as far as tactical politics, but is ultimately failing in creating policy and is seen as largely unresponsive to the people their members govern. Continuing to coddle them and freeze out competition for the sake of avoiding additional debate merely exacerbates the problem, IMO.

I remain convinced that tactics and electoral strategies including the political capital of a mandate and how that is to be spent are merely a means to an end - that end being well-vetted, solid policy. It's not a failure to understand the importance or workings of partisan or electoral tactics, it's merely a refusal to buy into them as defining "the system" or "the government" and accepting that we must support one of their two private ideological agendas, that nothing can or will change to shake up the system in order to shake up the kind of policies we've been getting. We need to be more than reindeer games between two private entities that are shielded from outside competition and the consequences of their own mistakes.

 

[antagon]

i just base this on the outcomes of US government over a couple centuries, and i'm impressed with the innovation in american policy making. i persist in the belief that our party system has lent to that legacy. it can be tracked from concept to execution through partisan politics in the several acts and arguments that comprise it. what model empowers your ideas?

...private organizations that have failed, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, many others as evidenced by the increasing number of nonpartisan voters...

being an independent voter does not constitute a failure of minimal parties. not all independents are bent on dissolving parties altogether. in fact, they might be like myself and see the value in having parties court them with policy instead of signing on blindly. i dont see the point of membership if your're not running for office, really.

 

[goldcatt]

No, not all independents are bent on dissolving the partisan system altogether. I'm not arguing for any such thing either. What I am arguing for is a level playing field to give voters the choice between all players, parties and nonpartisans alike, who can meet the exact same certification requirements for the ballot. If that should lead to a bloc of independents or minor party players represented in the State Houses and Congress, so be it. To me, it would be welcome. It would also restore the equality of speech and association clearly envisioned by the Framers by not penalizing "unpopular" messages and points of view.

Put another way, if the two-party system is so obviously the correct choice and the voters will necessarily gravitate toward one or the other, why does the law protect the two parties from competition? What is the harm in allowing voters freedom of choice at the ballot box among all qualified and willing candidates?

I would also hesitate to compare late-18th and 19th-Century partisan politics with today's formalized and protected structures. Even in the early 20th Century the modern partisan welfare system had not yet evolved as a systemic force, as evidenced by movements like the Bull Moose and the lack of primary elections. The parties were still openly functioning as private entities, for one. Not private entities treating themselves as "the government" and voting themselves special protections.

That last is what keeps sticking with me. If any other duopoly of private interests were controlling government and voting themselves protections to make sure it stayed that way no matter how badly they screwed up, it would be called corruption. It IS corruption. And yet because they are organized as private political parties rather than 529s or labor unions, it's accepted as a matter of course by many people who buy into their implied claim that they are not separate, private entities. I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the concept, I'll admit.

 

[antagon]

do regulations call out the major parties, or do they merely favor incumbent parties? in cases where the latter is employed, i argue that's good policy. it is the reason why we dont have a multi-party system, just a power party and an opposition in national politics.

there's been primary election systems for 200 years, i think the state by state use of member-voters to pick candidates is what has come in to form in the last 60 years. you prefer the closed party caucus idea? the status quo is a vast improvement, i say.

 

[goldcatt]

do regulations call out the major parties, or do they merely favor incumbent parties? in cases where the latter is employed, i argue that's good policy. it is the reason why we dont have a multi-party system, just a power party and an opposition in national politics.

there's been primary election systems for 200 years, i think the state by state use of member-voters to pick candidates is what has come in to form in the last 60 years. you prefer the closed party caucus idea? the status quo is a vast improvement, i say.

The regulations don't call out Democrats and Republicans by name, of course. That would be too facially discriminatory for even them to get away with (probably anyway). But the intended result is clear. The entire point is to place hurdles in the path of any but the favored duopoly. Whose members also happen to be the very same people who make those laws. Self-dealing, no?

No, closed caucuses aren't the answer. But neither are publicly administered and financed primary elections that are officially closed "Party" events. Voting themselves money from the public treasury to conduct their internal affairs while claiming the right to disenfranchise members of the public because they are not members of their private club is again private entities self-dealing with public resources. Closed primaries are fine, but then if they are Party events dealing with private Party internal affairs the Party should be paying for them out of their own pocket. The one benefit of the private caucus is that it maintains the distinction of the private organization conducting its own internal affairs rather than making the public do the work and foot the bill.

I keep going back to the mix of public and private here. What people keep missing is the private nature of the partisan entities. If any other privately operated organization were to use the laws and public funds to stifle competition and maintain their market share there would be outrage, and rightfully so. So why do we sit back and take it as a matter of course for the duopoly? Is it because they present themselves as "the government" and so we fail to make the distinction between them as private entities with a private agenda and the actual government whose power and money they're using for their own purposes?

 

[antagon]

i think it is a very important distinction that regulations do not call out parties. this means that if a party can obtain real broad-based support or get elected to office, that they too can enjoy the status which the incumbent parties have.

i think that primary matching funds are for candidates, not parties. is this what you are referring to? i think the rules for this favor marginal party candidates over marginally-supported major party candidates, and is commensurate with their own ability to raise funding.

is this the funding that you're talking about?

 

[goldcatt]

i think it is a very important distinction that regulations do not call out parties. this means that if a party can obtain real broad-based support or get elected to office, that they too can enjoy the status which the incumbent parties have.

i think that primary matching funds are for candidates, not parties. is this what you are referring to? i think the rules for this favor marginal party candidates over marginally-supported major party candidates, and is commensurate with their own ability to raise funding.

is this the funding that you're talking about?

No, I'm not talking about partisan tactics and campaigns.

The funding I'm talking about is the millions laid out by the States to conduct the actual primary election, in the form of (usually) paying rent for the premises, printing the ballots, paying the poll workers, maintaining and programming the machines, and so on. Holding an election is extremely expensive.

Here's an example. I'm an election judge for a single ward in one tiny town, it's my job to pay some of those bills. For my minuscule ward alone the tab for personnel, rent and other incidentals (if people make off with all of the pens for provisionals, for example) runs into the thousands - and that doesn't include the centralized equipment, tech, office and other expenses paid by the County. Multiply that times every polling place in the State and you have a tab into the tens of millions. Multiply that amount by every State that holds a partisan primary and the private Parties could never afford it if they were actually paying for their own internal candidate selection.

And every thin dime is taxpayer money, appropriated by partisans to fund their own Parties, being used to conduct the internal business of the private organization.

To add insult to injury, because it is considered the internal affairs of a private organization in many States the taxpayers who pay for that private internal business to be conducted are not allowed to vote in the election their money pays for unless they are a member of the private club. The private organizations are conducting their private affairs with their private members using the public purse.

Could you imagine a corporation holding their annual shareholder's meeting completely on the public dime to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and nobody thinks twice? Self-dealing.

In a caucus system the public is not required to fund the vast majority of the actual process of selecting a partisan candidate - which is rightfully the private organization's internal affairs and financial responsibility. The parties themselves take care of business. Which is why even though there are drawbacks they have a distinct advantage over primaries in that they use primarily private funds to perform their private internal affairs. There is minimal or no (mis)appropriation of public funds to conduct private business.

I will add that I distinguish an Iowa-style party caucus from the old fashioned closed, convention caucus here. The Iowa-style caucus I approve of, the old smoke-filled room is too opaque.

As far as the distinction between naming Parties in discriminatory law or simply designing them to be discriminatory in function, the 14th jurisprudence as a whole makes no distinction. A law can be discriminatory on its face or in practice, intentionally or unintentionally, or even enforced in a discriminatory manner - under any of these scenarios it is still discriminatory. The net effect is squelching unpopular points of view, an infringement on 1st Amendment rights of speech and association when it comes to a State sponsored activity such as ballot access. The fact that the entrenched interests get away with it is no surprise, but it is still an incorrect decision.

 

[antagon]

i don't follow the idea that unpopular points of view are being discriminated against with campaign financing allocations. instead, i think that if the government is going to finance conventions, that care has to be taken in reducing the chance for people to exploit the largess with bogus campaigning. this already happens, particularly at the local level where folks run to raise money and gain popularity for their personal gain. at the national level, parties are categorized by their portion of the electorate in the last presidential election. if a third party garnered over 25% of the vote in a preceding election, they too could access the funding that the Rs and Ds do. this is a demonstration of the broad-based support which i think the government is right to support.

i really havent put much thought to the convention funding thing. if i was some kind of lawyer that's what i would say. because of the practical concerns i've raised and the fact that the major parties dramatically reform their positions, ideologically, i dont think ideological discrimination is the prevailing impetus of the FEC's rules.

the government wants organized, high profile elections -- an argument for funding part of the process. personally, i think they should allow an increase in private financing and leave it at that. what's the real difference between $2400 per head and $5k?

this idea about stifling ideology is intriguing. do you think that widely supported ideas are being subdued by the election process? which ideas?

 

[amrchaos]

No government is legitimate unless you agree with the framework that establishes that government.

So even a government that you can vote for representation, ballot initiatives, etc may not be legitimate!

 

[goldcatt]

Perhaps my post wasn't clear, if so I apologize. I'm not addressing campaigns or conventions at all, let alone the financing of them. That's a whole separate thread with a lot of different issues. Which we can do if you like.

I'm talking about the public outlay for the process of the election itself, as far as the partisan primary is concerned. Meaning the public outlay on the local and State level to prepare and conduct the balloting, not the campaign leading up to the votes being cast.

If the primary is a closed, internal partisan matter, why should the taxpayer have to pay for the entire process of preparing, enabling and tabulating the vote? And if they have to pay for it, why are they not allowed to participate unless they choose to associate with one of the "approved" partisan organizations? If the partisan primary to select the official party candidate is in fact an internal business matter of the private organization, which is of course the case, then the Party should be conducting that business and paying for all or most of the costs associated with the internal selection process. The fact that the partisans in public office vote themselves public funds to conduct this internal business reeks of self-dealing.

I would agree with you on the appeal of an organized, highly publicized election for the general, since that is when there is actually a public interest in the outcome of the election (public in the governmental sense) - which is one of the reasons why I have no qualms with the public paying for the associated costs in that case. Again, leaving campaign finance aside and focusing solely on the cost of properly running an election from the State point of view.

As far as stifiling points of view, go back to the NC law the OP laid out. It is designed specifically to place an exponentially higher hurdle to ballot access for "unpopular" points of view and limit the perceived legitimacy as well as the ability to compete for minority associations. Popular points of view automatically retain certification and are exempt from the 2% requirement - a requirement that is extremely expensive and time consuming if not impossible for a new or minority party or nonpartisan to obtain.

The net effect is to deny ballot access or, if the minority positions are successful in gaining access, they do so only by expending a huge amount of resources their duopoly competition can keep in the bank and use to focus on gaining more popularity. That expenditure impedes the minority party or nonpartisan's ability to compete if they do attain the ballot. A hundred thousand dollars is a steep price tag in a statewide election. It's a steep slope built into the playing field that favors the current duopoly over all other points of view, put into place by the members of the duopoly. That's the self-dealing part. If the playing field were level with all parties and candidates having the same certification process to pass, there would be no discrimination and no issue regardless of outcome.

 

[antagon]

ya know, i know so little about how local and state governments work with campaigns and nominations, that i couldn't really say what's good or bad about it.

As far as stifiling points of view, go back to the NC law the OP laid out. It is designed specifically to place an exponentially higher hurdle to ballot access for "unpopular" points of view and limit the perceived legitimacy as well as the ability to compete for minority associations. Popular points of view automatically retain certification and are exempt from the 2% requirement - a requirement that is extremely expensive and time consuming if not impossible for a new or minority party or nonpartisan to obtain.

i follow what you mean here, though. stifling the unpopular one way and establishing broad-based support the other. i carry the latter torch because i don't have high hopes for politicians who cant put together their signatures, anyhow. a friend of mine from kids is involved in a campaign for an indy candidate campaigning for congress on two party lines (he won an independent party candidacy and has his own party) he's managed his signatures and some popular support in new york state.

the OP contends that NC wants 2% of the voting pop in signatures for governor and 4% for congress. that isn't extreme either. if people aren't even willing to sign you onto the ballot or you dont have the resources to snatch up 2-4% of the amount of voters in an entire state, you have no business on the ballot. you are a political nobody running for a major office and you should fix that before thinking that you have any place pretending you should be named in an election. get on the city council first. that's fair in my estimate.

do you know of an extreme case of ballot restriction?

 

[goldcatt]

ya know, i know so little about how local and state governments work with campaigns and nominations, that i couldn't really say what's good or bad about it.

As far as stifiling points of view, go back to the NC law the OP laid out. It is designed specifically to place an exponentially higher hurdle to ballot access for "unpopular" points of view and limit the perceived legitimacy as well as the ability to compete for minority associations. Popular points of view automatically retain certification and are exempt from the 2% requirement - a requirement that is extremely expensive and time consuming if not impossible for a new or minority party or nonpartisan to obtain.

i follow what you mean here, though. stifling the unpopular one way and establishing broad-based support the other. i carry the latter torch because i don't have high hopes for politicians who cant put together their signatures, anyhow. a friend of mine from kids is involved in a campaign for an indy candidate campaigning for congress on two party lines (he won an independent party candidacy and has his own party) he's managed his signatures and some popular support in new york state.

the OP contends that NC wants 2% of the voting pop in signatures for governor and 4% for congress. that isn't extreme either. if people aren't even willing to sign you onto the ballot or you dont have the resources to snatch up 2-4% of the amount of voters in an entire state, you have no business on the ballot. you are a political nobody running for a major office and you should fix that before thinking that you have any place pretending you should be named in an election. get on the city council first. that's fair in my estimate.

do you know of an extreme case of ballot restriction?

Well...basically the two go hand in hand as far as getting on the ballot and then selecting a candidate to fill the Party's slot. So let's say the Greens want to run a candidate for statewide office in North Carolina. The Green Party did not get 2% of the total vote in the last Gubernatorial election which makes it an uncertified ("unpopular") party. So they must obtain 86,000+ signatures in addition to paying the filing fee in order to reserve their slot on the ballot to be able to field a candidate. Assume for the sake of argument that a petitioner can obtain 10 signatures per hour, or one every 6 minutes. That's a very high number per hour in practice, but we'll go with it since math isn't my strongest subject.

This means they must expend the resources for roughly 8,600 man hours and all attendant costs for their petition drive. In practice the number will need to be a few thousand higher to make sure they have enough signatures to cover for all of those who will sign twice, are tourists from out of state, are underage or are otherwise not valid, so for the sake of argument let's call it an even 9,000 hours. Once the signatures are obtained, they are turned in for certification along with the State filing fee. They will also need to conserve resources to defend any petition challenges. This is the step that cost the NC Libertarian Party $100,000 to complete. It is also the step the duopoly parties can skip in States with laws similar to NC's, or will need to invest exponentially less in terms of resources to complete.

In some States, I haven't worked in and don't know about all of them of course, ballot space is reserved for Parties only. So nonpartisan candidates must do exactly what you described and form their own party. In terms of actual resources expended this is similar to forming an S-corp. But then in States with laws like those of NC even after forming a Party, in order to certify that Party the "nonpartisan" must obtain twice the number of signatures to obtain a ballot slot. Which means twice the amount of resources expended as compared to the major parties.

Remember, these certification laws will vary from State to State, but all of them are made by State level elected officials who are all or almost all members of the two major parties.

If the required number of signatures are certified as valid, the Party is certified and has earned a place on the ballot. NOW each Party can start selecting a candidate to fill their Party slot. This is the function of the nominating convention, primary and/or caucus. It is not a "public" event, it is the private Partisan organization's internal selection of the candidate they want to represent them in their ballot slot for the actual, general election. The campaigns from this systemic point of view are just the individual candidates' way of making noise to get attention hoping they will receive that slot. Make sense so far?

This brings us to the second instance of self-dealing by the duopoly. Both logically and legally, selecting the candidate to represent the Party on the ballot for the actual election, the general, is an internal Party matter. In the interest of space (sorry 'bout the novels!) look back to my two previous posts for the problem I have with using public funds to run these partisan elections to resolve a private, internal business matter.

After the nominees have been selected by the Parties and the State notified, only THEN is a public election taking place. Everything that happens prior to this point is entirely private, internal Party business.

 

[goldcatt]

To follow up, I have two questions:

1. Is it self-dealing for members of a private organization to vote themselves lower standards, or their competition higher standards, in order to do business in the State, and

2. Is it justifiable for the States and localities to be forced by those same officials to use taxpayer funds to conduct voting in an internal competition for position within a private organization?

 

[2Parties]

Is government legitimate with the right to vote?

 

[antagon]

i could appreciate the costs which you broke down above with respect to the sorts of efforts non-partisan or minor party candidates have to endure just to get on the ballot. this reflects the difference between such a candidate and an incumbent party (or major party) candidate with respect to establishing broad-based support. the latter are established, and the newcomer needs to be established. this is acceptable to me.

To follow up, I have two questions:

1. Is it self-dealing for members of a private organization to vote themselves lower standards, or their competition higher standards, in order to do business in the State, and

2. Is it justifiable for the States and localities to be forced by those same officials to use taxpayer funds to conduct voting in an internal competition for position within a private organization?

1. yes. but the extent that parties are regulated by the system in question differentiates them from being any ol' private org. the reasoning behind election standards extends beyond advantage to incumbents to a responsibility to control potential exploitation of the election process by candidates without the wherewithal or support to earnestly participate in the contest. taken together, the compromise to regulation and concern for the integrity for the election process makes laws like the NC requirements seem reasonable to me. expecting a national candidate to get sigs from a fourth as many people as had voted in that state in the last election would be a bit harsh, but the rule calls for a tenth as many signatures. that is reasonable. an accusation of self-dealing seems overboard in that case.

2. i dont know about how states fund conventions at all or how the laws on eligibility work at that level. same qualm here with the characterization of parties as private organizations. it is true but in a technical and pedantic way which doesn't reflect their specific and regulated role in elections. this is not like a company holding a board nomination meeting at public expense, it is a component of our public election system.

i want to say fed campaign funding is optional with respect to tax money. it has been a long time since i did my own taxes, but i thought that you could opt in or out of contributing $3 to the FEC's fund. maybe states are like this, too. perhaps they are forced by officials. perhaps states are very eager to shell out money for these elephant and donkey shows.

i got to admit i know little about pt 2.

 

[Charles_Main]

Interesting. What is supposed to be this fatal flaw in NC's ballot access laws?

The issue is that in states like North Carolina the ballot access requirements for parties other than the Republicans and the Democrats are exponentially more difficult to achieve and darn near impossible. The Libertarian Party managed to get itself back on the ballot in 2008, but they had to spend more than $100k to do so. It's a grossly unfair system designed to protect the two party duopoly.

You mean the 2 parties use their power to write laws and rules to keep them alone with seats at the table of power?


Seems like I said this the other day and was smacked down by some Lib who claimed they have no power over it.

 

[goldcatt]

Interesting. What is supposed to be this fatal flaw in NC's ballot access laws?

The issue is that in states like North Carolina the ballot access requirements for parties other than the Republicans and the Democrats are exponentially more difficult to achieve and darn near impossible. The Libertarian Party managed to get itself back on the ballot in 2008, but they had to spend more than $100k to do so. It's a grossly unfair system designed to protect the two party duopoly.

You mean the 2 parties use their power to write laws and rules to keep them alone with seats at the table of power?


Seems like I said this the other day and was smacked down by some Lib who claimed they have no power over it.

Whoever that Lib was, they was wrong.

 

[goldcatt]

i could appreciate the costs which you broke down above with respect to the sorts of efforts non-partisan or minor party candidates have to endure just to get on the ballot. this reflects the difference between such a candidate and an incumbent party (or major party) candidate with respect to establishing broad-based support. the latter are established, and the newcomer needs to be established. this is acceptable to me.

To follow up, I have two questions:

1. Is it self-dealing for members of a private organization to vote themselves lower standards, or their competition higher standards, in order to do business in the State, and

2. Is it justifiable for the States and localities to be forced by those same officials to use taxpayer funds to conduct voting in an internal competition for position within a private organization?

1. yes. but the extent that parties are regulated by the system in question differentiates them from being any ol' private org. the reasoning behind election standards extends beyond advantage to incumbents to a responsibility to control potential exploitation of the election process by candidates without the wherewithal or support to earnestly participate in the contest. taken together, the compromise to regulation and concern for the integrity for the election process makes laws like the NC requirements seem reasonable to me. expecting a national candidate to get sigs from a fourth as many people as had voted in that state in the last election would be a bit harsh, but the rule calls for a tenth as many signatures. that is reasonable. an accusation of self-dealing seems overboard in that case.

2. i dont know about how states fund conventions at all or how the laws on eligibility work at that level. same qualm here with the characterization of parties as private organizations. it is true but in a technical and pedantic way which doesn't reflect their specific and regulated role in elections. this is not like a company holding a board nomination meeting at public expense, it is a component of our public election system.

i want to say fed campaign funding is optional with respect to tax money. it has been a long time since i did my own taxes, but i thought that you could opt in or out of contributing $3 to the FEC's fund. maybe states are like this, too. perhaps they are forced by officials. perhaps states are very eager to shell out money for these elephant and donkey shows.

i got to admit i know little about pt 2.

I'm confused here. So are you saying you buy into the argument that the political parties are, in fact, the government because they are government regulated? And where does the FEC come into the picture as far as ballot access or the process of internal partisan candidate selection, other than campaign finance which is unrelated to the balloting procedures? I'm lost. I suspect we might still be talking about two different things.

Can you flesh out what you're saying a little more so I can see where you're coming from, please?

 

[antagon]

i'm pretty sure that the FEC regulates or actually distributes public cash for the parties' national primary conventions - some $4M of largess. less for minor or new parties, also based on their election performances the prior go-round. that is the federal part. i really dont know how states work in that respect. this is independent from the campaign money which individual primary candidates get, and goes to the parties coffers.

no, parties aren't part of the government, but they are part of the government's elections. there's some value in considering that nuance. the Fed is not part of the government, but it is part of the government's monetary policy. these organizations are similar in that they operate in specific capacities in government functions, precluding them, i think, from summary inclusion with other organizations in the private sector, particularly dealing directly with their respective purview.

like i said earlier, i think that funding allowances should be raised and that the government should step out of the hand-out game on the fed and state level, however, i dont think that that will advantage small or non-party politics either.

 

[2Parties]

Why are people so obsessed with voting? I think it has to do with people's need to have a "voice" and the need to be a part of something bigger than themselves. It's sort of like a religion, where humanity is better as a whole when it's combined than as individuals, when in reality a bunch of humans with human instincts isn't going to remove human nature but instead expose it.

Does a majority of people who participate in the system given the them justify actions that some humans make? For those people it surely does, but for me each person has to live with the individual choices they make regardless if those choices are approved by a million people or no one.

If a billion people are telling you to blow someone's brains out does that make it justified? What if no one is telling you to blow someone's brains out does that make it justified? I'd argue it's irrelevant.