Are questions about the history of politics on-topic here?

Question

A couple of weeks ago someone posted a question about whether POTUS can prevent Congress from overriding a veto by simply ignoring it. It didn't look to have much to do with history, but I happened to know the answer, so I answered it anyway.

I was asked whether this had ever actually happened in practice in a comment on my answer. I thought this was a good question, and updated the original question, and my answer, to reflect it.

One comment suggested that my "surgical edit" meant that the question met the "threshold" for History:SE, but that it would be a better fit for Politics:SE. I'm not sure exactly what this "threshold" is, or where it's documented.

Either way, the question was migrated to Politics:SE.

---

Then we had a question about whether the 1864 US presidential election could have been postponed without a constitutional amendment. Now, this looks to be a pretty clear. It's a question about history, right?

Apparently not. The consensus view again seems to be that this should be on Politics:SE. This was even backed up with a view that the question is "counterfactual", and so a better fit on Politics:SE.

Well, let's break it down:

1. It begins with an assertion that there were proposals to delay the election, that these met little support, and that Lincoln rejected them. All factually correct, although the OP failed to cite their sources in the question.
2. Then there is a question: would a delay have been possible without a constitutional amendment? Now, that is a matter of fact, and can be answered with historical evidence.
3. Then the OP quotes the results of a recent poll (and subsequently added a link to their source).
4. Finally, the OP asked a follow-up question: "Would the legal feasibility of such a postponement be any different from the 1864 case?" - again, a matter of fact and, as it happens, actually answered with the same historical sources as the first question.

So, nothing counterfactual there.

[Perhaps this is a good time to mention that I'm not a registered user on Politics:SE for (what I consider to be) two very good reasons.

The first is that - as far as I can see - too much of their content is opinion, rather than evidence, based.

The second reason I've avoided Politics:SE is that there is a lot of counterfactual argument/discussion there. Frankly, I wasted far too much of my life on discussions about counterfactual history when I was an undergrad/postgrad student of history/archaeology.]

The question is currently closed as "off-topic".

---

Then, a couple of days ago, we had a question about whether an American political party had a legal personality anywhere at any time.

Again, the almost knee-jerk reaction in the comments seemed to be "This should be on Politics:SE". One comment even suggesting that it had already been asked and answered there (it hadn't).

This time, there's been a bit more debate in the comments about whether the question is on topic here. As I write, the question remains open ...

---

However, the fact remains that three questions have attracted close votes in the last couple of weeks on the basis that they are about politics - even though two of them (arguably all of them, if the comment about the "threshold" is taken at face value) are clearly about the history of politics). So that prompts my question:

Are questions about the history of politics on-topic here?

[Perhaps the issue is only when the questions are about US politics, as that is also the case with all three of these questions].

As for the question of "fit", presumably the very fact that the questions are posted here means that the OP (in most cases) is interested in the history underpinning the question. Personally, I'm not convinced that migrating questions in that circumstance helps either the OP or this site.

---

Now, I know that, in theory, and at time-of-writing, History:SE has 378 users who have earned sufficient privilege (500) to cast close votes. In reality, I've noticed that close votes always seem to show the same dozen-or-so names. I'm hoping that most users who cast close-votes also use the meta site and will contribute to the discussion.

Answer 1

It should go without saying that the history of politics is on-topic. One could argue there's precious little else to history. The earliest recorded history we have is inscriptions in places like Sumer and Egypt bragging about who was now ruling who.

My opinion on these as a user (please ignore any diamond you may see):

Can POTUS prevent Congress from overriding a veto by ignoring a bill?

Good rule of thumb: If the question is posed in the present tense, with some exceptions, its off-topic. If there's another SE site it might also be valid on, that's probably one you need.

Oftentimes such questions can be rephrased with tense change to be on topic. That exercise will probably also require one to transform it in other ways that will make it more historical and less about current practice.

Could the 1864 US presidential election have been postponed?

Somewhat "counter-factual", but that could have been fixed with minimal editing. (eg: "In the mid 19th century when this was happening, was there any realistic legal mechanism for ...")

Did any American political party have a legal personality anywhere at any time? Did it ever lapse?

I still don't understand this question. It seems likely its on-topic, but if I had normal-sized thumbs today I'd have VTC as "unclear what you are asking". But perhaps its a clear question, and I'm just too dumb to understand.

Answer 2

There are three questions that are actually very good examples of what I feel to be degrees of "on topicness" on History SE. My position is that those questions are a blend of history and politics, and the greater the proportion of history, relative to politics (or other social sciences) the more "on topic" it is.

One question was about the legal form of U.S. Political parties beginning in the 1790s. That is clearly history. The fact that the Federal Election Act (FEA) of 1971 addresses this point doesn't make it (predominantly) politics, because the question was about what happened before the FEA.

The second question was about whether "the 1864 Presidential election could have been postponed..." The "could have been" makes the question hypothetical or counterfactual, because it was not postponed. The question then goes on to ask what lessons can be drawn for the 2020 election (futuristic and political,not historical.) I might have accepted a question about 1864, worded as "what rules in place governed the 1864 proposal for postponement without a constitutional amendment" (the proposal is historical, the postponement is not). But adding "current events" to a supposedly historical question was too much for me.

One last thing, as you rightly pointed out. The "standards" of Politics SE are different from here, which helps make some questions better for that site than this one. FWIW, I'm on both sites, with > 1000 reputation on each. So If I honestly believe that the tone and content of a question is a better fit for Politics (or any other site) than this one, I will flag for migration.

The question about the veto was primarily political and the reference was to Donald Trump, i.e. the current President. That makes it "non-historical," IMHO. It would probably be different if someone asked about the time a 19th or early 20th century President exercised a pocket veto, and why did the historical "fall out" take place. When I said that your edit made it technically acceptable for the site, I was complimenting your editing, not the question (even in its current form). That is to say, I would (barely) accept it on a "standalone" basis (e.g. if history were the only SE site), but move to migrate it to Politics, where it is a better fit.

Answer 3

Excellent question, splendid answers. They force me to think and examine my assumptions. I'm going to align with the majority here; yes, the history of politics is on topic. These three questions are not the best exemplars on which to make a decision (I believe there is a legal maxim that 'bad case makes worse law')

• the best tool to answer the POTUS/Veto question is probably law, not politics or history. Even if the question is rephrased in the past tense, the fundamental question is more appropriate to legal skills than historical skills. (History might be able to tell us if it was ever considered, but history can't tell us if it is legal/constitutional. ) The edits to put it in past tense are destructive to OP's intent, and disingenuous to boot. (On the other hand, I used to work for one of the political parties reviewing implementation policy to ensure that it did not contain rulemaking - which is what OP actually wants to ask about; once again, history is the wrong tool to bring to bear on the subject).

• The election delay question should be closed as unclear what you are asking. There seems to be an unexpressed assumption that someone felt there was a reason to delay the election. I don't know what the question is trying to ask, but there is too much irrelevant material and not enough relevant material.

• Legal person is salvageable. The legal terminology is distracting, but I think if we could agree on what is being asked, it could be answered. I think Mr. Au is close - "What is the legal status of (US) political parties through history?" - I think that might actually be too broad on the basis that you could write a book about it. (I might read that book if it were written), but it should be possible to trace the major touch points (Jefferson/Adams, Jackson/VanBuren/ Lincoln's Republicans and 1968. )

Yes, political history is on topic. The examples you cite are the examples we have, not the examples we want.