this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
46 points (82.9% liked)

politics

19098 readers
3318 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Bipartisanship in action

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 32 points 1 month ago (3 children)

So, what changed?

Support !rcv@ponder.cat if you want an alternative to the duopoly. It's on the ballot in a lot of places coming up.

If you're not doing that, but you are choosing to vote for a spoiler candidate, you can anticipate a whole lot more duopoly in the future.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 35 points 1 month ago

Without RCV I can’t take other parties seriously. I’m not throwing my vote away.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 25 points 1 month ago

RCV would be great, most definitely. However:

“But the defect that prevents independent presidential candidates West and De la Cruz from appearing on Georgia’s ballot does not pertain to the number of signatures acquired; it is that West’s electors and De la Cruz’s electors filed no nomination petitions at all,” Justice Sarah Warren wrote.

There's a process for ballot access, which includes the candidate's electors filing paperwork. They didn't. Counting votes for these two candidates' would be allowing ballot access to a candidate who didn't meet the prerequisites. This court ruling appears appropriate, based on information I have at hand.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Hey now, half the duopoly has another solution to the duopoly, but I’m not sure it’s what you had in mind…

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

We can’t have people voting! - GOP

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

One step removed from "voters for Kamala Harris won't have votes counted"

GOP finds the ends first then creates the means arounit

[–] key@lemmy.keychat.org 6 points 1 month ago

So two candidates failed to submit their paperwork to get onto the ballot but the state in a bizarre display of proactive incompetence put them on the ballot anyways? The mistake eventually got caught and taken to the court and of course the court rules they have to follow the process dictated by law. And now Raffensperger is saying it's too late to change (which, ok understandable) and worse, is doubling down on his mistake by falsely claiming votes for them will be counted when the court has established they can't be?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

In fairness, West votes aren't going to be enough to make a difference anyway.

The logical work-around is for supporters to write him in, ignoring the ballot line that won't be counted.

But still, write ins are insignificant.

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win -3 points 1 month ago
[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

MSN.com - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for MSN.com:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/georgia-voters-for-cornel-west-won-t-have-votes-counted-state-supreme-court/ar-AA1rgs3A
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support