-35
Dems keep up fight to keep third party candidates off ballots
(www.baltimoresun.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
-35 points (22.2% liked)
politics
19126 readers
3732 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It would be great to get to a point where we could have ranked choice, but that’s not going to happen for this election.
Each state has to do it themselves. The constitution explicitly gives each state the responsibility to organize some sort of system to distribute their electoral college votes. Any attempt to do it by the federal government would be unconstitutional and could only be done with an amendment.
No one’s said anything about silencing democracy besides you.
Even the article says:
It’s the states laws that they’ve created, right?
I’m kind of confused about what you’re arguing for or against anymore.
It seems like you’re blaming me for a state’s law.
We should start breaking the law now for the election?
If the law says candidate cannot appear, then candidate should not appear. We have the right to rule ourselves, to make our own decisions on how our system will work. We are not required to have or keep any system or method.
If we chose to change our law to be ruled by monarchy, then that is exactly what we should get. Then there'd be no candidates.
Democracy does not supercede the law. To the contrary, we only have democracy because the law says so. We only have protection of life, of property, because the law says so. 200 years ago black people were property, because the law said so. If we do not like a law, it is our responsibility to change it, while we still possess that ability.
Depends on the law, and this one is not immoral.
This particular law is a logistical one, to keep elections efficient. I would not want ballots with all candidates on them, that would end up as a pointless pain in the ass. Elections can have shitloads of people running, many of which are not serious. Making sure that only candidates that have gone through the necessary steps to be elected, such as having the electors required by our constitution, is reasonable.
Back in the pre-civil war era, I would not have been a slave catcher, no. I do not need to exert myself to enforce laws I disagree with. But I also would not have advocated for disobeying it, but instead to change it. I would not have advised slaves to flee, though I would help any that came my way.
If we implemented a fresh monarchy through the democratic process, say, through amending our constitution to implement it, I would flee the country. I would not take up arms against it or something, though, not if it's what most of my fellow citizens genuinely want. This is a different circumstance from the War of Independence, though, where they had never had the choice.
It's a nuanced position.
Thats the point.
Control the choices. Control the outcome. That lets the donor class dictate the scope of debate. Set the lines of acceptance in politics.
There's only one way to fix this. Get rid of Citizens United. Nothing will be fixed until that happens. We'll just circle the drain until the next ego driven fascist wins the Whitehouse and ends the American experiment for good and all.