1231
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hohoho@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

I largely agree with you. Could you elaborate on your last sentence though?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

presidential ~~party~~ primary

There was an autocorrect there, but if that doesn't clear it up:

A primary isn't binding.

That was the DNCs legal argument for why if they rigged it, that would be legal.

The entire primary process is merely a survey.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

This is really a good argument for nonpartisan blanket primaries, which in other countries would be known as the first round of a two-round system. And it really should be advertised that way so people don't just write it off as "just a primary".

California adopts this system. You vote for one candidate in the primary. The top two candidates appear on the second round ballot. Most votes in the second round wins.

However, the fact that parties choose the candidates is really not unusual at all. In fact, the US is pretty unique in terms of how much influence voters have over the process. In most countries, interested candidates apply for the party's nomination, and then the party's central leadership or local party committee vets the applications and nominates their favourite candidate. Only the chosen candidate gets to stand with the party's rosette.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

In fact, the US is pretty unique in terms of how much influence voters have over the process.

How?

The primaries are non binding and can be legally rigged because of that...

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Two things:

  • It being legally permissable doesn't mean that it happens. Just like how the DNC's argument that if the elections are rigged, it wouldn't be illegal is not an admission that they rigged it. This statement is made without implying anything, it is a statement about formal logic.
  • Influence is not the same as control.
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

It being legally permissable doesn’t mean that it happens

Have you ever thought about what a great investment a bridge is?

There's one a Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Why do you suppose I included this sentence at the end of that bullet point?

This statement is made without implying anything, it is a statement about formal logic.

...and why did you, having read that, assume I made that implication anyway?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

Because that makes any statement meaningless...

Just figured I'd answer first

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

No, it doesn't lol. The art of rhetoric is completely lost on you

this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
1231 points (97.5% liked)

Political Memes

5041 readers
2537 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS