376
Donald Trump announces plan to change elections
(www.newsweek.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 06 Dec 2024
376 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19223 readers
2930 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Something something constitution
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/
What was that about States rights?
Oh, yeah, they only matter when they do what you want.
Oregon has entirely mail-in voting, since the 1990s. Good luck getting us to give it up.
I mean, with this partisan supreme court, we can expect the electoral votes for non-complying states to get thrown out via court order. Who knows 🤷♂️
And that's going to go really well.
they are gonna chose to highlight this part then ignore the rest
Yeah, but primaries aren't controlled by the states.
Which is why waaay back in 2024, the DNC and Biden were able to take all of NH primary delegates away...
That's not voting, though. That's what the party decides.
But, yeah, the DNC highjacked the ability of people to choose the nominee for their party. Again.
And (totally as a hypothetical) if pro corporate interests decided to interfere with primaries by donati g insane amount of money to pro-corporate candidates to ensure corps always win regardless of what letter is by the President's name.....
Would you describe that as the illusion of choice when after decades those peo corporate interests controlled the parties and then (totally legally) directly influence the primary and ensure the corpo candidates always "wins"?
And I'm not trying to be a dick here, but unless we fix primaries, we'll never really "win" in the general, even when the Democratic candidate wins.
Your point is completely legit.
Everything we believe about choice is an illusion. Propaganda. The dream is fiction.
The public believe only 2 options exist. Because, no viable other options exist. At the moment. Any third party is either a spoiler by design, or so limited in scope as to be useless to most.
Maybe now is the time to start another. A serious effort to form a citizen controlled, truly democratic, accountable, party. With its own primaries and rules. For the people.
Not next election cycle.
The DNC and RNC are irredeemably rotten because of the very concerns you've mentioned.
Can't repair rotted wood. You can cut out the decay and try to patch it up but you're left with an unstable structure.
You need to replace it.
The difficulty is when the money realizes it could interfere and run propaganda to de-legitimize.
Honest people who can own their faults, who are not afraid of their skeletons, who cannot be blackmailed, are needed.
An impossible task to be sure.
But, a lot of things have been impossible.
If qanon and the tea party can take over a party in a few years...
Does anything other than tradition prevent a candidate from running in the primaries of both the R and D conventions? Could the same person end up as the candidate for both parties?
2028 might provide an answer the way things are going...
I don't know the answer but I would assume party rules would prevent that somehow.
But, if someone ran for and won the R nomination and the D didn't do a primary to officially nominate anyone, and that person crossed the aisle... I have no idea what would happen. Maybe it is possible.