1380
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

Maine barred Donald Trump from the primary ballot Thursday, making it the second state in the country to block the former president from running again under a part of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office.

The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is sure to be appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court last week found Trump could not appear on the ballot in that state, and the Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The nation’s high court could resolve for all states whether Trump can run again.

Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tweeks@feddit.nl 16 points 1 year ago

Interesting, would you still be able to write someone's name down if it's not on the ballot? And could that be anyone's name?

[-] xX_fnord_Xx@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is common for people to vote Mickey Mouse as a write in for voters that are unhappy with the names on the ballot. Sometimes a humorous Write In gets a decent chunk of the vote.

Edit: https://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/02/voting-mickey-mouse/

[-] bgh251f2@lemmy.eco.br 26 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't vote for that rat. People don't know how to vote straight, Goofy is the clear best option.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Goofy is a terrible choice. He has voiced no concern of the safety of others and has been quoted of saying, "and I'll fuckin do it again."

Despite his terrible choices and lack of surroundings both physical and political, he has also said, "Now, how come you always think I'm gonna lead you into some sort of calamity?"

His complete disregard for the safety of others is another red flag and I, for one, will not vote for that goof.

[-] bgh251f2@lemmy.eco.br 7 points 1 year ago

He's at least a good dad.

Maybe the rich duck then. He doesn't seem like dishonest even though he's rich, which means he's bad.

[-] S_204@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Kentucky voted in Scrooge McDuck.

[-] kofe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

But the question is, is it still counted as a valid vote if he's not allowed on the ballot? Doesn't make sense to me why it would be counted

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 year ago

They still keep statistics even on candidates that are invalid

[-] tweeks@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What if two people with the same name are sort of politically active (not on ballot) and you write a name down, which one gets the vote?

And what if I come up with a meme to vote for some random person, and people copy that and all vote for someone who unknowingly wins.

I'm interested if they have protocols for these (unlikely, but possible) scenarios.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That varies. Usually they're expected to include distinguishers, if it's unclear then the two candidates can end up challenging how they're counted. It's not unheard of that they're split evenly but they try to look at clues. Stuff like party affiliation can be used as clues, as well as any included titles, etc.

If it's a random who didn't enter the election at all it's likely to not count as a valid vote (especially because of your previous question where it can't be certain all voters mean the same person with that name). If it's a previously anonymous person with a unique name entering the election in time they're likely to get all the votes in their name even if the voters did it as a joke and perhaps didn't even know such a person entered. If the writing on the vote doesn't make it clear it's intended to be invalid it will count.

Also, crude measures like an even split is more common if the count of ambiguous votes are too few to change the election result, but if it's too close then it can end up with a forced new election

[-] tweeks@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Very interesting, thanks! And I'd guess that if it's like a celebrity who gets mass voted on, without him/her knowing or agreeing and wins, they could easily just say they're not up to the task, minus peer-pressure. In theory if they'd get all the votes, the elections should be done once more.

But if people insist and again only vote on this celebrity, could that person explicitly upfront claim not to be a valid vote?

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/vc/vce/vce03/mobile_browsing

https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates

In some jurisdictions it's possible for an initially unwilling write-in candidate to accept a nomination but it's not the standard

If there's no valid winner then you can end up doing a new vote again and again endlessly

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

There was that "against all candidates" option in Russian ballots (on various levels) before 2006.

Usually most popular among such a big unrepresented suppressed depressed part of population as unreformed communists.

this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
1380 points (98.7% liked)

News

23665 readers
3638 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS