787
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, a sign of the president’s strength in uniting his party to have the backing of one of its most liberal members

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Licensed_to_ill@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Man, screw Biden. I would rather vote for AOC

[-] el_cordoba@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

Ranked voting needs to happen otherwise it will always be democrats vs republicans most of the time.

[-] Licensed_to_ill@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I wish. Ranked voting would be phenomenal. It's obviously more democratic. Makes no sense not to have it. But politicians are dirty corrupt pieces of shit.

[-] whenigrowup356@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I think we'd need a parliamentary system to end up with anything more than 2 parties being relevant. The 2 party system is sort of hard-wired into the way the house and Senate work. Ranked choice could have some cool effects on party primaries, though.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Also, the two party system can be broken quite easily if any state switches to proportional representation. If a third party wins even a small number of congressional seats, it could make them the kingmaker in a divided house.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Agreed, RCV would essentially mean that the primary is part of the election.

[-] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Is this not the case in the US? Sorry for not being up to date on this as I don't live in the US.

[-] CluelessLemmyng 5 points 1 year ago

The US Constitution specifies that each state must elect a senator and house of representative, must send electors to the Electoral College for President. It does not specify how.

As such, some states have ranked choice voting. Others do not.

[-] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Ah I see. It's so weird how it works. Why not federate it so those laws are the same all over? I guess it's a reason for it but in my eyes it sounds very ineffective.

Also the whole electoral college sounds like s bad idea i guess. But it's also a "safe guard" i guess?

Going a bit OT on this one.

[-] neanderthal@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Because that would require a constitutional amendment. The GOP would lose the most so not a single red state or GOP senator or congress member would vote for it. Amendments take a 2/3 majority or a constitutional convention, which requires 2/3 of the state governments to agree to it, which is even harder to pull off.

[-] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks this was very informative!

[-] Bison1911@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

When the country was founded they needed to convince the state governments of a bunch of different states to agree to unify as a single nation.

At that time state governments had more power and influence on the federal government than they do today. Senators were picked by the state government, not popularly elected as they are today, and it was left to the state governments to decide how they would conduct elections and select delegates to represent them in the Electoral College which is the actual body that picks the president.

load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
787 points (95.1% liked)

politics

18802 readers
4331 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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