politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, I hate the situation, but I haven’t heard any compelling arguments for alternatives.
By compelling, I don’t mean appealing. I’d love for any number of other candidates to just swap in. But because the U.S. got “Weekend at Bernie’d”, and primaries were held (with no realistic opposition candidates), or cancelled in the case of Florida and Delaware, and the dates for holding a primary have passed in every state, I just… don’t see how another candidate can be swapped in.*
And I know that John Stewart specifically called out other nations who were able to call entire elections within a few months, but the U.S. electoral system just doesn’t ‘do’ that. The focus on states rights means that every state has its own laws that are fairly rigid and cannot be overridden by the federal government. And even if the states could be overridden - well, I guess I don’t know if it’s possible for the federal government to do that.
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of that suggestion as being even a remote possibility. I’m left with the belief that it is not legally permissible.
In fact - the Heritage Foundation said they would mount legal challenges to prevent this from occurring - but only in certain states. It’s very likely those challenges could not be resolved before the election, which would lead to at least two Democratic Party candidates, and certain defeat for both of them. The only way that Biden could drop out is if the states that have laws prohibiting candidate changes repeal or modify them, and that itself might be the subject of lawsuits.
*The only way I see for Biden to drop out and not ensure certain defeat is to die. That’s the only path I can think of that’s workable.
If I truly believe that Trump will end democracy and I must do everything I can to prevent his election - even if it compromises my better judgment and morals, and I know that Biden will not use the powers he was just granted to ensure that Trump is brought to justice before he can assume dictatorial powers, then… well, what’s the option but to be a shill? That’s not a rhetorical question. I legitimately feel trapped and hopeless by this shitty system, and I cannot see a way out.
I feel like I’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.
The only state which was a risk was Ohio, which already amended its rule for this year to allow the selection after the dem convention. There is no legal problem here, the dems simply need to choose a new candidate at their convention.
That’s the problem with the patchwork of laws.
Ohio has a law that says the candidates must be declared by August 9th, but the DNC isn’t until after that. (But Ohio cleared the way for that, as you noted.)
Nevada, however, requires that the political parties submit their candidates when the state convention is held by a given party, and does not seem to have an actual cut-off date.
I’m actually somewhat confused on this one - the Democratic Nevada convention was May 18th, but the article I posted above says their cut-off was June 28th. Both dates have passed, mind you. But I wonder where the June 28th date came from.
The deadline for Georgia was July 9th - yesterday.
My information for both Nevada and Georgia came from Ballotpedia. The page also notes that many states have their filing deadlines before the DNC, but it’s my understanding that the Democratic Party plans to deal with this by nominating him via conference call in advance of these deadlines - so I think the clock is about a month shorter than people may consider, when looking at the date of the DNC.
I don’t know why the first article I posted mentions Wisconsin. I think you’re right - if Biden withdraws and releases his delegates before the nomination deadlines/conference call to make it official, many states (such as Wisconsin) won’t be an issue. I’m unclear if democrats can submit an alternative candidate in Georgia, and I think they can only offer up the alternative candidate they would have specified during their convention for Nevada.
Nevada is fairly reliably democrat-leaning, and Georgia has been changing a lot lately, with expectations to swing democrat again. Even if democrats did lose Georgia, the state would still be a battleground, which saps resources from the republican presidential effort. (Side note: If that played out and democrats couldn’t field a candidate. I would expect third party or write-in candidates to get an outsized proportion of the vote. That could be a great opportunity for third parties to perhaps get legal recognition and benefits that comes with that.)
It does seem like slightly less of an issue now that I’ve dug a bit deeper into it. However who knows how things will go in states without defined laws - that could be a boondoggle if injunctions get filed.
But there are legal issues already, and those will continue to grow as time goes on.
I don’t know, man.
If Biden, god forbid, had a stroke tonight and was lying in a coma, is there no facility to change the candidate to someone else. Or would you be locked in to voting for a candidate in a vegative state?
Hmm…I wasn’t aware of the stipulations surrounding Nevada, that’s actually a bit worrisome. Thanks for pointing this out, will need to read up on it more. I honestly think GA is a lost cause this year for the Dems but we shall see.
Keen for the possibility you laid out for 3rd parties to get a foothold, hoping to see that exact scenario unfold! There are many who feel reforming the Dems is the only way towards the Left, but the party seems like such a lost cause. If only a populist 3rd party candidate could get just a small foothold, I could see voters backing them in monumental droves within just 1 election cycle. Ah, the dream.
Well, someone pointed out that the Nevada statute quoted was for their electoral college candidates, not the president. (I had noted the word elector, but figured it was goofy legal terminology.)
I couldn’t then figure out what the actual Nevada statute for presidential nominees are (it seems they’re different depending on whether the nominee is part of a major political party).
Nevada may still pose an issue but I can’t argue they are with as much confidence. I just can’t figure out the actual laws around it with my own eyes and brain.
These are rules for selecting the electors, not the candidates. They're the "elector" part of the "electoral college".
I think you’re right on that front, which makes it doubly frustrating – because then you got multiple websites parroting bad information. And in turn, I may have parroted bad information.
I spent a few hours trying to find the relevant statutes to understand what was “right”, and not one made sense to me. It seems like they have different rules for major parties vs independent candidates, but fuck if I could figure out the rules for major parties.
It does seem weird that these things are so opaque, right? If you get to the right place you can find the Democrats' rules, but the voting clause isn't 100% unambiguous. It says you have to "in good conscience" represent the will of the voters that sent you. And on top of that there are a bunch of state laws about the delegates, but it's unclear which ones are even legal as the Supreme Court said the parties are private entities and the states can't tell them how to run their business.
Well said.
I get Jon Stewart’s position and agree with nearly all of his criticisms, but I think the biggest thing he’s not acknowledging in his “why can France and the UK do this but we can’t?” argument is that this would absolutely not be confined to just the Democratic Party. Literally every step of the process would be decried as election fraud, cheating, “the steal of the century” etc. by republicans. If they got pissed enough to attempt an insurrection in 2020 when there was absolutely no credible evidence of fraud, just think where things will go if there’s this whole slew of unprecedented last-minute decisions that are nearly impossible to reconcile with every individual states’ laws. I’m not saying we have to bow to repubs demands, but the more excuses they have to claim anything isn’t above board, the greater the risk that the “stolen election” narrative gains traction beyond the far right.
We’ve spent the last 4 years witnessing how slowly our legal system works on huge matters like this. By the time the dust settles on all of the legal challenges, the resulting chaos will have already rendered the decisions nearly irrelevant.
They have zero say in Democratic party policies and decisions. You guys are so conditioned to think Republicans are unstoppable political juggernauts you proactively give them power to define your actions. It doesn't matter if they claim it's a fraud, it's not their party and the Democratic voters most distrustful of the Democratic party don't like Biden in the first place.
Some states have laws about electors voting for the candidate they were elected to represent, but they can be released from that requirement by the candidate. Some have voting round limits, which can just be bypassed with perfunctory votes without a majority. And if there are some laws that can't be bypassed, they can just officially vote for Joe Biden while expressing their actual preference publicly. The party can very easily work around the state laws to achieve an equivalent result.
There is no causal link between voting fraud and the insurrection. They lost and don't know how to lose anymore. They think they are superior to everybody else and hate it when they have to face reality.