Even before President Joe Biden’s long-speculated withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, allies of former President Donald Trump floated the possibility of suing to block Democrats from having anyone other than Biden on the ballot in November.
But election administration and legal experts said the timing of Biden’s exit on Sunday makes it unlikely that any Republican ballot access challenges will succeed, with some calling the idea “ridiculous” and “frivolous.” Democrats are on safe legal ground as they identify a new standard-bearer, they say, because the party hasn’t officially chosen its nominee. That typically occurs with a vote of delegates at the party’s convention.
“It’s ridiculous for people to talk about ‘replacing Biden.’ He hasn’t been nominated yet,” said Richard Winger, a leading expert on state ballot access laws and the longtime editor of the “Ballot Access News” newsletter.
I’m out here voting in the major party primaries to get better candidates. You’re voting for for a party that has never won a single electoral vote (no 3rd party has won a single electoral vote since Wallace in 1968) and expecting that to somehow convince the actual winners to change the rules in your parties favor then blaming the Democratic party for the Republican party winning. Pretty sure it’s not my head in the sand.
I’m out here educating others about choices they could make.
No, I’m not.
You’re out here making assumptions about me and believing everyone else is too stupid to choose for themselves. It doesn’t even register for you that the rules unfairly limit choices because they favor your choice. Fuck everyone else: You got yours.
It’s just like the fascists you’re running from. Well done.
And I’m pointing out the historical and statistical futility of either voting 3rd party or not voting as a means to break away from the current Democratic/Republican stranglehold.
That’s fair, I did infer from your post advocating for ACO as a Green party candidate that you were voting for Green party. My bad. You did just clearly say you’re not voting. Which, like, how do you expect to achieve your goals then? What’s your concrete plan of action to win by not participating?
No, I’m saying voting 3rd party or not voting isn’t going to unseat the current Democratic/Republican parties and to run those progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries as a more effective means to the desired end.
Bernie was on the primary ballot, I voted for him, he lost. They didn’t favor my choice. My choice lost. I did not “get mine.” That doesn’t mean I didn’t have a choice. I’m not saying the DNC did no wrong. But he did, in fact, receive fewer votes. And the only things that limit my possible choices are who has actually declared/registered to run on the primary and my willingness to register to vote and actually turn up to vote.
I want RCV to be a reality so that 3rd party candidates will be viable. But I can acknowledge the reality that I won’t get RCV by voting third party or by not voting. I will only get it by electing representatives who will fight for it in my stated government, and 3rd party candidates just haven’t been able to win any state/local elections where I live. So I’m voting in the primaries of the two parties who have a statistical chance of winning to get there. And I need more people to do the same in order to “get mine”.
Most importantly, I appreciate that you’re asking questions that appear to be in good faith. Neither of those is the status quo. So, I’ll give you good answers.
You’ve assumed that winning is the only outcome of value. Five percent of the GE in this cycle puts the platform on every ballot in the next. That choice would be outside the influence of party primary and from a party more loyal to the platform than even Sanders.
That exerts a fuck ton of pressure on Democratic Party platform for at least four years. I couldn’t care less which party serves the ideological choice We the People deserve. I like Green today because they’ve been more loyal to the platform than even Sanders and they’re already engaged with local ballot access.
But, this reasoning only works well in deep red states. Everywhere else voters need to worry much more about short term harm reduction. I even did the math for what proportion of deep red state Democratic voters would need to reason this out to get 5% of the GE. It’s definitely possible.
Literally, neolibs just need to trust other neolibs to not be so stupid as to fuck up something so simple it can be responsibly communicated in three paragraphs.
I advocate and practice the means that have been historically, statistically, psychologically proven, in order of decreasing importance: rebellion, riot, strike, boycott, protest, and voting.
Why? What did the DNC do to favor his opponents?
Anyone I’ve asked to read the ruling that then did so no longer votes in the major party primaries. You seem reasonable. Please, read it for yourself.
Succinctly, I want more to think along a longer scale of time than the next five years.
More importantly, individuals may represent the same ideology but be in very different situations making very different choices. For example, I think a wise leftist in a red state probably best represents leftist ideology by voting Green POTUS this cycle. But, the same wise leftist in a purple state probably best represents leftist ideology in shorter term harm reduction with a Democratic POTUS vote. Said simply, our loyalty isn’t party, but to each other.
My opinion is that persons who continue to bring up Bernie Sanders not winning the primary as a reason to not shift the parties through their primaries is that those persons are making that assumption and that I am trying to refute it by pointing out the existence of the progressive Squad since his losing bids in 2016 and 2020. So it appears we’re both misunderstanding each other on that point.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ballot that doesn’t have 3rd party candidates on it. I see Green and Libertarian candidates all the way up and down the ballot here in Texas. Going back to my first election in 96 there have always been both Green and Libertarian candidates to vote for in the general.I’m
I disagree with this. My observation thus far is that in the last 40 years of elections I’ve voted in the presence of 3rd party platforms on the ballot has not any measurable effect on the Democratic platform or candidates. And the only thing that did, in my opinion, was Bernie Sanders running in the Democratic primary for the presidential nomination. I started voting in the primaries in 2008.
I’m in Texas, in a district gerrymandered Republican. Greens and Libertarians are already on the ballot. Democratic candidates aren’t getting more progressive here to appeal to Green party voters. Not that I can see.
As long as you’re voting.
What I looked up showed a law suit filed in Florida by Bernie supporters asserting they had been defrauded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilding_v._DNC_Services_Corp.
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
The circuit court ruled against them because “none of the plaintiffs had claimed to have donated to the DNC on the basis of promises contained in the DNC charter.” The 11th circuit appellate court unanimously upheld the circuit court ruling, and SCOTUS declined to hear the case.
How did the DNC prevent voters from voting for Bernie in the primary? He was included in the debates for all the voters to hear him present his platform. He was on the primary ballot in every state for the voters to chose him. I’ve not been made aware of any actual vote tampering to contest the winners of the popular vote in each state or super delegate ratfuckery to overrider the popular votes. And to my knowledge Hillary won more delegates through the popular primary votes around the country.
I’m under no delusion that shifting the parties through their primaries is a 5 year plan. I’m of the opinion that people who keep citing Bernie losing the 2016 and 2020 primaries as reasons to vote 3rd party or not vote are the ones under such a delusion. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is today.
I’m in Texas in a gerrymandered red district, so I voted in the Republican primary for the best chance at defeating Abbot’s school voucher program, and I’m voting Democratic in the general for the same. It’s just a matter of enough voters showing up to flip the script though. Bill Clinton came within a quarter million of winning the state in 96. Biden received more votes in Texas in 2020 than he did in New York, and Trump only won by ~650k votes that year, which is a significantly lower margin than the number of voters in the core blue areas of the state who did not vote. Gen Z turned out in 2022 to temper the red wave, and we have a woman running in the first post-Roe presidential election. I think we can do it if we get all the left-leaning voters to come out and vote Democratic.
You decided to go back to assigning me others’ opinions instead of the ones I explained to you as mine. You’re having a conversation with yourself to beat down your own straw men because it serves your ego.
Old habits die hard. I’ll leave you to it.
edit: The SCOTUS ruling, dummy. Wiki even links the appeal. You’re better off not trying to be king of the idiots.
No more so than you did of me. I was trying to provide in my last comment the context under which I had been engaging with other people that was informing my responses prior your clarifications.
Lemmy seems to be stripping the trailing ‘.’ off my wikipedia link link in my prior comment, but the text “scotus” does not appear in either of the links I provided. But here’s another article that affirms my statement that SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/01/supreme-court-bernie-sanders-supporters-dnc-lawsuit/5307489002/
Maybe you could provide a link to the ruling you’re talking about, because I can’t find anything that says the SCOTUS did anything other than decline to hear the appeal of the 2016 lawsuit brought by Bernie supporters.
Best of luck. You’ll need it.
How does you not voting make your case any better? It’s even less effective than voting third party.
The SCOTUS case brought by the Sanders campaign had a ruling that stated the private parties can do whatever they want in their primaries, without regard for fairness or wants of the participants. SCOTUS recommend that if one doesn’t agree with that then they shouldn’t participate. I agree with them.
It also doesn’t matter whom they nominate. The platform and outcomes aren’t changed by the puppet politician, only by the corporate donors writing the legislation. I don’t care who figureheads either major party.
I also don’t care who figureheads the Green Party. The platform and ballot access is their value. If they scale then pressure is exerted on Democrats. If they scale a lot then a solid candidate will jump ship from Democrats.
My dichotomous vote for President also wouldn’t matter. My deep red state will cast all of their electoral votes for Trump. I’ve decided to vote Green POTUS in the general in small hope others also reason out where such is possible and why 5% of the GE vote is quite powerful for the cause, regardless of party affiliation. There’s one other local election where I’ll vote because I believe a viewpoint that I don’t agree with should be voiced for others’ benefit.
There’s much more powerful avenues of change than voting. I spend most of my time on what history says will work.
So you’re contradicting yourself by telling me you’re not voting and that I’m making flawed assumptions about you in response to my apparently correct inference about you intending to vote Green Party, and then telling AmidFuror you are voting Green. Derpy indeed.
I’m voting two races. And, I don’t spend hardly any time voting relative the time I spend on all the other more effective means of change.
If you want to label two reasoned and explained exceptions bad faith then by all means.
What kind of “more effective means of change” do you spend more time on?
rebellion, riot, strike, boycott, protest
What more effective means of change do YOU spend more time on though; in real life not in fantasies.