this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
68 points (95.9% liked)

News

23284 readers
4791 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Four Republican backbencher candidates who failed to qualify for the first 2024 GOP presidential debate this week slammed the Republican National Committee over its rules, with multiple contenders calling them “rigged.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nope.

A couple years ago the DNC had a court case about bias in primaries.

Their legal defense boiled down to:

We're a private organization beholden to no one, if we wanted to we could ignore every primary vote and nominate anyone, so it literally doesn't matter if we have a bias.

And the courts agreed, because it's true.

Our nation is run by two groups of private citizens who can essentially do anything they want.

And we should change that

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The primary system in the US still blows my mind.

There are public, state-sanctioned votes to select candidates for private political groups? That's wild. That gives the impression to the populace that these private organizations are part of the state apparatus itself. It provides an impenetrable legitimacy to those that are already dominant, and makes it so, so much harder for new ones to crop up, because they lack that mantle of legitimacy.

It's all show, no go.

[–] hoodatninja@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So here's a part of the history you (and many others) are actually missing that will help contextualize this. Make no mistake, I have issues with the primaries too. But this is interesting and may even reshape your opinion.

For over a century we couldn't vote at all on the candidates*. They were completely selected by the parties. People actually protested that system saying they had no say in the candidates, and thus the first presidential primary happened in 1912 I believe (forgot the state). It rolled out over the 20th century because people felt it was unfair the party got to select without their input.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While we're at it, people also forget that presidents and senators were originally intended to be chosen by state legislatures, not the public. The idea was (a) they didn't trust direct democracy at scale because it was akin to mob rule, as well as (b) it reflects the fact that the States, not the federal government, were supposed to have the majority of the power.

That's also how we ended up with the Electoral College: it couldn't be "one legislator, one vote" because state A has vastly more constituents per legislator than state B, so there had to be a sort of 'compatibility layer' to even things out.

The upshot is that the system we have today represents a half-assed attempt to switch away from the original design to a direct democracy system, which is why it doesn't work properly and is inferior to either alternative.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah they really couldn’t imagine a situation where Los Angeles, Columbus, NYC, and St Louis all have more aligned politics with each other than small towns an hour away from each

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

For over a century we couldn't vote at all on the candidates. They were completely selected by the parties.

You understand that that's how it works most other places, right? The candidates that are supported by private organizations are chosen by those organizations. Because they're private. And because that support is not state sanctioned. Having a party affiliation on your campaign sign just means that you are supported, financially and otherwise, by that party.

The flip side is that independent candidates are fairly common.

And if you want input as to which candidate the private organization supports in a public election, you join the private organization. You pay your dues, you show up to meetings, and you vote on who you think the party should support in the next election.

Meanwhile, in the US, you have people declaring themselves "lifelong Democrats" or "lifelong Republicans" who have never, ever been affiliated with the party. They just vote for whoever is their candidate every time. And maybe they show up to vote in the primaries, further entrenching the illusion that they're part of the organization.

But that's all it is: an illusion. The reality is that primaries are nothing more than A/B tests to see which candidates stand to do best in the actual, real election. They're market research surveys that let you LARP as party members, and which get made to look official and legitimate by being run by state electoral officers.

Which means they're private market research surveys that you pay for.

[–] hoodatninja@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Please do not talk down to me. Nothing I said indicates I think this is standard. I was giving the historical context for why it is that way in the US. So please don't come at me with this "well actually" nonsense please. It's needlessly hostile.

The flip side is that independent candidates are fairly common.

That's not the result of not having people vote in primaries. That's generally the result of a parliamentary system, which is more common than anything resembling the US's representative democracy system.

As for the rest of your comment, you're grinding an axe over something I did not say.