this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
169 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19104 readers
4673 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 37 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Reminder of why the winner of the 2000 election didn't become President (Climate Town just put out a video about it.) When you have both an electoral college and first past the post voting system, close races get ugly and questionable. If a higher percentage of people would vote, we wouldn't see such a close race.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Reminder of why the winner of the 2000 election didn't become President

Because a criminally corrupt, partisan, captured supreme court stole the election! When you're the highest court in the land, they let you grab em by the justice...

I'm also willing to bet the SC will steal 2024 too and, despite the many threats and objections from Democrats, they and the population will ultimately roll over and accept the Christian fascist coup. Prove me wrong America! I double dare you!

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That was the next layer, but they can't get to that point if the voting isn't close. I don't disagree that elections is one of the many reasons why the court got stacked, but way before the SC there WILL be corruption attempts at the voting level. See Steve Bannon's commentary on how they've put people in place in voting areas and have formulated a plan to question voter authenticity. They know they can't win with a fair election, so they're finding more and more ways to subtly cheat. Or maybe not even subtle now, since they keep saying everything out loud.

And the best way to counter this is drown the attempt in voter numbers, so that even if ballots are questioned or tossed or people turned away, the number still are high.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

That was the next layer, but they can't get to that point if the voting isn't close.

That's why they're manufacturing excuses to e.g. throw out Atlanta's votes (and presumably planning similar fraud in other swing states).

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

SCOTUS knew that Gore would win. They found an out by saying that the Secretary of State had a right to cancel recounts when she felt like it and that was that.