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
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.