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.
- 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.
- 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
In a way, AOC was right.
Wanted to add that the there's an exception to this. The actual law states that, among other categories,
Also, from https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/08/26/wisconsin-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-lawsuit-against-green-party-ballot-access/
So if the Green Party had fielded candidates for these lower offices, then those candidates could also serve as the electors and they wouldn't have this problem. Which hits the point that AOC made well, that the Green Party needs to be building at the grassroots and fielding candidates in more lower offices.
If we check the law itself again, there's also this bit,
It's interesting to see that the requirements are more lax for write-in candidates - not needing to decide on the electors until after the election has been held.
And if a write-in or independent or third party did win the election, I think it's a possibility that retiring state senators from other parties might well agree to serve as electors for that candidate (as the better alternative to seeing the state's electoral votes lost).
So if Jill Stein were a write-in candidate, then it's possible to see her getting an actual slate of electors in Wisconsin if she did win the election in that state.
That being the case, perhaps there's some legal rabbit that the Green Party is waiting to pull out of their hat to solve this when the time is right - say to argue and convince the WEC and the courts that the more lax write-in deadline should apply to Stein and the Green Party upon their victory.