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
They didn’t even mention anyone not being able to vote because of race. They mentioned in court that certain areas that happen to have older voters, poorer voters, and black voters could be potentially undermined by ranked choice. And it’s proven to be true. As shown in previous elections time and time again. It is called undervoting.
See:
https://archive.ph/rWKVm
None of these commenters read the fucking article. You read the headlines and then jump straight to the hot takes, to spew about unrelated agendas.
The Democratic Party officials in DC are like 90% black.
Here are literally the actual people who made the argument in court. You. can see their pictures:
https://www.leadersofcolor.net/team/victor-horton
Just to be clear: I’m for ranked choice. Their concern is not racist. And saying it is in this case means you didn’t read the article.
Here’s Charles Wilson - The leader of the DC democrats, who personally argued in court, as mentioned in the article you all didn’t read:
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5256c4_b5db7b16ba72415dba2c031483b0588b~mv2_d_1291_1291_s_2.jpeg/v1/fill/w_524,h_512,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/156623072117857016%20(2).jpeg
All I had to do was read the article to not come to the same conclusion as half the people in this thread. Community fail. This thread proves some people can’t be bothered to read. And that’s what the argument made in court was about - confusion.
You didn’t read the article. I did. You also apparently didn’t read the TLDR bullet points. I did. Let me get the excerpts for you:
They’re explicitly saying these minorities are more likely to be confused.
About your point about “they can’t be racist because they’re black”… yes they absolutely fucking can. There is zero need to call on race here. “Our constituents report confusion leading to under voting” is all that needed to be said. Tying it to race is…. Racist. Tying it to age is ageist.
What if you read it as
So they're actively trying to prevent black people from being disenfranchised (if undervoting counts as such).
However, using this as an argument to oppose ranked choice voting, instead of informing the voters better, is definitely wrong.
You can read anything any way you want if you literally rewrite like you just did. That's a straight up Trump-style move.
They don't care about disenfranchising anyone and you damn well know it. This is solely about Democrats worrying about competing against independent progressives in DC elections where they stand a very real chance of losing power if the voting system stops favoring them.
They are progressive black local leaders representing their community. Not racists. Not “corpo dems” haha.
And they are saying minorities, the elderly, and the poor are more likely to be undermined because of lack of resources to be made aware of said changes. They did it last year, and many people in those districts didn’t make a second vote. Which means their vote counted less than others.
Under voting isn’t a theory. It’s something that’s demonstrably occurred in these specific districts. They can see how people vote and notice that it is happening.
Saying one demographic is more likely to be left unaware of said changes, after looking at the data, and noting the negative impact, is not the same as saying “black people are stupid.” That’s where your mind went for some odd reason, though.
The local dem chapters in these types of districts aren’t Hilary Clinton, bro. They’re the opposite.
Nice try. You’re disingenuous and desperate AF.
There’s people who hate nuance, and there’s people who have a clear agenda. And they’re typically the same people. And that’s why you jumped straight to the “they’re racist corpos” when it’s objectively the opposite.
Just to be clear: I am generally for ranked choice. And I’m generally for calling out corporate dems. But I’m not cool with disingenuousness, even/especially from people I otherwise stand in agreement with on issues in general.
Calling these particular people racists is exactly what Trumpers would do. Btw. Same shitty playbook.
Lmao. DC Dems are 100% corporate. You act like someone can't be black and a corporate shill at the same time, which of course is racist.
This is solely about suppressing competition from independents and third party candidates. They'll use any argument they can to maintain the monopoly on power they have in DC. You're falling for it.
Because you say so. And these black people who live in these districts are racist against themselves too. Sure, buddy. Quite apt.
People who use words like shill whenever they have nothing else to say are funny. You probably believe in pizzagate.
except that they didn't need to tie it to race at all. you're right. they have polling data. "These wards were severely undervoting in the last election because of a lack of awareness; ranked choice disenfranchises our constituents" is really all that needed to be said. Unless you think race is actually the contributing factor and not - just here me out here- adequate resrouces spent on awareness campaigns in those wards prior to the vote and in the polling stations day of.
But awareness campaigns and extra pollworkers to make things go smoothly... don't help keep status quo with democrats and republicans sharing power by agreement because ranked choice (among other reforms,) absolutely would weaken their power. as out outsider looking in and only knowing this... they really don't seem all that progressive, here.
I do appologize for the assumptions. being anti-rank-choice tends to be a corpo-dem position; not a progressive one. Because it makes... you know... progressives... easier to elect. (more broadly, 3rd party.)
once again. the point is there's zero need at all to tie this to racism, which they very much did. IMO, "its confusing" is not a valid argument for not doing something new. people can learn and get through it- particularly with help. "its confusing" is a very good argument for taking steps to clear up the confusion. which of these two options do you think supports their constituents better?
White Savior says what?