614
Gerrymandered Ohio Republican lawmakers are already scheming to attack voters over election results
(ohiocapitaljournal.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
614 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19149 readers
3694 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The primary controlled by the very party actively fighting progressives. The party that argued in court that selecting the candidate themselves is within their rights? Yeah, that's a fair contest for sure 🙄
You're so incredibly pessimistic. Then how did Ocasio-Cortez beat Crowley in 2018? He had been in Congress for twenty years and was the chair of the House Democratic Caucus! If "the party" controlled the primary why would they "let" her win? The only way things can ever get better is by voting.
A rare and momentous triumph. That someone exceptional like AOC with an exceptional grassroots organisation behind her can do it once doesn't mean that it's easy or even, in most cases, possible for others.
Odd thing to keep repeating on a post about people betrayed by the very people you advocate voting for as "the only way" 🙄
Wait first it was:
Then it became:
Does "the party" determine the primary or do the voters? It's one or the other.
It was a rare and momentous triumph for AOC to win a primary that was controlled by the very people actively fighting progressives.
Which part don't you understand?
If the party controlled the primary then Crowley would have won. I don't like arguments where everything is X but if Y happens that just proves X. I see it as flawed logic.
You're conflating the impossible and the improbable/exceptional.
You're acting like either there's no control from the party or there's total control. It's the kind of flawed logic called a false dichotomy.
Think of it like this: if one runner is chained to a post and the other is unhindered, the first runner has no chance. That's what it's like if the Democratic Party has TOTAL control of the contest.
Imagine, on the other hand, one runner has weights on her wrists and ankles totalling 4 pounds and the other is unencumbered. While it's not impossible for a MUCH better runner to win, it's not a fair competition and only exceptional runners will overcome the unequal treatment and still win.
The latter example is how Democratic Party primaries are. Progressive candidates are wearing the weights, even incumbents.
My whole argument has been that more people should vote. That more people should engage politically. Meaning they educate themselves and they vote in every election they can. Do you sincerely think that if voter participation rose from 2022's 46% to 60 or 70% that we would have better politicians or worse politicians? I think we'd have better people running for office and being elected to office. That's the bottom line of my argument.
And the bottom line of MY argument is that, while we should definitely vote, voting alone doesn't fix the broken system that lead to the perpetual lesser evil choices in most general elections.
Im glad we agree that we should definitely vote.