this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
-18 points (25.0% liked)

politics

18880 readers
4253 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I can't agree with this in general. I can see the need for these kinds of tactics in the Presidential election, but for Senate? I mean, the Libertarians would probably cacus with the Republicans anyways if they won, and Iowa is pretty solidly Republican anyways (or so I imagine) so what's the big deal here in offering more choices to the voters?

[–] jordanlund 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

"Representing the challengers, conservative attorney Alan Ostergren argued that the candidates were improperly nominated at the party's convention because the delegates at the initial county conventions had not yet started their terms. State law says delegates start their terms the day after they are selected at precinct caucuses, but the Libertarian Party held county conventions the same day."

Really seems like a self inflicted wound, isn't it?

How hard would it have been to delay the convention until Midnight?

Libertarians here had similar organization issues:

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/09/04/oregon-republican-party-appeals-attorney-general-block-libertarians-ballot/?outputType=amp

"Under the Libertarian Party’s current constitution and bylaws posted online, candidates are supposed to be nominated by a mail or electronic election, unless the party’s board of directors lacks the money to run a mail election and votes to hold a convention instead. This year, the party scheduled a convention in Moro, but it didn’t have enough members show up to make a quorum."

LOL

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

While I still maintain my stance that anyone who votes 3rd party in a FPTP election is a moron, this does seem unfair.

The challenge was brought by Republicans, but it's a challenge based on Libertarian Party rules of how they choose who to nominate. The only people who should have standing are Libertarian Party members.

If they had put in their nomination forms late or made some other error with the process of doing the nomination, then it would be fair for Republicans or Democrats or independent voters to challenge to get them removed. But an internal matter that the article says was completely uncontroversial internally should not be brought by outsiders.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker 1 points 6 days ago

MSN.com - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for MSN.com:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/libertarian-candidates-for-congress-will-be-left-off-iowa-ballots-after-final-court-decision/ar-AA1qpKD7?ocid=BingNewsVerp
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support