this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024

-21 points (23.1% liked)

politics

19073 readers

5069 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

• 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

-21

Libertarian candidates for Congress will be left off Iowa ballots after final court decision (www.msn.com)

submitted 1 month ago by UniversalMonk to c/politics

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] jordanlund 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month 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?

[+] UniversalMonk -13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because both Democrats and Republicans seem united on one front: reducing your options when it comes to voting, not expanding them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That sounds about right for the GOP.

Regarding Dems, I'd have to say citation needed (barring of course the cases I implied above - but in those the reasoning is more nuanced than just "nO mOrE cHoIcEs"). A good counter example is how they backed independent socialist Bernie Sanders, https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/mar/02/how-can-bernie-sanders-run-democratic-primary-when/

[+] UniversalMonk -8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’d have to say citation needed

Well the democrats are trying mighty hard to keep Claudia De la Cruz and Jill Stein off the ballots.

Also, I LOVED Bernie Sanders, and I personally think the Democrats did him dirty because they wanted Hilary on the ticket. And look how that turned out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Also, I LOVED Bernie Sanders,

Same.

and I personally think the Democrats did him dirty because they wanted Hilary on the ticket. And look how that turned out.

It actually took a lot for Dems to lose that year, when you think about it. It's definitely possible that had Sanders been on the ticket, he'd have won - it wouldn't have been possible to subject him to things like the unimportant email scandal or Flynn announcing that Clinton's being investigated, etc.

Likewise, there's a good chance Clinton would have won if she had dropped out and endorsed Clinton. There's an interesting parallel here - RJK Jr would have drawn off more Biden voters, and thus the GOP would have won. But this trend reversed when Harris took over, and so RJK dropped out and joined the GOP's candidate's campaign instead.

Well the democrats are trying mighty hard to keep Claudia De la Cruz and Jill Stein off the ballots.

Yeah, those are covered by my earlier statement:

(barring of course the cases I implied above - but in those the reasoning is more nuanced than just "nO mOrE cHoIcEs").

To reiterate - that this is being done is deplorable, but in a first-past-the-post that's as broken as what we have here, it's kinda understandable. In a weird reverse, we also have Dems suing to keep RJK Jr on the ballot.

The scenario that they fear is this: many middle folks vote Harris, more lefties vote Stein and De la Cruz, combined they have more votes together than the GOP guy, but he still wins.

I'm convinced we wouldn't see Dems do this if we had ranked-choice voting for President. Even a Georgia style runoff would be better. RCV might make Jill Stein immune to accusations of being a Russian spoiler etc.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker 1 points 1 month 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.News

https://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