this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
749 points (95.6% liked)

politics

24518 readers
4008 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ofcourse@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (11 children)

I agree that she should run, but as an independent candidate because the DNC will never give her a honest shot in the primaries.

Americans however are unlikely to elect her especially due to electoral college as there are plenty racist and misogynistic voters in the swing states.

But if she’s able to raise money in the process to give her a real shot, US will finally have a viable third party candidate. If it looks like she’ll only split the Dem vote without winning, the raised money can be used to support progressive candidates in local elections.

Either way, I think US needs a progressive liberals party and soon because there’s a lot of House and Senate seat elections coming up and as we have seen from the GOP playbook, local elections are as relevant and influential as the national ones.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (8 children)

as an informed she'll split the vote.

it's there a way to force a form of ranked choice voting?

she runs for independent, but the votes are for delegates that chose the president, so if she gets 10% of the votes, the delegated should vote for the other less fash candidat, while if she does get the majority she gets the presidency

on top of that, she can make the delegate vote conditional for some policies. so even if she gets 5% of the votes she can dictate the delegates to vote for whichever candidate signs a legally binding contract to do some prewritten executive actions on day one, like abolish Ice. release all imprisonment migrants, grant re-entry visas to deported...

so even if she only gets a few votes, she can have a lot of influence and power.

I just started thinking about this today,and I fear there are more complications. but I'm principle, could this work?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Electors are not granted proportionally. If the Democratic nominee gets 30% of the vote in a state, AOC gets 30% of the vote, and the Republican gets 35% of the vote, all the electors are Republican.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

do some states have paetial wins? if its 50% each candidate gets half the delegates?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Two states allocate votes by congressional district, but that's just first past the post at a smaller level and the spoiler issue remains. You need proportional representation or some actual form of transferable vote to avoid it.

TBH, I got the idea, I knew there's loads I don't know, and choose to post instead of asking chatGPT. prefer answer from real people.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)