869
AOC defeats moderate challenger in Democratic primary
(www.usatoday.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
869 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2924 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
Why make election season much longer than needed?
Printing ballots can be done quite quickly.
And is 6 months of campaigning really better than 2 months?
Ffffuuuuuuucccckkk no its not better. It's just that our system predated most parliaments, and as such the founding fathers made some stupid choices that made it utterly impossible to amend basic quailty of life changes for our democracy.
What did the founding fathers decide that made it impossible to have short election seasons in the US?
The process to amend the constitution. It's all but impossible given modern politics, and that's largely been true for 50 years and counting.
That has nothing to do with how long election season is.
Are you even American?
Our election cycle cant be curtailed or shifted because our constitution can't realistically be amended to match the saner policies in other countries. When our constitution is so antiqued that that "money is speech" becomes the law of the land, there is a core problem with the founding document itself.
How it that not related to our election cycle?
Because a constitutional convention is so wildly unlikely it's just distracting from any actually helpful suggestions.
I'm talking about our broken government system, not what's helpful. The fact that a constitutional convention is impossible is exactly the problem. Its why many parts of our democracy are broken, and will likely ultimately be the downfall of our nation.
Thr founders called the Constitution a living document, with Jefferson specifically talking about how it must change to as American changes. To do that, they put in a wildly difficult mechanism that is nearly impossible to actually invoke, and added lifetime arbiter roles that can opt to unwind any law not written in pen and ink on that same paper.
Those are critical fuckups if you intend to have a living document and a shapeable democracy.
If you know it's not helpful why are you wasting time on it?
Why talk about the structure of our government? Education, general interest, activism?
Why are you wasting time talking about wasting time if it's just wasting time?
I have seen that user repeatedly argue in bad faith. I assume they are doing something similar here. The wasting of time is the point. I think they're just a troll.
Just in the spirit of pedantry, its not really true to say that the US system predated most parliaments.
Like, maybe its technically true now due to the expansion of democratic and republic systems in the post-colonial era, but parliaments in Western Europe were plentiful and long-established in 1776.
The first American government was notable in that is was completely divorced from a hereditary Monarch, and I don't wanna downplay that, but a system in which a representitive body of land-owners is elected by an enfranchised class to decide policy and even pass legislation existed in, for example, Iceland since the 10th Century, Catalonia since the 12th, England since the 13th. It was arguably the standard during the enlightenment in Europe.
My two cents, the US system does seem to be remarkably inflexible. I guess it's complicated to unpack why exactly, but a combination of myth-making, bad-faith originalists, and the sheer size of the country probably all play a part in it
It's better for the politicians wallets.
Well no, it's better for the politician's campaign's wallets. If people could spend campaign funds however they wanted then Donald Trump would have quite a few less pending felonies.
First of all, there's TONS of ways to enrich yourself by running for office without technically breaking any of the very flimsy campaign finance laws. That's why people with literally no chance of winning keep running for public offices up to and including the presidency.
Second of all, the FEC, which is ALREADY as toothless as a nonagenarian who never brushed his teeth due to chronic deliberate underfunding and understaffing, has an EXTREME backlog of cases from having lacked a quorum for the better part of a year.
Third, even if the FEC was otherwise effective, this is TRUMP we're talking about here. He's getting away with TONS of campaign finance fraud and legal misuse of donations as is.