95
Didn't we just have a supreme Court decision that said states can't ban presidential candidates from the national ballot?
uh, it was BLUE states?
Yes, for a completely unrelated reason. There have been filling deadlines for candidates at basically every level of government for a very long time and those have never been successfully challenged in court. And even with the most liberal Judges on the SCOTUS likely wouldn't bat an eye at them. The problem here isn't Alabama (for once) it's the DNC being so high on it's own shit that they assumed the laws wouldn't be applied to them. Sure, the State Legislature could pass a law temporarily waiving that requirement. It seems awful stupid to bet on it when the convention could happen a week earlier and avoid the whole thing.
Biden is missing all these states, because the DNC set their convention for so late in the summer, it missed the deadline to notify states who the party's nominee is to be on the ballot.
DNC can easily move the convention up and Biden be on all ballots.
But I'm case you haven't noticed, the unelected people running the DNC tend to make ridiculous demands and never back down.
There's a decent chance they won't do the very easy solution of moving the convention up.
If they thought rules applied to them, they'd have checked the most basic part of our political system to see when signups were due.
Or they're doing it on purpose. DNC has no hope in Alabama, but if they don't put him on the ballot the dnc may be counting on it enraging some of the blue voters in all the other states to go vote out of spite.
That's a dumb enough idea that I'd believe the DNC would do it
I think the DNC wants Trump to win. Has the Biden administration looked to see if bad actors are not running it?
I'm going to not be the cynic and I'll assume that they will move the date 4 days later for the DNC, like the 7 days they did for the RNC in 2020 with Trump. I hope our political system rewards my faith.
It won’t.
Even if they do, some other bullshit will be afoot.
Because its Alabama, the Alabama of the United States
Is there any other alabama?
If there is... it must suck getting confused for 'Bama all the time.
Thanks, 'Bama
apparently there's an Alabama, Romania; Alabama Ghana; and an Alabama Hill, Queensland, Australia.
now I'm curious what those places are like.
Google maps sent me to a park, for Alabama in Romania. It's effectively a city park, but in a village. Feels like the kind of thing that gets built for fraud purposes. A couple sports (football, basketball, whatever) would've served the village kids much better than park benches.
I dunno. I just looked at it on street view... it seems a decent playground at least.
It's empty, so, maybe you're right, but its not straight up awful like some of the places I've seen.
When I was a kid at least, the kind of play you do in a park, we'd do in the yard. Playing tag, playing with toys, swings, etc. Maybe that's not the case anymore, and maybe the kids are using it. I would've preferred a football field back then, because the school had its gates locked over the weekend.
A lot of places in Europe don’t have yards like that, though I’m not sure what Romania’s housing is like.
I'm from Romania, people generally have yards in rural areas.
Edit: If you pull it up on google maps and switch to satellite view, you can see the vast majority of houses in the surrounding have some sort of yard.
the problem with football fields- or any kind of sport's pitch, for that matter- is that they tend to be dominated and "reserved" for leagues and stuff. which, maybe, is important. but it's unlikely the people next door get to use it. At least, here. ( I remember the last time I tried to play tennis. the courts were reserved by private instructors until they turned the lights off. there was literally no time from friday night through sunday evening that wasn't booked solid. and there was zero way to get your name on the reservation cycle without being a coach.)
without knowing the circumstances behind it, I'm going to shrug and move on.
This is a village. If there are leagues, they're amateur leagues. Worst case scenario you can't play on one day, but you can play probably the next.
‘The Florida Panhandle’ is a common nickname for ‘Lower Alabama’ so I can understand why it might be forgotten as another Alabama…
Hope in one hand, and shit in the other.
Just move the f’ing convention. It’s not just Alabama
In 2020 alone, states like Alabama, Illinois, Montana, and Washington all allowed provisional certification for Democratic and Republican nominees,” the campaign official said.
In 2020, Alabama’s GOP-controlled Legislature passed a law to “accommodate the dates of the 2020 Republican National Convention,” shifting the state’s certification deadline for parties from 82 days before the election to 75 days that year.
Republican convention in 2020 was August 24th-27th, even later than the democrats scheduled this year. These laws are silly too, helping to encourage the already ridiculously long presidential campaign to take even longer by pushing conventions further back. Trump can't be kept off the ballot for an insurrection, but setting a deadline earlier than most states that exceptions are routinely made for and it's never been an issue before? Well that's serious, better keep him off the ballot I guess /s.
Ohio too...
The people running the DNC are completely fucking incompetent if they can't even work a fucking calendar.
Why are we letting this group of unelected idiots be so involved with our political system?
I think that might be an unfair assessment of the situation, at least in Alabama.
They're clearly playing favorites, it's not the first time a party didn't meet the deadline and they've always been accommodated.
it’s not the first time a party didn’t meet the deadline and they’ve always been accommodated.
I know both parties missed it in 2020, so some states moved it for both.
But thats the only time I've heard of it happening.
And while republicans and trump finally got their shit together and figured out how a calendar works, the DNC and Biden did not.
There is a very easy fix here, the DNC follows the rules and moves up their convention. And hopefully they can remember to look at a calendar in 2028.
But why in the absolute fuck are we still letting them run the only other option when they're this fucking stupid?
Like, did you already forget about them demanding the NH party violate state election law a few months ago?
This is an established pattern of behavior: the DNC doesn't think rules apply to them.
That should scare the shit out of everyone
I'm greatly in favor of anyone pressuring NH over this. There's no reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should get such an outsized roll in deciding who the nominees are, over and over again, every election, for a century. And the people who live in states farther in the primary calendar basically get no say. There should be a rotation of states if anything.
New Hampshire's state law is ridiculous and unenforceable too, all it would take is another state passing their own law saying, no we go first, and suddenly there is no way both laws could be upheld at the same time, and they're trying to hopscotch each other pushing farther and farther back in the calendar. Policies like New Hampshire's law are why we have candidate debates over a year before the actual election! Whole situation is ridiculous.
While I share some of your concerns about the DNC, I'm not gonna shed a tear for the voters in New Hampshire and Iowa that had more say than anyone else in the country about who would be president for a century.
I’m greatly in favor of anyone pressuring NH over this.
...
The only ones that can change NH state law, is the NH state government...
And they're all Republicans. They ain't changing the law to help Democrats.
So if you're saying you're ok with this, that means you're ok with disenfranchising all the Democrats in that state for something they have zero control of.
I'm not saying that's not what you're doing, it seems like you think it's perfectly fine.
But it's incredibly undemocratic and embarrassing to see so many people with your opinion
No that's incorrect, the party could always have arranged their own nominating contest and still had delegates. There was nothing preventing them from doing that, and that's what the DNC urged them to do many times. The state cannot stop a political party (a private organization) from picking their own candidates and delegates. For instance, in Nevada the republican party there decided they did not want to line up with the state selected primary date, and held their own caucus instead that did award delegates.
The state democratic party in New Hampshire that chose not to do this (because they believe they should always get to have first say) and the state government that passed this dumb law (for the same reason) are the ones disenfranchising people here. And no, don't put words in my mouth, I'm not in favor of disenfranchising anyone. The state party should have just held their own nominating contest later so that they would have had delegates. And New Hampshire shouldn't have the sole authority to determine the presidential election schedule for everyone else. If other states acted like them we'd have a never ending game of who's primary is actually first.
Oh shucks, and he was so likely to win Alabama's electors too...
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
95 points (94.4% liked)
News
23268 readers
2770 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS