this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
235 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19098 readers
3311 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
235
Judge Unseals New Evidence in Federal Election Case Against Trump (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The filing itself is here.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

When only 2 parties take turns ruling the country, the checks and balances don't really work well when stressed. Because the party that needs to be checked, control half the apparatus, and can disrupt large parts of the other half.

Countries with maybe 10+ parties in parlament like many European countries have, will never have a single party with control of half the apparatus responsible for the checks and balances.

This is a huge reason first past the post is bad for democracy, apart from also not representing the population as fairly as is possible with numerous parties of influence.

This problem permeates throughout the entirety of the system, including the judicial, where judges belong to one or the other party, enabling an imbalance with total control for one party in for instance the supreme court.
With a multi party system, a single party would NOT be able to take control in the way we have seen happen in USA, which obviously shouldn't be possible, and also doesn't help to prevent corruption.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I would love to be able to vote for a true leftist party in America. They will never allow it though.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Four states don't use first-past-the-post for legislative elections. In particular:

  • Alaska - uses a top-4 primary + ranked choice general
  • Maine - uses ranked choice voting
  • California & Washington - use top-two primaries (note: CA can be top-3 if there is a tie for 2nd place)

If a third party wanted to succeed, they would put significant resources into winning legislative and congressional seats in those places. I don't see any of them actually doing that though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Why don’t more states abandon first-past-the-post?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Massachusetts tried last time and the ballot initiative failed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Rcv is "new and scary" peoples resistance to change will always make them shit on things they dont understand. The only solution is to have more of us then there are of them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There were ads running against it and the arguments were nonsense, but there was nothing from the pro side. It was like they expected* the electorate to just know that it was better and didn't think a campaign was needed.

*Expected, not requested

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Mostly because the progressives didn't control them in the early 1900s, so they don't have legislature-bypassing initiatives, and even in states where you do have that, it's expensive to get one through.

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

So disappointing. I feel like things will never change.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Political change tends to be like that — nothing at all for a long period when you don't have the power to act, and sudden rapid change when you do.

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

It feels like we’re on the cusp of something big happening, for better or for worse.

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

On the upside they could change for the worse. Maybe instead of fair elections the chang is a god king

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Because the parties with the power don't want to, because it might cost them power.

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

They're not designed to win, they're designed to offset whoever they're turned against.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Probably not, they have a nice cozy arrangement where they share the power. To allow multiple parties would mean to give that up, and most likely neither side is really interested in that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?
I learned in school – not sure if this part is entirely accurate but its an interesting idea anyway – that this situation was precisely why there is a ~5% of votes, lower barrier for parties sending representatives in many modern European democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_threshold

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?

No I didn't, that's very interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_political_parties

What I don't get is, how Hitler managed to take control with that many parties? He should not have been in a position with power to do that?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Same way trump won the primary in 2016, everyone was disunited and a focused minority could overrule them all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No it's not the same, Trump is obvious, that's because of the 2 party system, and first past the post.
And people moronically believed Trump was a vote against the political establishment, and for the minimal state.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean the GOP primary, the others divided the vote and let him walk away with it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Sorry my bad, yes that's actually a good point. 👍

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Trying to remember what i learned in history here, i hope i get at least most of it right:

  • the political institutions of the Weimar republic were not as balanced and protected from interference as in other democracies
  • many parties were against the existence of the Weimar Republic
  • they differed a little in what they wanted instead though, ranging from reintroducing the monarchy with a few republican elements, to full fledged socialism
  • the difference between the parties made finding compromises very difficult and often resulted in stalemates in the legislative, because of missing checks this did not affect the executive as much though
  • especially the monarchists liked the idea of heaving a leader that can overrule the parliament if needed and so it was easy for Hitler to get them to agree that they would all be better off with him breaking the stalemate so to speak. So they formed a coalition
  • see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harzburg_Front
  • Those parties also had no qualms with banning other parties just because they disagreed on something, which Hitler was very happy to do, starting with the communists and ending with a complete ban on forming political parties after every serious contender was eliminated
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Thanks that's a very nice summary.

especially the monarchists liked the idea of heaving a leader that can overrule the parliament
I especially noticed this as probably the key practical part in how it was possible.

It's interesting because I've always considered multiple parties to be an important way to protect democracy.
But I guess that ultimately it depends on the people being willing to protect it.
Still having 10 parties represented, makes for a better chance that minority views are represented. And I still believe it helps against corruption and strengthen democracy relative to only 2 parties.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can read the full 165 page release here:

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/02/read-trump-filing-new-evidence-2020-election-case

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

OP included link to the full pdf, and is way nicer format to read.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

When Mike Pence was rushed to a secure location on Jan. 6, an aide alerted Donald Trump in the hope that he would take action to ensure Pence’s safety. Instead, according to grand jury testimony, Trump looked at the aide and said only, “So what?”

I don’t know if this will hold up in court, but Trump is a dick.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I remember this being mentioned back then but now there’s confirmation.

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

....and his base hopes that dick will fuck all the right people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

165 pages and this is the only thing I see people talking about. If I'm being honest, I'm not going to read the whole thing. Is there anything else?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Detailed records showing Trump sitting on Twatter all day and watching Faux Newz.

It leaves little doubt he helped orchestrate it instead of just passively watching.

It blows the whole "he transferred peacefully" out of the water.

It also makes it clear he knew he lost and lied about everything.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ok... Why was it sealed in the first place?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago

They wanted to redact witness names before releasing it.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago

New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New York Times:

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

CourtListener - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for CourtListener:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/02/us/politics/trump-jan-6-case-jack-smith-evidence.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PE4.wUD5.NBhkZa4kw4sK
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.252.0.pdf
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support