this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
200 points (82.1% liked)

politics

19033 readers
2369 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.
  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
 

It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orcrist@lemm.ee -3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What a dreadful article. If you're not in a swing state, and you're in the minority, and you have been for the last 70 years, why do you think anything is going to change this time? Your vote never made a difference before and it almost certainly won't this time, either. Vote for whoever you want to vote for.

It's just embarrassing to write an article like this and forget about the electoral college.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s just embarrassing to write an article like this and forget about the electoral college.

You say that as if you don't realise that the electoral college is exactly why it can't possibly achieve anything to vote third party other than risk your least favourite candidate winning.

You act all high and mighty and snide and then completely miss the point. I'm not impressed.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

What, you think it's snide to point out that a poorly written political article was poorly written? Jesus. All they had to do was mention that everything is extra complicated because of the electoral college. It would have added three or four sentences, and it would have made their article relevant and true.

Or maybe you had a problem with my wording. Do you think I should have been more delicate, to avoid hurting the author's feelings? (I don't think they're going to read my comments, but even if they did, the odds are good that they would care about my view about as much as you do.)

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

It's more what you were high and mighty about - you claimed that the article was missing the fact that there's an electoral college, whilst yourself missing the entire point of the whole article which is wholly based on the fact of the electoral college.

So if you hadn't missed the entire point of the article, or if the entire point of the article wasn't based on the failings of the electoral college system, your criticism of it might have had merit.

So just as you missed the point of the article, you missed the point of my post, which wasn't about your impoliteness, but rather your hypocrisy.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

If you're in a state that is solidly red or blue, then similar logic applies to downballot races.