Even before President Joe Biden’s long-speculated withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, allies of former President Donald Trump floated the possibility of suing to block Democrats from having anyone other than Biden on the ballot in November.
But election administration and legal experts said the timing of Biden’s exit on Sunday makes it unlikely that any Republican ballot access challenges will succeed, with some calling the idea “ridiculous” and “frivolous.” Democrats are on safe legal ground as they identify a new standard-bearer, they say, because the party hasn’t officially chosen its nominee. That typically occurs with a vote of delegates at the party’s convention.
“It’s ridiculous for people to talk about ‘replacing Biden.’ He hasn’t been nominated yet,” said Richard Winger, a leading expert on state ballot access laws and the longtime editor of the “Ballot Access News” newsletter.
I’m out here voting in the major party primaries to get better candidates. You’re voting for for a party that has never won a single electoral vote (no 3rd party has won a single electoral vote since Wallace in 1968) and expecting that to somehow convince the actual winners to change the rules in your parties favor then blaming the Democratic party for the Republican party winning. Pretty sure it’s not my head in the sand.
I’m out here educating others about choices they could make.
You’re voting
No, I’m not.
You’re out here making assumptions about me and believing everyone else is too stupid to choose for themselves. It doesn’t even register for you that the rules unfairly limit choices because they favor your choice. Fuck everyone else: You got yours.
It’s just like the fascists you’re running from. Well done.
How does you not voting make your case any better? It’s even less effective than voting third party.
The SCOTUS case brought by the Sanders campaign had a ruling that stated the private parties can do whatever they want in their primaries, without regard for fairness or wants of the participants. SCOTUS recommend that if one doesn’t agree with that then they shouldn’t participate. I agree with them.
It also doesn’t matter whom they nominate. The platform and outcomes aren’t changed by the puppet politician, only by the corporate donors writing the legislation. I don’t care who figureheads either major party.
I also don’t care who figureheads the Green Party. The platform and ballot access is their value. If they scale then pressure is exerted on Democrats. If they scale a lot then a solid candidate will jump ship from Democrats.
My dichotomous vote for President also wouldn’t matter. My deep red state will cast all of their electoral votes for Trump. I’ve decided to vote Green POTUS in the general in small hope others also reason out where such is possible and why 5% of the GE vote is quite powerful for the cause, regardless of party affiliation. There’s one other local election where I’ll vote because I believe a viewpoint that I don’t agree with should be voiced for others’ benefit.
There’s much more powerful avenues of change than voting. I spend most of my time on what history says will work.
I’m out here educating others about choices they could make.
And I’m pointing out the historical and statistical futility of either voting 3rd party or not voting as a means to break away from the current Democratic/Republican stranglehold.
You’re out here making assumptions about me
That’s fair, I did infer from your post advocating for ACO as a Green party candidate that you were voting for Green party. My bad. You did just clearly say you’re not voting. Which, like, how do you expect to achieve your goals then? What’s your concrete plan of action to win by not participating?
and believing everyone else is too stupid to choose for themselves
No, I’m saying voting 3rd party or not voting isn’t going to unseat the current Democratic/Republican parties and to run those progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries as a more effective means to the desired end.
It doesn’t even register for you that the rules unfairly limit choices because they favor your choice. Fuck everyone else: You got yours.
Bernie was on the primary ballot, I voted for him, he lost. They didn’t favor my choice. My choice lost. I did not “get mine.” That doesn’t mean I didn’t have a choice. I’m not saying the DNC did no wrong. But he did, in fact, receive fewer votes. And the only things that limit my possible choices are who has actually declared/registered to run on the primary and my willingness to register to vote and actually turn up to vote.
I want RCV to be a reality so that 3rd party candidates will be viable. But I can acknowledge the reality that I won’t get RCV by voting third party or by not voting. I will only get it by electing representatives who will fight for it in my stated government, and 3rd party candidates just haven’t been able to win any state/local elections where I live. So I’m voting in the primaries of the two parties who have a statistical chance of winning to get there. And I need more people to do the same in order to “get mine”.
Most importantly, I appreciate that you’re asking questions that appear to be in good faith. Neither of those is the status quo. So, I’ll give you good answers.
And I’m pointing out the historical and statistical futility of either voting 3rd party or not voting as a means to break away from the current Democratic/Republican stranglehold.
No, I’m saying voting 3rd party or not voting isn’t going to unseat the current Democratic/Republican parties and to run those progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries as a more effective means to the desired end.
You’ve assumed that winning is the only outcome of value. Five percent of the GE in this cycle puts the platform on every ballot in the next. That choice would be outside the influence of party primary and from a party more loyal to the platform than even Sanders.
That exerts a fuck ton of pressure on Democratic Party platform for at least four years. I couldn’t care less which party serves the ideological choice We the People deserve. I like Green today because they’ve been more loyal to the platform than even Sanders and they’re already engaged with local ballot access.
But, this reasoning only works well in deep red states. Everywhere else voters need to worry much more about short term harm reduction. I even did the math for what proportion of deep red state Democratic voters would need to reason this out to get 5% of the GE. It’s definitely possible.
Literally, neolibs just need to trust other neolibs to not be so stupid as to fuck up something so simple it can be responsibly communicated in three paragraphs.
Which, like, how do you expect to achieve your goals then? What’s your concrete plan of action to win by not participating?
I advocate and practice the means that have been historically, statistically, psychologically proven, in order of decreasing importance: rebellion, riot, strike, boycott, protest, and voting.
But he did, in fact, receive fewer votes
Why? What did the DNC do to favor his opponents?
Anyone I’ve asked to read the ruling that then did so no longer votes in the major party primaries. You seem reasonable. Please, read it for yourself.
So I’m voting in the primaries of the two parties who have a statistical chance of winning to get there.
Succinctly, I want more to think along a longer scale of time than the next five years.
More importantly, individuals may represent the same ideology but be in very different situations making very different choices. For example, I think a wise leftist in a red state probably best represents leftist ideology by voting Green POTUS this cycle. But, the same wise leftist in a purple state probably best represents leftist ideology in shorter term harm reduction with a Democratic POTUS vote. Said simply, our loyalty isn’t party, but to each other.
