this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
506 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2610 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
 

Summary:

Amid rising early voting numbers from women in battleground states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—where they make up 55% of ballots cast—some conservative voices are panicking. Right-wing commentators are sounding the alarm, fearing that even MAGA-supporting husbands’ wives might be casting secret ballots for Kamala Harris.

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, has put it starkly: “If men stay at home, Kamala is president. It’s that simple.” Jesse Watters of Fox News has even equated a wife secretly voting for Harris to “having an affair.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 52 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

My wife just read to me a tweet (or whatever) where a husband was making his wife vote by mail so he could guarantee she voted for Trump.

I feel like he should be charged for voting twice. If she doesn't get to pick who to vote for, she's not voting, he is. Send him to jail for 15 years (or for whatever they sent that woman who cast the provisional ballot because she was told she could and then she wasn't eligible to vote in the end).

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

That's actually the one coherent argument I've seen against voting by mail. But if someone is that closely dominated, voting is only one of their problems. I don't think depriving everybody else of voting by mail is the right way to handle it.

[–] itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

The solution I've heard is you're able to go to the elections office after mailing your ballot and void the mailed one and vote in person. Depending on the level of control/oversight may be not realistic for everyone, but again, at that point I'm more concerned about the human than the vote and were talking a whole other problem to solve.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)