this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
1206 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2364 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) went after former President Trump for his legal woes in an interview on MSNBC Saturday.

“I’ll take the individual who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts,” Swalwell said, making a reference to President Biden’s age in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show” on Saturday.

“It’s not about two individuals,” Swalwell continued, speaking about the 2024 election. “It’s about the idea of competence versus chaos, or even greater, freedom versus fascism. If we make it about those ideas, and what they mean in our daily lives, we’re gonna win.”

Swalwell’s comments come after Trump was ordered to pay almost $355 million in penalties in a civil fraud case and amid increased scrutiny faced by the president on his age and memory in the wake of a special counsel report on Biden’s handling of classified documents. The report noted that Biden had problems with memory and recall.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In many ways, now is the worst time to make other parties because elections are so close. If you elect a 3rd party senator or congressperson, you might tip the balance so your least favourite big party takes control.

But, say you think it is a great time to do it. What's your realistic way to make it happen? The two big parties have control and they don't want other parties.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not saying for this election. I mean it's a good time after this election. It takes time to build up steam for these things.

I also don't care. I just look at how Europe has better options and how they run their elections. I would like to copy it. Because they also have the highest satisfaction as a citizen.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

Europe has always had multiple parties. It's possible to go from having multiple parties to functionally having only 2 parties. I don't know of any case where it has gone the other way.

Look, for example, at how many parties were in the running for Germany's first election after WWII:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_West_German_federal_election

The biggest party got just 30% of the vote. The 7th biggest party was still big enough to get 3% of the vote.

Or look at the history of French elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_elections_in_France

Even in the 1700s, there were never fewer than 3 strong parties. Since the 1870s, it's more typical to have at least 6 parties splitting the vote.

You can't just magic that up, it has to start like that. Once it gets down to 2 parties (or one party) those two parties make it so that any vote for a 3rd party is effectively a thrown-away vote.