490
Just think, if democrats manage a nice blue wave and fail to even acknowledge bipartisan support, this could just be a Death rattle of a dying group. Don’t get complacent, vote. And if you’re in Arizona, make sure you can vote!
If you’re in Arizona, come canvass with me! The margins are so small you could really make a difference and help choose the future of our country!!
Check your voter registration status every month. If you suspect fowl play you might want to change your registration to Independent or uncommitted to avoid being purged.
You ain't doing that with my vote. I will burn this fucker down and it'll be easy with how hot and dry it is
I keep wondering when we’ll truly have to revolt. Like, I don’t wanna start prematurely or anything.
I'll come out and just say it: your comment, is so much my overall mood, that it literally is the most exciting thing I've read on Lemmy today.
I'm too mental to lead a revolt, but i'm sitting on pins and needles for someone(s) who is fit to lead, and i'll be there to back them 100% the moment they do.
Well, if I were a bettin’ man, I’d say this event, if it comes to pass, might prompt the beginning. There has to be a breaking point. Human excrement masquerading as people literally handing wannabe fascist dictators the highest office in the land has to be pretty close to that point.
Yeah... but i've said that same thing several times this year alone. Seems like we can take a hell of a beating so long as theirs show's to binge or something ¯\(ツ)/¯
Of course. We’re all too comfortable. We’ve never had to fight for our very existence like those in Gaza or the hundred other places around the world where violence is right outside your door every day.
It’s unfortunate, but I think most Americans would choose letting it all happen and just living with it. The problem? This might be the last free election of choice.
Isn’t there a bot for that here
The funny part is Harris doesn't need AZ.
The shitty part is vote fraud is being instutionalized thanks to the cunt fart that is Roger Stone.
2000 Florida all over again.
The funny part is Harris doesn't need AZ.
According to what? The polls? Those are just probabilities, and they can be inaccurate.
She needs every state she can get.
Agreed, it was a smug response on my part granted. However if you look at where they Harris campaign focusing their attention right now it's not AZ.
If you do live in America vote. Talk to everyone you see about voting. Not who they're voting for just so that they vote. Voter turnout helps everyone as Dems this cycle seem to have the most popular platform.
This is election fraud, not voter fraud though, no?
This is election fraud, not voter fraud though, no?
What do you consider to be the difference? According to wikipedia the two terms are synonymous:
Electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election manipulation, voter fraud, or vote rigging, involves illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of a favored candidate, depressing the vote share of rival candidates, or both.
In the US at least, voter fraud is things like voting when you're not eligible or voting more than once. Electoral fraud is things like rigging the election or illegal campaign funding.
Vote fraud not voter fraud, covers elections and intimidating voters at the polls to my understanding. I'm happy to be corrected.
The person to whom I responded made a distinction between "election fraud" and "voter fraud" (not "vote fraud"). According to wikipedia, "electoral fraud" and "voter fraud" are synonymous. "Vote fraud" and "election fraud" redirect to the same page.
Thank you for the clarification.
1/3 of one percent of all voters matter in Arizona per the article. But like 30% of people don’t vote. That’s enough to swing many solidly red states blue, or vice versa. If that’s the margin republicans win by over Supreme Court shenanigans-then we the people got what we deserved.
Get out there and go vote people! Even in the non swing states - make them swing states!
Why the fuck have we not confirmed more judges?
Because the Senate will block it. It's damn near the lame duck presidency and the DNC doesn't want to rock the boat in an election year. The Dems wont fillibister for it, as that would eat into the holiday time off. Oh, and the same billionaires that are getting tax breaks are contributing to both parties.
Or did you mean why didn't we put Garland on the bench instead of listening to a Turtle?
Or why RBG didn't step down to get a fellow competent judge on the bench?
Or why Thomas hasn't recused himself for all the many gifts/bribes/payoff vacations and mobile homes he's received?
Remember Citizens United and the absolute sprint of lower court appointments that were made. Oh and shit almost forgot the billionaires.
But yes in all seriousness. PACK THE FUCKING COURT! Let's do term limits while we're at it.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained
Wouldn't RBG have had to step down in Obama's first term for that to even work?
Late first term but yes.
The GOP at work again. Taking dirty politics to the next level as always.
This is usually how the GOP wins, through voter suppression and gerrymandering. GOP platform in general doesn’t have the capability to win hearts and minds, so they either resort to rigging the votes or fear tactics, like scaring people about gays or foreigners.
I just feel bad for the Americans who support and vote for the GOP and other conservatives, these politicians don’t want the best interests of regular citizens, these politicians are just out to make their rich friends richer and get some doggy scraps in return.
So, a total of a likely swing is about 0.333% to the red, Trump lost by 0.3% vs. Biden. If everything was equal, it would be a recount. Hopefully, Kamala brings more enthusiasm, and Trump dies off. I live in rural Arizona, my presidential vote never counts anyways, but I will say there are the same old Trumpers, but unlike the past 2 elections I now talk to a lot of apathetic Republicans that used to be vote red no matter who people. They are over Trump, they won't vote against him, but they may not even vote. That is something I've never seen.
So get out and vote and maybe we can vote in numbers too large to manipulate.
Why would you think your Presidential vote doesn't matter because you're rural? It's a popular statewide election. It certainly does matter.
Well, I was under the impression that the presidential elections were done by prescients, and mine voted 75% for Trump in 2020. I was so sure about this I spent the last hour trying to find some confirmation bias article, and I was only met with a billion sources saying AZ is a popular vote with winner takes all. I chose to blame the way the media presents election results by prescients and my apparently minimal knowledge of gerrymandering for my gross misunderstanding of how this all works. Luckily, I have still voted in every election despite thinking my (presidential) vote was wasted.
However, in my adventures I found how fucked we are at the state level thanks to some republican "redistricting" shenanigans. https://www.salon.com/2021/12/04/will-arizonas-relentless-gerrymander-decide-the-2024-presidential-election/
I live in rural Arizona, my presidential vote never counts anyways
Gerrymandering does not apply to presidential elections. It's a state-by-state contest. Your rural Arizona vote for president counts more than my urban California vote.
40,000 seems low considering how many non-voters there still regularly are. If they succeed with this, the Dem team should make it their mission to find every disenfranchised voter and recruit them for their campaign, so every vote that was lost turns into two new votes.
That's usually the plan when voter rolls are "purged".
usually
Is tens of thousands of votes getting invalidated a thing that regularly happens in US elections?
Some suggest that around 160k votes were the deciding factor in getting trump elected.
They’ll do anything the can to close a gap.
The case is known as Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota.
In 2004, Arizona enacted a law which requires new voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship (such as a passport or a birth certificate) when registering to vote in the state. This state law, however, conflicts with a federal law known as the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires states to register voters who submit a standardized federal registration form.
Previous ruling left it open that NVRA held for only federal elections, not state or local.
The RNC case, which is now before the Supreme Court, concerns a 2022 Arizona law which would impose three new restrictions on these federal-only Arizona voters. It bars them from voting by mail, and from voting for president altogether — thus limiting them to voting only in congressional elections. Additionally, the 2022 law requires the state to reject any new voter registration submitted using the state’s own form if that registration doesn’t include proof of citizenship — even though the state is still required to register that individual as a federal-only voter if the registrant submits the federal form.
"So like, what if we made a law that just directly circumvents federal authority?"
Ken voice hello John Roberts? I am a WHITE MAN, and I'd like Arizona's presidential electors, please.
When you know you can't get the votes to win, the only way is to take the vote away from others instead.
*Russians ask The Supreme Court…
Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Vox:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.vox.com/scotus/367701/supreme-court-arizona-rnc-republicans-mi-familia-vota
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
490 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19254 readers
2280 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS