635
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
635 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19170 readers
5124 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'd say that it's not a good path to tread to have courts deciding who can and can't be on the ballot, however, in this particular case, it was put to the voters, and these guys knew the rule when they broke it, so c'est la vie
As for their argument, I'd say go with it... Let them run, let them get elected, then bar them for the term... That's actually how the wording works out... Theyre correct that they can technically run, but it's pretty specific about being unable to seve the term.
Fuck around and let a district go unrepresented for a term because legislators wanna play the "well ackshually" game, and the voters will sort that shit right out.
No thanks. We don't want elected officials cheating their way into illegal filibusters explicitly prohibited by law.
That is not a functioning democracy. If the minority can simply refuse to participate, so no work can be done by either side.
And no, voters having the ability to wait (potentially) years to just vote them out in the next cycle does not make it a functioning democracy.
This. Everyone knows how a vote is supposed to work. If there are ten people, six of them vote for A and the other four leave, A wins.
But how do i know A didn't rig the elections? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
The problem with that is it denies all of the people in that district their right to representation. It's not fair to punish people just because voters were dumb enough to elect someone who can't actually serve. The reasonable thing to do is ban unqualified candidates from the ballot. Otherwise it's like electing a dead person, they are going to have to hold a special election or appoint someone or do whatever the legal process is to fill the vacancy ASAP.
But isn't it the dumb voters being punished here? I kind of agree with OP
It's everyone in the district being punished, not just those who voted, and not just those who voted "dumb". That's not justice.
I'd rather have no representation than one of these bad faith assholes "representing" me.
Who but the courts rules on 14th amendment violations?
this isn't 14th amendment, it's oregon state law
The other major news story about courts deciding who can and cannot be on the ballot is regarding the 14th amendment. @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca was likely referring to that, and to @aelwero@lemmy.world's comment.
fair enough, ty
I've often wondered if this should be the punishment for failing to draw up constitutionally legal district maps. If a state can't figure out how to not gerrymander the heck out of itself, deny them represention for a term while they sort it out. Arguably the people elected under such maps don't reflect the true will of the people anyways