this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
514 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3009 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
 

A judge has rejected three more attempts by former President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the case now appears on track for an unprecedented trail this month.

A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from future office if they “engaged in insurrection” or have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. But the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce the ban, and it has been applied only twice since the 1800s.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8BitRoadTrip@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So if a candidate isn’t on the ballot in a given state does that simply mean it’s impossible for them to win those votes in the electoral college? Does a candidate have to be on the ballot in all 50 states to run for the presidency?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

TL;DR: Yes to the first question, no to the other.

One of the reasons why it's currently literally impossible for a third party candidate to win the presidency is that, spitting on the very concept of democracy, some states have banned third party candidates from their polls entirely and others set unreasonable criteria that are either much easier for the two main parties to meet since they're bigger and richer or that the main parties are simply exempt from.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

does that simply mean it’s impossible for them to win those votes in the electoral college?

Depends on who you ask. Ask a Trump/Jordan/Boebert type, and the answer will be "Obviously the people wanted Trump but he was unjustly denied ballot access so we will hand the votes to Trump."

If you doubt this in any way, go back and look at how many Rs voted to just arbitrarily throw out the election on Jan 6 2021 based on zero evidence or law.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Votes for ineligible candidates are basically ignored. That's true if you vote for some cartoon character like Mickey Mouse, or someone who can't be elected president for some reason like Obama (who has been elected the maximum number of possible times).

A candidate who's on the ballot for any state is running for the presidency in a real sense, and major declared candidates often aren't yet on the ballot. To be a viable candidate you need to be on the ballot for states/territories totalling 270 electoral votes, since this is the bare minimum to be capable of winning. During my lifetime there have usually been about 4 candidates on most/all ballots including the green and libertarian candidates on 48 and 50 states' ballots in 2020 respectively.

[–] pezhore@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

To add to this, technically Trump could still be elected president even without Colorado, but he would have to flip another state or multiple states to get to the 270 electoral votes.

Keep in mind Colorado went for Biden by a margin of 13% last time - it trends blue-ish/purple, so if Trump becomes the nominee, his path to 270 would probably not count on Colorado.

What this might do is deaden down ballet GOP candidates. The GOP wouldn't put up a replacement presidential candidate for just Colorado, so it would be write in only and that could mean less GOP straight ticket voters, impacting House and state elections.

One last thought - even if Trump loses this bid to remain on the ballot, I sincerely doubt it would impact his chances of being the party's nominee.

[–] qwertilliopasd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Also CO went to Hillary in 16. CO will not go to Trump in 2024 even if he is on the ballot.

One last thought - even if Trump loses this bid to remain on the ballot, I sincerely doubt it would impact his chances of being the party’s nominee.

Objective reality hasn't played a role in their decision making so far.