A Pennsylvania judge sided with the Secretary of State’s office in rejecting Cornel West’s candidacy paperwork.
      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        30·
        3 months ago

        I think he’s foolish enough to get on board with a presidential campaign which is purely designed to benefit conservative candidates.

        Several people on Lemmy have told me they respect his view or his insight on American society or etc. I’ve listened to a couple of his speeches (including ones that were specifically recommended to me), couldn’t really arrive at anything that was being argued within them other than an occasional vague nod to the idea that imperialism and corporate oppression are bad, came back and asked okay what specific things do you like about what he says? No one yet has even attempted to answer that question.

        He’s a pure spoiler candidate, and one of his top two campaign priorities I ran across trying to get a handle on him was to stop aid to Ukraine. He’s bullshit.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          2·
          3 months ago

          Several people with discourse worthy of respect or like several “leftists” from .ml instances who took some time between penning love letters to state capitalist authoritarian countries?

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            3·
            3 months ago

            I try to not to prejudge. But the fact that I asked, hey what things, after they told me they love the things that he says, and they didn’t answer, kind of implies one specific answer to the question.

        • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
          3·
          3 months ago

          And again, it’s politcal news, and this is a political news Lemmy community.

          Obviously some people care, because the article was written and read.

          I didn’t write the news, friend.

          • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
            10·
            3 months ago

            But you did post it, suggesting personal interest or perceived interest among readers here.

            The article’s existence doesn’t grant it utility

            • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
              2·
              3 months ago

              But you did post it, suggesting personal interest or perceived interest among readers here.

              And since it has at least 5 upvotes as of now and this thread has 65 comments in it, I guess that means some people were interested in it. Hmmmm…

              • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
                8·
                3 months ago

                I didn’t say I agree with the top comment, I’m addressing the idea that this post was just among a firehose of completely arbitrary political articles, posted only for their existence.

                I don’t think that’s true. I think you posted it because you are interested in 3rd party candidates. A fine and valid reason but let’s not dance around it.

                • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  This is a political news community. I posted a political news article.

                  If you feel this breaks the community’s guidelines for article posting, you can contact the mods. And if they agree that it breaks the community’s rules they will remove it.

                  I posted it because it’s political news. Or do you think that the only political news that should be posted is pro-democrat news? I’m confused about what you are trying to say.

            • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
              1·
              2 months ago

              Wow, a whole 17 upvotes. You must be so proud.

              And over 100 comments! So I guess you were wrong, huh? Some people DO care. :)

              You think a few snide remarks will silence us? It’s clear that people do care, no matter how much you try to dismiss us.

              I’m damn proud to stand up against the negativity you’re trying to spread. You and others like you want to sow discontent, to bully and belittle those of us who refuse to fall in line with your chosen candidate.

              But here’s the truth: we’re not backing down. We’re rising up against the duopoly that’s kept us chained, against those who would have us believe that our voices don’t matter because they don’t echo yours.

              This is just the beginning. There will be more posts, more voices speaking out against the broken system you defend. And yes, more candidates will emerge, whether you like it or not. We have every right to our opinions, to our votes, just as much as you do.

              So go ahead, keep being negative, keep throwing out your snide remarks like “Who cares about…”

              We’re still here. And we’re not going anywhere. Your words haven’t stopped us, haven’t even slowed us down. This is just the start, and we’re only getting louder.

    • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
      3·
      3 months ago

      Do you seriously think that third parties ONLY exist just to “spoil a legitimate candidates chances”?

      Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, they want change that they are not seeing, so they are doing something about it?

      • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
        17·
        3 months ago

        They aren’t doing anything except work against their supposed goals. They should be working in/with the legit campaign to influence what they can, not helping to go in the complete opposite direction.

        • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
          4·
          3 months ago

          They should be working in/with the legit campaign to influence what they can

          So you think there are only two “legit” parties in the US? And you are happy about that? Is that really democracy tho?

          Also plenty of third parties, run in local campaigns. Not just presidential campaigns. In my state, plenty of Libertarians have run and won local elections.

          And some green party stats:

          Californians have elected 55 of the 226 office-holding Greens nationwide. Other states with high numbers of Green elected officials include Pennsylvania (31), Wisconsin (23), Massachusetts (18) and Maine (17). Maine has the highest per capita number of Green elected officials in the country and the largest Green registration percentage with more than 29,273 Greens comprising 2.95% of the electorate as of November 2006.[68] Madison, Wisconsin is the city with the most Green elected officials (8), followed by Portland, Maine (7).

          Also:

          https://montanafreepress.org/2024/08/21/green-party-candidate-files-to-join-u-s-senate-race/

          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3127249/eight-green-party-write-ins-will-run-in-the-general-election/

          • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
            20·
            3 months ago

            So you think there are only two “legit” parties in the US? And you are happy about that? Is that really democracy tho?

            Yes, no, yes.

            Doesn’t matter. That’s how it is. Until RCV or some other voting mechanism is instituted where third party candidates are viable all they do now is spoil, and the only way to change this is to convince one of the 2 parties to institute it. Spoiling their candidate is a bad way to do that though.

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              4·
              3 months ago

              I’m a, “yes, no, no,” to that. I have decided FPTP is just not democracy. The mathematical fact is that only one of the two top parties will win. In a real democracy I could choose a different party and not be throwing my vote away.

              Obviously I will not waste my vote to pass some idealistic purity test, though.

            • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
              1·
              3 months ago

              Doesn’t matter. That’s how it is.

              And I don’t agree that it’s how it should be. So I won’t be supporting the duopoly.

              I vote for who matches my values. And that’s third party.

              I support and respect your right to vote for who you want to vote for. As you support and respect my right to vote for who I want to vote for, right?

              • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
                14·
                3 months ago

                I support and respect your right to vote for who you want to vote for. As you support and respect my right to vote for who I want to vote for, right?

                That’s a red herring. Calling out the foolishness of wasting your vote against your professed goals has nothing to do with respecting your right to vote.

                When you actually have a chance to win the electoral college, then you have a point. Until then these 3rd party presidential candidates are a fool’s errand.

                • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
                  6·
                  3 months ago

                  I’ve been down this exact track with them. They just post the same lines again and again.

                • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  Respecting my right to vote means respecting my choice to support a candidate who aligns with my values, even if they aren’t favored in the electoral college.

                  Dismissing third-party candidates as a “fool’s errand” ignores the role they play in challenging the status quo and pushing for real change.

                  Voting isn’t just about winning this election—it’s about shaping the future direction of our politics.

    • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      3 months ago

      Nothing says saving democracy like keeping people off the ballots.

      Exactly.

      Funny how many Lemmy’s forget about what democracy is. And a lot here seem to be against diversity of thought and viewpoints as well.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        18·
        3 months ago

        You are still free to vote for him, or anyone else. That’s democracy.

        But there are over 300 million Americans. They can’t all be on the ballot.

        • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
          3·
          3 months ago

          Agreed. But seriously, the Democratic Party is not open to having other parties on the ballot.

          I wouldn’t have voted for Cornel West anyway, but there’s an entire group within the Democratic Party whose main job is to keep third parties off the ballot.

          Having said that, if a third party hasn’t followed the rules to be on the ballot, then I am fine with them being dropped from it.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
            17·
            3 months ago

            The Democratic Party is not responsibile for helping other parties get elected.

            Quite the opposite. The other parties are opponents, and Democrats are partly responsible for making sure their opponents obey all applicable election rules.

            • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
              3·
              3 months ago

              The Democratic Party is not responsible for helping other parties get elected.

              Of course not. But they sure do seem to work extra hard to keep other parties off of the ballot.

                • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
                  2·
                  3 months ago

                  I didn’t disregard anything they said. And indeed, I agreed to part of it. Are you are sure you are reading the right thread?

                  Also, please stay civil. Just because you don’t agree with me, doesn’t mean my opinion is “shitty.”

                  How about we not get so personal in our discussions?

                  I respect and support your right to your opinion. Please offer me the same courtesy. Thank you!

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                7·
                3 months ago

                Yes, just like lawyers work extra hard to get their opponent’s case dismissed.

                It’s an adversarial system. It depends on each side being hypervigilant about what their opponents are doing.

                • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
                  2·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m not disagreeing with you, but instead of worrying about “spoiler” votes, they could focus on having strong enough candidates that don’t need to fear third-party competition.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    1·
    3 months ago

    Relevant segment

    minor-party presidential electors are to be considered candidates for office who must file affidavits, even if major-party presidential electors are not.