Babylon Bee is getting better and better, but this is the funniest article I’ve seen in a long time: https://babylonbee.com/news/ron-des...-tan-in-preparation-for-2024-presidential-run
The running mate line at the end is hilarious. As are these two other headlines: Beverage Pretending To Be Beer Features Man Pretending To Be Woman Sick Of Same Old Crime And Violence, Chicago Tries Electing A Democrat This Time
In today's episode of Decline of the Republic, a shopped-for Federal judge in Texas issued a nationwide injunction on the FDA approval of mifepristone, despite that approval being over 20 years old at this point. A Washington judge issued a separate injunction within the hour forbidding the FDA from altering its approval of the drug. We're at the point where even fellow federal judges are openly regarding the Texas courts as illegitimate.
Louisiana "Democrat" up and decides that he's actually a Republican... There has been a lot of this going on, lately. How is this legal? https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_r...cle_ac78be0c-d7bc-11ed-95aa-e3d462777bb0.html
We had one that pulled that here in NC. Now they can override any veto. There's some shady shit going on.
I meant it more as WHY is this legal. It's disingenuous, beyond usual political bullshit. What do y'all think the response from the Republicans would be if the opposite happened, and a Democrat stole their votes? We've already seen that their constituents are stupid enough to vote for anyone with an "R" next to their name (see George Santos). It shouldn't be too hard to pull off.
Will never happen. GOP can smell a democrat like a shark can blood in the water. I don't think a democrat on the planet is capable of acting republican for long enough and flawlessly enough to get elected.
It feels like fraudulent behavior, but since we have a system of "vote for the man, not the party" in the US, there's no way this could ever be illegal. The voters voted for the man, flaws and all.
It's pretty unethical, if you ask me. US is all about identity politics... people seem to vote for R or D, not issues, not the person. To have someone campaign and win as a D to later then switch to R, seems like a hell of a rug-pull to those that voted for them. I would be interested to understand the rationale behind the switch, but the uninformed cynic in me is betting on personal gains for the politician, and not for the betterment of their constituency.
It's definitely unethical, but so is Congress. In the US system, the parties have no real legal standing; they're not really part of the system in any foundational way. Identifying as a Democrat is legally almost indistinct from identifying as a member of the Rotary Club or the Pittsburgh Steelers Official Fan Club. Enforcing party membership through the law is effectively the same thing as enforcing a legislators opinion. Surely it would be nice if legislators kept their campaign promises, but we have no mechanism to do that within our system.
I don’t think many parliamentary systems prevent that either, though. At least the UK doesn’t. It would a really odd direction for the political system to go in to force candidates to stick with one party or another. I’d rather just have it the way it is and have the random oddball switch once in a while.
There are some systems that have multi-member districts, where you would vote for a party and the party gets the number of seats equal to its vote share. In those cases the parties would present its slate of candidates, but the votes would go to the party itself and the actual reps that get seated are based on how many seats the party wins.
Sure, and those break down into a multiple variations. I guess an advantage would be people would feel like their vote matters. A disadvantage would be that voting districts would be redrawn constantly and would probably create a moral hazard situation.