I mean, even if so, it’s extremely unlikely to affect the overall outcome of the general election.
The US presidential electoral system has two important aspects:
It is federal.
It permits states to determine how to allocate their votes.
Because of those aspects, states (which tend to be controlled by one party or another at the state level) have almost universally said that they want to use a winner-takes-all mechanism for votes in the presidential election, where whoever wins the majority vote in the state gets all of the state’s votes. That strengthens their vote for their “team”.
However, it also means that voters for “the other party” in the state have zero impact on the outcome of the overall election. Their votes are only up for grabs if a candidate can alter the majority in the state.
The result is that only votes in “battleground states”/“swing states” really affect the outcome.
The expected swing states in the 2024 general presidential election are:
Nevada
Arizona
Wisconsin
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Georgia
Alabama isn’t on the list.
Alabama is already expected to vote for the Republican candidate in the 2024 general election; one could simply omit Biden from the Alabama general ballot, and it would be very unlikely to alter the outcome of the overall election. Even if one imagines a scenario where Alabama did vote for the Democratic candidate – like, Biden does something that Alabamans really like or Trump does something that they really dislike – chances are pretty good that enough other Trump-favoring states would switch to Biden by that point – because whatever that thing that was done is would also affect voter opinion in other states – that the election would be a foregone conclusion and Biden votes in Alabama still wouldn’t matter.
The two states that presently don’t use winner-take-all are Nebraska and Maine.
Now, if Biden weren’t on the general election ballot in a state expected to vote Democratic in the presidential election, or wasn’t on the ballot in a battleground state, or maybe in Nebraska or Maine, that’d potentially have an impact. But for Alabama, it probably doesn’t matter, at least in terms of the outcome of the election.
"In 2020, Alabama’s GOP-controlled Legislature passed a law to “accommodate the dates of the 2020 Republican National Convention,” shifting the state’s certification deadline for parties from 82 days before the election to 75 days that year. The 2020 Republican convention, which nominated President Donald Trump for a second term, was held from August 24-27, and the general election took place on November 3."
I’m greatly in favor of anyone pressuring NH over this. There’s no reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should get such an outsized roll in deciding who the nominees are, over and over again, every election, for a century. And the people who live in states farther in the primary calendar basically get no say. There should be a rotation of states if anything.
New Hampshire’s state law is ridiculous and unenforceable too, all it would take is another state passing their own law saying, no we go first, and suddenly there is no way both laws could be upheld at the same time, and they’re trying to hopscotch each other pushing farther and farther back in the calendar. Policies like New Hampshire’s law are why we have candidate debates over a year before the actual election! Whole situation is ridiculous.
While I share some of your concerns about the DNC, I’m not gonna shed a tear for the voters in New Hampshire and Iowa that had more say than anyone else in the country about who would be president for a century.
I’m greatly in favor of anyone pressuring NH over this.
…
The only ones that can change NH state law, is the NH state government…
And they’re all Republicans. They ain’t changing the law to help Democrats.
So if you’re saying you’re ok with this, that means you’re ok with disenfranchising all the Democrats in that state for something they have zero control of.
I’m not saying that’s not what you’re doing, it seems like you think it’s perfectly fine.
But it’s incredibly undemocratic and embarrassing to see so many people with your opinion
No that’s incorrect, the party could always have arranged their own nominating contest and still had delegates. There was nothing preventing them from doing that, and that’s what the DNC urged them to do many times. The state cannot stop a political party (a private organization) from picking their own candidates and delegates. For instance, in Nevada the republican party there decided they did not want to line up with the state selected primary date, and held their own caucus instead that did award delegates.
The state democratic party in New Hampshire that chose not to do this (because they believe they should always get to have first say) and the state government that passed this dumb law (for the same reason) are the ones disenfranchising people here. And no, don’t put words in my mouth, I’m not in favor of disenfranchising anyone. The state party should have just held their own nominating contest later so that they would have had delegates. And New Hampshire shouldn’t have the sole authority to determine the presidential election schedule for everyone else. If other states acted like them we’d have a never ending game of who’s primary is actually first.
In 2020 alone, states like Alabama, Illinois, Montana, and Washington all allowed provisional certification for Democratic and Republican nominees,” the campaign official said.
In 2020, Alabama’s GOP-controlled Legislature passed a law to “accommodate the dates of the 2020 Republican National Convention,” shifting the state’s certification deadline for parties from 82 days before the election to 75 days that year.
Republican convention in 2020 was August 24th-27th, even later than the democrats scheduled this year. These laws are silly too, helping to encourage the already ridiculously long presidential campaign to take even longer by pushing conventions further back. Trump can’t be kept off the ballot for an insurrection, but setting a deadline earlier than most states that exceptions are routinely made for and it’s never been an issue before? Well that’s serious, better keep him off the ballot I guess /s.
These laws are silly too, helping to encourage the already ridiculously long presidential campaign to take even longer by pushing conventions further back.
No, that’s incorrect. Alabama is complaining that the democratic convention is too late (even though they have allowed it later for Republicans in the past). They set an earlier deadline for the nomination to be finalized, trying to force conventions to take place earlier. This would lengthen the main presidential campaign after the conventions take place. Since all primaries have to be done by the time a convention takes place, earlier conventions also put pressure for there to be earlier primaries too. There’s no reason we need the presidential campaign proper lengthened from two months to two and a half months at Alabama and Ohio’s whims. Two months is more than enough.
Democrats and Republicans alternate who has the earlier and later primary each year. If we allow these states to start pushing conventions out from August more and more, then instead of one party in July and one party in August, we’ll end up with one party in July and one in June before you know it.
Also the cynic in me says that because it was predictable that democrats would be the late convention this year (since they alternate with republicans and Republicans were later in 2020), the red states that passed laws that moved their deadlines even earlier did this to try and create this exact situation.
I just want to point out the irony that you’re ragging on the other poster for too many words while your single sentence vaguely alludes to something wrong without actually specifying what’s wrong.
I say this seriously, you’re having far too strong of reactions to pretty minor things. I understand you may be trolling, in which case bravo. But if you aren’t trolling you may want to consider talking to someone about what seems like an abundance of emotion that’s unrelated to what’s being discussed here.
Anyway, hope you’re doing well and find some peace.
Yes, for a completely unrelated reason. There have been filling deadlines for candidates at basically every level of government for a very long time and those have never been successfully challenged in court. And even with the most liberal Judges on the SCOTUS likely wouldn’t bat an eye at them. The problem here isn’t Alabama (for once) it’s the DNC being so high on it’s own shit that they assumed the laws wouldn’t be applied to them. Sure, the State Legislature could pass a law temporarily waiving that requirement. It seems awful stupid to bet on it when the convention could happen a week earlier and avoid the whole thing.
Biden is missing all these states, because the DNC set their convention for so late in the summer, it missed the deadline to notify states who the party’s nominee is to be on the ballot.
DNC can easily move the convention up and Biden be on all ballots.
But I’m case you haven’t noticed, the unelected people running the DNC tend to make ridiculous demands and never back down.
There’s a decent chance they won’t do the very easy solution of moving the convention up.
If they thought rules applied to them, they’d have checked the most basic part of our political system to see when signups were due.
Or they’re doing it on purpose. DNC has no hope in Alabama, but if they don’t put him on the ballot the dnc may be counting on it enraging some of the blue voters in all the other states to go vote out of spite.
I’m going to not be the cynic and I’ll assume that they will move the date 4 days later for the DNC, like the 7 days they did for the RNC in 2020 with Trump. I hope our political system rewards my faith.
Google maps sent me to a park, for Alabama in Romania. It’s effectively a city park, but in a village. Feels like the kind of thing that gets built for fraud purposes. A couple sports (football, basketball, whatever) would’ve served the village kids much better than park benches.
When I was a kid at least, the kind of play you do in a park, we’d do in the yard. Playing tag, playing with toys, swings, etc. Maybe that’s not the case anymore, and maybe the kids are using it. I would’ve preferred a football field back then, because the school had its gates locked over the weekend.
I’m from Romania, people generally have yards in rural areas.
Edit: If you pull it up on google maps and switch to satellite view, you can see the vast majority of houses in the surrounding have some sort of yard.
the problem with football fields- or any kind of sport’s pitch, for that matter- is that they tend to be dominated and “reserved” for leagues and stuff. which, maybe, is important. but it’s unlikely the people next door get to use it. At least, here. ( I remember the last time I tried to play tennis. the courts were reserved by private instructors until they turned the lights off. there was literally no time from friday night through sunday evening that wasn’t booked solid. and there was zero way to get your name on the reservation cycle without being a coach.)
without knowing the circumstances behind it, I’m going to shrug and move on.
Add comment