this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
742 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3484 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
 

Businessinsider.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] soviettaters@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Classic Democrats, saying that blacks are too dumb to be able to vote for anybody except them.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Except it's just the asshole editors making headlines that put a spin on what actually happened.

In the complaint, the local party and its chair Charles Wilson pointed to voting patterns in Wards 7 and 8, which encompass predominantly-Black communities east of the Anacostia River.

The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as "undervoting."

"Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office," said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting "would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate."

So no it's not AcKsUaLlY DeMoCrAtS are the racists! They're just pointing to a trend that they've noticed in specific areas that they have data on.

[–] Desistance@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like they need to explain the system instead of crying about it.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Exactly. I'm pretty mad about this b.s.

So called public servants and supposed professionals have never heard of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" apparently...

If confusion is the issue, then educate ffs... :(

[–] tastysnacks@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its still a bad reason for stopping ranked choice. Those at-large sections are different than the rest of the ballot. Is that a good enough of a reason to keep a system that limits competition between political parties?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Absolutely not, I think it's a bullshit excuse to cover for what other people are saying: they want to keep the power dynamic as it is. I was just responding to the stupid Republican trope that it's "typical racist Democrats."