I got this message today about electioneering at polling places in California.

Electioneering Clarification

We’ve had many questions regarding electioneering and whether or not a “MAGA” hat would qualify as electioneering. Here’s our answer to that question, so that we are all on the same page:

Pursuant to the Secretary of State’s advisory to Elections Officials, a campaign slogan, such as MAGA, does not constitute electioneering under the legal definition. Therefore, if a voter is wearing anything that just says “MAGA” or “Make America Great Again,” that is allowed. However, if it says “MAGA – Trump 2024” or “Make America Great Again Trump 2024” then that would be electioneering.

We understand the perspective that the slogan is universally recognized as support for a specific candidate, but we ask you to follow the law and remember that in all cases, it’s our job to help each voter vote. And of course, we ask our poll workers to wear as much red, white, and blue as you’d like (it’s great!), but keep any of your own politically themed clothing, etc. at home.

I recently wrote a paper that delves into Donald Trump's character and his eligibility to serve as president, particularly in light of the U.S. Constitution's disqualification clause in the 14th Amendment. One of the key arguments I make is that Congress has already ruled, by majority, that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6th, 2021. This ruling makes it highly unlikely that he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president again, given the clear stipulations in the Constitution regarding individuals who have engaged in insurrection. This isn't just a matter of political opinion—it's grounded in historical precedent and constitutional law.

Historically, America's greatest presidents, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, have been revered not just for their leadership but for their strong character. Washington's humility and dedication to democracy set the foundation for the nation, while Lincoln's moral compass and commitment to unity guided the country through its darkest hours. In stark contrast, Trump's actions, both in office and during the events surrounding January 6th, reflect a deeply flawed character. His behavior has been reckless, divisive, and a direct threat to the principles of democracy. For these reasons, I argue in my paper that Trump's character alone disqualifies him from holding the highest office in the land, regardless of political affiliation or policy preferences.

Who here agrees that this man should never serve as president again?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384473246_The_Character_and_Eligibility_of_Donald_Trump_A_Critical_Examination/stats

So I’ve been working on this idea which I’m super excited about and I think many of you might also be. I need some help with details and maybe with a cofounder for the business side of things, but essentially, I think I’ve identified a loophole of sorts, which could effectively lead to major election reform and the end of the 2 party system for good.

Due to the many examples of a potentially paradigm shifting concept leading to an Epsteined leader before any traction can be gained, as well as the serious potential to deplatform many of those who hold the most power in our country, I’m hesitant to lay out all of the details on Reddit, but this community seems small enough that maybe it’s the perfect spot.

In a nutshell, the concept is to create a new political party, which contains 5 sub-parties. The users (once reaching a statistically relevant mass) will take a survey to determine both which policies they support and the relative importance of each of their political beliefs. Then, five parties will be made which represent equal shares of the user base. This will lead to much more accurate and nuanced representation of the range of political leanings the country actually has, as opposed to just A or B, whichever is somewhat closer to your beliefs.

Choosing a front runner for each sub party will be the responsibility of each sub party’s constituents. Anyone has an equal opportunity to run. Then, the top 5 candidates will be Rank Choice Voted to choose a party nominee.

Third parties never take off though, right? Well, this will be different in that I’m also going to create an app to be the party’s infrastructure, and to allow it to be completely governed by the party’s constituents. No more just having to go with whatever the DNC or GOP decide is the party’s agenda. The real voters are in charge

The app will have functionality similar to Facebook as far as interacting with users and candidates. Debates can be live steamed through the app, intra-party voting and surveys and petitions can be voted on instantly through the app, it will connect to the voter registration database to ensure there are no bots or false voters meant to cause internal strife.

Candidate pages will contain every donation and its donor, to know who owns them, as well as their campaign promises compared to their actual votes and work in office, to show their true nature, and also a couple systems of rating. Users can rate their opinion of a politician, and maybe under 50 percent means they can’t run again through this party. Other relevant info will also be available for candidates politicians and users, with varying control over publicity of info, based on role. Users can also make contributions through the app, or upvote and such to increase visibility of their candys and policy suggestions in other users’ feeds.

Petitions can be started, chat forums both within sub parties and between them (we will try to keep vitriol to a minimum, and heavily fact check information to curb fake news). Votes will be secured via face recognition compared to voter ID, or 2 factor authentication.

Since people will be afraid of a new party due to throwing votes off a bridge concept, the first few cycles will maybe contain the DNC and RNC front runners in the ranked choice system, and the survey results will only suggest a sub party, giving the user the final choice.

The power of social media has been effecting politics in a massive way, but it’s still wild and unfocused. 2016 was the first major election after Facebook became huge, and look how things have been since then? I believe that tapping into this power in an organized and structured way could lend a new party actual power to compete with the 2 there now who nobody really likes anyway. And using that party to show the effectively of RCV and more party representation, and more direct involvement with our government through the ease of social media - this will be huge. But I need help making it a thing.

Any thoughts, criticisms, or positivity especially would be awesome. Thanks. Sorry for the wall of text. It’s a big idea.

PS, the same system could work at the state and local level. Locally, it could also contain opportunities to engage more with one’s community, volunteer opportunities, direct communication with city council, etc.

So, hear me out. What happens if we all just like, have a debate, agree on a candidate to write in, and then start a grass roots campaign to elect that person on a national scale. Someone that people could actually be excited about. If it gains enough traction, it is entirely possible for such a candidate to win in the current political landscape.

I don't know who but, Jon Stewart? Morgan Freeman? Rand Paul? I'll vote for whoever we agree on.

Imagine the cascade of effects if we got 10 million to agree on 'X' candidate..

Counter: Joe Biden = 2

Whogetsmyvote.org is rigged

Don't trust it.

I put in wildly different answers on different attempts and it leaned for me to vote Labour.

I have always voted Labour but I am undecided this time.

This is just shameful.

Get it banned and find out it's source as its election rigging/ interference and prosecute the people constructed this fake site.

It's a serious matter.

https://chng.it/HkvgFqZf62

I understand that a president can be a felon. The other thing I understand is most felons are unable to vote in election. I hope I'm not only one that sees the issue with that .

Example, in scenario with 3 parties, Party A gets 45% votes, Party B gets 40%, Party C gets 15%.

Meaning Party A wins.

But is it possible, that after the vote has happened, Party B & C decide to work together. Let's say Party C support Party B's candidate.

So the Party B wins. Can this happen in US after votes?

https://meidasnews.com/news/individual-who-stole-equipment-from-maricopa-county-election-center-is-apparent-trump-supporter

Maricopa officials reprogrammed all fobs and are currently conducting accuracy assessments on all vote tabulation equipment.

Firstly, Biden’s direct challenge to Trump for two debates was unheard of and was done to bypass the established Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The original debates were scheduled for September 16th, October 1st, and October 9th. Four university venues (for these 3 debates and the VP debate) were released from contract following a letter on May 15th from the Biden Administration.

Biden directly challenged Trump in this unprecedented manner (social media video challenge and private negotiations with CNN) to exclude RFK Jr. and accelerate the time table by almost 3 full months, ahead of the National Conventions, to preclude RFK Jr.’s submitted signatures from being certified by the respective states’ Secretaries of State, and to give time for Biden’s ‘Clear Choice’ super PAC to levy any and all legal challenges to RFK’s collected signatures.

This upcoming presidential debate is the earliest ever in the history of presidential debates, and was scheduled like this solely to exclude RFK; Trump doesn’t even have a VP yet! Debates are always conducted through the CPD and held in Sept/Oct after the RNC and DNC, which are usually in June-Aug. Never has the gauntlet simply been thrown down like this prematurely.

Furthermore the actual FEC debate rules stipulate that criteria must be objective and pre-existing. These criteria and the agreement were not objective because Biden explicitly specified that he would not participate in a debate with RFK Jr. present, limiting his participation solely to 1v1 with Trump. (On this point, RFK stated that in a conversation with CNN, he asked whether the rules were made after having heard this request from Biden, to which CNN responded that that information is ‘privileged,’ which it is not, it is necessary information to prove compliance with FEC guidelines.) Furthermore, as evidence of collusion, CNN told a Trump aide ahead of time that “RFK will not be on the stage.” [paywalled but the relevant full sentence is: “One of the CNN producers on a Wednesday call with Trump aides had explained at the time that ‘RFK will not be on the stage,’ the person familiar with the call said.” // Also, more proof of a violation of objectivity is the subsequent sentence: “CNN announced that both Biden and Trump had been invited despite the language requiring ‘candidates’ to have ballot access.”]

This last parenthetical is another point of contention, as Biden and Trump do not even qualify for CNN’s debates (because they are so unprecedentedly early) as neither candidate has been officially nominated as their party’s candidate, and neither are therefore on any states’ ballots (they shot themselves in the foot).

Furthermore still, RFK needed to submit 4 polls demonstrating >15% from their own list of CNN-news-worthy polling agencies contained herein, and he submitted the following: CNN’s own (approved), Quinnipiac (approved), Marquette (approved), and Monmouth (rejected). However, Monmouth was in fact on the aforementioned list of accepted polling agencies. Monmouth polls are regularly used in CNN’s reporting, per the stated standard. For example, CNN reported using Monmouth polls here, here, and here. Correction: Monmouth poll outside polling window. Sorry, folks. The polling window was not mentioned somehow in the CNN article that I read and linked. This does not change the central thrust of the argument.

• A brief aside: after further investigation, the CPD has never had a polling window previously. In 2020, 2016, and 2012 they did not use a polling window, but a running average. . .

• With more and more investigation, I am finding that this assault on Kennedy is multi-pronged. For example, the Nevada Democratic Party’s lawsuit could impede the chance of ever having a winning third-party, as being affiliated with a party in other states (where being affiliated with a party is required), would disqualify you as an ‘independent’ in Nevada, because you are affiliated with an out-of-state party. This reduces third-party candidacy to frivolity.

So to summarize, the criteria RFK Jr. needed to meet were (1) be on enough ballots to acquire 270 electoral votes assuming perfect performance (2) 4 reputable polls at >15%.

Well, RFK (1) submitted signatures in enough states to theoretically qualify for >270 votes (348 at the time of writing, including heavy-hitters California, Texas, and New York, among several others) and (2) provided 4 polls from the provided list meeting or surpassing the 15% threshold. One of these qualifying polls was disregarded, and RFK Jr.’s signatures have been strategically nullified by the unprecedentedly early debate, which would have excluded Ross Perot if held at this point in the election cycle.

Trump doesn’t even have a VP, and so we at this point have no reason to expect a VP debate, despite the obvious actuarial concerns that the two oldest US Presidents in history are competing to once again reset the record for the oldest US President in history…why should we care about VPs? We miss out on this opportunity as a country because of Biden and Trump’s decision to collude with CNN to exclude RFK.

Astoundingly neither Trump nor Biden satisfy CNN’s requirements either, because they have not been nominated and they are not on any ballots, but have been illegally (per FEC) ‘invited’ by CNN as ‘presumptive nominees.’ Biden or Trump could conceivably have an embarrassing cognitive performance forcing them to step-down as their party’s candidate (more probably Biden), and thus it is entirely feasible Biden will not even be the Democratic nominee. If anything this is likely another reason why the first debate was rescheduled so early, so if Biden crashes and burns they can still swap him out.

Yet even further more, the FEC has already clarified that the ‘presumptive nominee’ designation is “not in the FEC’s debate regulation.” CNN has declined to comment on their use of the term. This of course is an example of how CNN’s criteria violate the FEC guideline that they be ‘pre-existing.’

RFK filed suit three weeks ago requesting an injunction to postpone CNN’s illegal and unprecedented debate. Do not be surprised if the debate is postponed on this basis. There is a solid legal case here and it is up to the discretion of the 6 FEC commissioners (3 Dems, 3 Reps) or perhaps just the FEC chairman (Trump-appointed Rep) as to whether the debate will be postponed.

Do you think the FEC should act to stop the violation of federal election law?

There's so much debating, time, money spent, etc involved with elections. As well as time current candidates spend on elections versus actually doing their job. This goes for all levels of elections, but we can use presidential as an example. Why not have only 1 consecutive term allowed, extend the term to 6 years (also will be cheaper for tax payers in the long run), so then they have 6 years to focus on the work at hand. They can rerun after the next candidate takes office, but time.in office is strictly dedicated to their current t responsibilities.

Think about the state of affairs. Our choices are a geriatric puppet or a known felonious thug. There is no middle, no compromise. You can’t have a view point outside of the two mainstream sides lest you be called an idiot, a bigot, an anti-Semite, an uneducated swine, and so forth.

How does the average family live this American dream? In a state of panic and fear - fear they can’t put food on the table, fear they can never put in enough hours on the grind, fear they can’t pay bills, fear their voice cannot be heard, fear they’re being watched, fear their being listened to, fear they can’t protest, fear they can’t assemble, fear they can’t get passable healthcare, fear the world hates them, fear they hate the world.

Where does it end? How does it end?

A vote for either evil is still a vote for evil. There is never only two choices, two sides, two “rights” - we have to do something different and we have to do it now.

We’ve already seen where the votes for evil have gotten us - we may not be around to see where it gets us next.

Today my 72 year old grandmother went for voting, but she was not allowed to vote despite having all the necessary information. The election committee said to her that this voter id is old and not valid for voting Why Aadhar card not valid for voting when it is valid every where?!

https://original.newsbreak.com/@david-heitz-561257/3421615963244-opinion-don-t-drop-debate-requirement-for-denver-fair-elections-fund

I would just like to know how the dates are chosen, or are they assigned; and why some states have such early primaries, while others are so late? I have tried general Google and Bing inquiries, and state specific inquiries and can find nothing. I'm hoping someone in Reddit-world has the answer.

Does anyone know much about this? I know they require citizens to vote in Australia, but don't know much about it. Can anyone explain it? How is it enforced?

I think the president should be elected in 2 rounds: a nationwide open primary to narrow it down to 5 options, then a 2nd round to decide between those 5.

My ideal primary would be staggered; 4 states first, then 8 more, then 16, then the rest. The order would be determined by which states were closest in the previous election; the most polarized states would vote last, with smaller states given priority in the case of a tie to make it easier for smaller parties and independents to gain traction.

I would personally prefer STAR voting, but condorcet RCV would be fine.

Hello, we are a group of psychology researchers from the University of Kent, UK. It would be a huge help if anyone from any background who is interested would fill out our quick survey (18+ years old only) about your views of politics, society, and more.

Fill out the survey here: https://universityofkent.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8ICkX7mBre5IGpM

We are posting here because we hope to collect responses from a wide range of political perspectives and backgrounds. Please let us know if you would like a summary of your responses in comparison to others once the data collection is complete.

The survey takes 15-30 minutes to complete, and we are happy to respond to any queries or questions. Please private message us to avoid giving away the point of the study to others.

Thanks for your time.

Edit: The survey is now closed! Thank you very much for your time, we will be sure to post the results up here when they're ready.