The scenario we see as the most alarming was made possible by the Supreme Court itself. In a 2020 decision, the court held, in our reading, that state legislatures have the power to direct electors on how to cast their electoral votes. And this opens the door to what we think is the most dangerous strategy: that a legislature would pass a law that directs electors to vote for the candidate the legislature picks.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240124124427/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/opinion/election-president-steal-democracy.html

  • Shiggles
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    I feel like “efforts can be best made elsewhere” needs to be qualified with where that is

    • thesystemisdown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      It won’t happen before November, and a lot is on the line. We can always do more than one thing at a time, but it’s difficult to get anyone to do anything in the first place.

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Change as you’re describing will never happen if Republicans control any part of governemnt. Change also won’t happen under Democrats unless it’s aligned with corporate interests, tho, Democrats are conciliatory to social change once protesting starts to damage profitability.

        I wish I were wrong about that, but that’s the options we have. Authoritarian’s backed by Big Oil or the public punching bag to oligarchical authoritarianism. Progressives might be moving the platform but the likelihood of public interest resulting in the passing of law is still statistically null, which has been quantifiably proven multiple times over the past 30 years.

        We are free to spend our money on the things that keep us productive workers and that’s it. In my eyes that’s just slavery with more steps.