This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The rules that govern balloting aren't at all uniform. I suppose you could have a gentleman's understanding that electors would just vote for the replacement even if the ballot could not be altered. But then the electors might expose themselves to liability under faithless elector laws. Some states don't merely punish faithless electors, they automatically cancel their votes and replace them with an alternate.
Yeah, this is a surprisingly complicated question because each state has different laws and it's never really been tested before. The parties can of course "nominate" whoever they want, but in most states the ballots have already been "locked in" and won't change. For example, RFK is going to stay on the ballot in some states, but not others, even though he dropped out and wants to be removed. Doubly complicated because, like you mentioned, you're not technically voting for the candidate themselves, but for electors pledge to them.
I think in practice it would just go to the vice president, because that's kind of their main job. But I would expect to see a lawsuit with some bickering over vague, archaic rules, and maybe get the Supreme Court involved like they did in Bush v Gore. Because, apparently, the Supreme Court is really the Supreme source of all authority in this ridiculous country.
To be fair, the entire point of the supreme court is to adjudicate edge cases like this. They are a lot closer to their intended purpose when they're making up rules to get a faithful procedural outcome than when they're the last word on popular moral debates that ought to be negotiated by Congress.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link