Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

moderators

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

It depends on the states. I won't be surprised if some states cancel their elections because the incumbents don't want to risk the results not being what they want.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] TwilitSky@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Then they'll create the 100% probability that none of their votes or incumbents will be considered.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago

There are ambitious MAGAs in those states, too, who won't be happy about not getting their chance to enjoy the corruption. What about down ballot offices that have term limits, and the holder has to leave? There are people retiring, and need to be replaced.

We can't just cancel elections for Congressional races. There are too many other important state and local races.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago*

okay, so we have a bunch of blue states holding elections and a bunch of red states not. what is the outcome of that? not good for red states. so the red states have to hold elections if the blue states do. and california is holding elections.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent