this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
410 points (99.3% liked)

politics

31081 readers
2540 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think the constituency should be able to decide. If there's a natural disaster or something and the person is either helping locally or somehow affected and the opposition attempts to rush through votes to get a special election where several displaced people may be unable to vote I don't want them to have that power. At the end of the day the people being represented should be able to decide what to do.

Maybe automatic makes more sense, I just don't love policies where the people affected have no say. I feel like they are easy to abuse. I know they could technically reelect the same person, but as is people struggle to get to the polls. I can't imagine rushing a special election during some kind of disaster. It's a lot of money and stress if people don't actually want the change.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In the US elections are entirely up to the state, regardless of any other factor: a state legislature can constitutionally address any unusual circumstances, like a natural disaster, according to its needs.

As a separate issue, in most states the governor simply selects replacements for vacant offices, like US Senator, and would also be able to do so in the event of any extreme circumstances.

But Mitch McConnell himself worked to change this in Kentucky in 2024, as soon as he realized he wasn't going to run again and his health might give out on him: he wanted to ensure Gov. Beshear, a Democrat, could not select his replacement.

The law in Kentucky that he helped to push through, requiring a special election for his replacement, IS automatically triggered and only bars a special election from three months prior to a regular election. If that deadline is passed, in this case August 3, then the good people of Kentucky only have one senator instead of two until January.

But to have a vacancy, someone has reveal the truth that there actually is a vacancy to be filled. So the suspicion now is that the Republicans are going to try to hide McConnell's condition until the first Tuesday in August -- the last day a Kentucky special election can be called -- so that Thomas Massie, a Republican who just got primaried out of his own Congressional seat, can't make a run for McConnell's now obviously vacant Senate seat.

This is an interesting debate -- X link / (xcancel link) -- around the minutiae of it; apparently no matter what happens now a legal challenge awaits in Kentucky. That's what happens when someone like McConnell pushes through a badly written, ill-thought piece of legislation that isn't clear enough: whoever doesn't like it has grounds to sue.

Which is to say that he didn't just fuck it up for his own vacant seat, he fucked it up for Kentucky as a whole, or at least until that law gets changed, by tying the governor's hands when ANY state or state-related federal office becomes vacant.

If this is too long I apologize; I started off answering your own comment and then it expanded to the current situation. I hope you find it useful.