this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
52 points (96.4% liked)

politics

28770 readers
2485 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Current polling:

https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-february-2026/

Steve Hilton, a Republican - 14
Katie Porter, a Democrat - 13
Chad Bianco, a Republican - 12
Eric Swalwell, a Democrat - 11
Tom Steyer, a Democrat - 10
*Other candidates - 30
Don't know - 10

To be clear, the primary is a top two race, so whoever the top 2 candidates are go to the general and those are your two choices for Governor.

With 1 point separating 1 from 2, 2 from 3 and so on, it could very easily be Hilton and Bianco (the only 2 Republicans running.)

30% of the vote is going to "Other". Those folks need to drop out and endorse a candidate who can actually win.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

What a broken electoral system. Not that much of America has a functional democratic system

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Top two is such a dumb fucking system. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of the Democratic candidates are Republican plants to dilute the vote.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 23 hours ago

That happens now and then. Schmuck and Jeffries both behave like Manchurian MAGAs.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's the problem, there are only 2 Republicans running vs. 9 Democrats.

Split 9 ways, there's no way for a Democrat to make the top 2.

The solution is party primaries, one for the Democrats, one for the Republicans, I don't know who decided on this single primary bullshit.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m confused. Aren’t primaries usually per party? Pick the strongest party candidate and then those two run in the general. Is this some sort of weird open primary?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

Sounds like a California thing!

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Why did California pick such a clearly terrible way of running primaries? It could have worked with ranked-choice voting but, the way it is now, you get hilarious features like the Republican frontrunner being incentivized to have people vote for the other Republican rather than for him (because if he's #1 and a Democrat is #2, he definitely loses the general election, but if he's #1 and the other Republican is #2, he has about 50% odds of winning).

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 23 hours ago

Why did California pick such a clearly terrible way of running primaries?

I don't know the answer, but I'll bet it will turn out to be another dumb Democrat idea, to make things "Fair," which ALWAYS means giving some unfair advantage to MAGAs.

[–] punkideas@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's a poison pill to force strategic voting and push people towards candidates that are backed by money. Colorado turned down ranked choice voting, and a lot of it was due to a similar single-vote primary system being packaged with it to make it not work well for actually electing candidates the people want. Voting reform activists knew this and made sure enough people knew that ranked choice elections was a trojan horse for a bad single vote primary system.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Ranked choice voting has become my top policy issue

Long-term it's the most important change we could make. It's what can get us candidates people actually like, rather than constantly voting for the "electable" one with corporate backers

[–] I_Jedi@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago

It's times like these I wish California would utilize the Pretender System to elect a governor. It would solve so many problems.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I’m thankful for their fucked uo voting system because it got me candidate Gary Coleman and governor Schwarzenegger

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago

That was before open primaries.

Before primary reform and Schwarzenegger was elected during a recall which is frankly a system that needs to be burned down and rebuilt.

[–] null@lemmy.org 8 points 1 day ago

You are on this ballot, but we do not grant you the ranked choice voting.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Well, democrats as a whole are largely organized around facilitating republican policies, so I guess this checks out.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If the two Republicans both with the primary and go on to the general election, could a campaign to recall the winner start gathering petitions to get on the general election ballot before they even know who they’re recalling?

Could a candidate get elected and recalled in the same election?

[–] subignition@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago

I don't suppose write-in votes are a thing in that election but it would be mighty funny if two Republicans made it on the ballot and neither of them won