I prefer approval voting. It's easier for the voter to understand and do and eliminates a form of spoiler effect ranked choice voting still has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
Can we stop pretending the filibuster is a real constraint? It's nowhere in the constitution and only exists if the majority of senators want it to exist.
It's not a real rule. Just an excuse for inaction.
Yes, which is why National Popular Voting says that states send a rep to vote for whomever won the national popular vote. The states get to determine who they send by means of their choice, and if they want to send reps for the actually popular candidate, I think it would be mighty awful for the federal government to contravene that freedom of the states.
Some kind of twisted sick ill justified explanation from the Bush Florida recount team aka 3/9 supreme court justices, to again contort the world & system to their pleasure, is all too expectable. Alas. "John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett were all on GWBush 2000 'Florida Recount' team." Not relevant then, but Gore had 0.5m more votes than Bush.
https://bsky.app/profile/jfallows.bsky.social/post/3mwtbnzsa...
Want to get excited about this but I’m old enough to know they’ll probably revert to their fetish for watered down bi-partisan legislation and “taking the high road”. I’m willing to lose the pessimism if there’s a major change in leadership but not super hopeful about it.
People keep talking about citizens united. And sure it needs to go. But it doesn’t really solve more than a small part of the problem because it just reduces what /corporations/ can spend.
Wealthy people like Elon Musk can still go ahead and spend hundreds of millions on campaigns like they just did. There is no cap on that.
There is a personal cap at $3500, Musk uses the PAC organization that arose after CU. The big money is not giving directly or personally; it goes through PACs which CU enabled
CU let companies donate to campaigns and PACs. This talk about state by state changes to put a stop to that is nice (Montana, Hawaii). But Elon Musk is not a company, he actually is a person.
You can give unlimited to a super PAC. Ok, next you get rid of super PACs, which came after CU, fine.
But now still, how does that stop an Elon Musk going out and spending $100m on political advertising as a private individual? That’s what the Musks of this world can still do after you get rid of super PACs.
AFAICT the distinction is if it is “in coordination” with a campaign. Same with PACs. Your super PAC can’t coordinate with a campaign. It’s part of what differentiates them and why they can raise unlimited money.
All he has to do is spend the money himself, as a private, real person, without any coordination with a campaign, and he can spend as much as he likes.
Yeah that watered down boring giving people SNAP benefits, bringing insurance exchanges that helped millions, not going to the supreme court and making it the law of the land that people can be pulled over simply for their race. Ensuring women have the right to choose. Stopping government agencies from being like ICE and murdering people on the streets. Just that stuff. But both sides the same/Dems do nothing.
Schumer recruited Talarico to run for the Senate. What leadership person are you promoting who has both grown talent and demonstrated actively herding cats like the Dem leadership does every day within the big tent party?
Schumer and Jefferies were directly involved with the biggest Democratic win in generations, with Schumer in particular picking the candidates with the biggest upsets, personally, and directing fundraising to weaker candidates like El-Sayed. EVERYBODY who thinks they need to be replaced, are fucking morons, who might be correct that somebody else could do it better, but do not understand that somebody else could do A LOT WORSE.
Who do you propose could do it better? Not vagueness, give me a person. We need real world candidates because these things are real world considerations not just internet talking points.
The Democrats did not win as much as the Republicans have been rejected. Don't read too much into it (like the DSA is), this was a rebuke of elites and do nothing politicians, the same reasons Biden lost and Trump got a 2.0
I do credit Schumer with staving off the far left. We still need to see if these new representatives are actually up to the task of governing effectively. But Schumer is still part of the old guard, he played a big part of making America what it is today.
Yeah, Schumer's and Jeffries' job involves herding cats and taking the blame to let members and presidential candidates look good.
They've got a unique opportunity over the next couple of years -- I'm willing to bet there are now a handful of Republican members that are willing to vote against Trump on specific bills to help their general election prospects. And they only need a handful to assemble a filibuster-proof or even veto-proof majority.
That'll involve pissing off the progressives, since bipartisan bills will necessarily be moderate. But don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
> That'll involve pissing off the progressives, since bipartisan bills will necessarily be moderate. But don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Only possible bipartisan bill are far right ones. It does not matter how much democrats move to the right, right wing demand right wing radicalism. Left was never the blocker of the bipartisan bills. Conservatives always were.
End First Past the Post.
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
I prefer approval voting. It's easier for the voter to understand and do and eliminates a form of spoiler effect ranked choice voting still has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
Can we stop pretending the filibuster is a real constraint? It's nowhere in the constitution and only exists if the majority of senators want it to exist.
It's not a real rule. Just an excuse for inaction.
For those getting excited: The Electoral College is established by the US Constitution, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment.
FTA: “ even without a near-impossible constitutional amendment.”
Maybe, maybe not. Presumably the courts would decide that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_Natio...
Yes, which is why National Popular Voting says that states send a rep to vote for whomever won the national popular vote. The states get to determine who they send by means of their choice, and if they want to send reps for the actually popular candidate, I think it would be mighty awful for the federal government to contravene that freedom of the states.
Some kind of twisted sick ill justified explanation from the Bush Florida recount team aka 3/9 supreme court justices, to again contort the world & system to their pleasure, is all too expectable. Alas. "John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett were all on GWBush 2000 'Florida Recount' team." Not relevant then, but Gore had 0.5m more votes than Bush. https://bsky.app/profile/jfallows.bsky.social/post/3mwtbnzsa...
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not abolish the Electoral College.
Want to get excited about this but I’m old enough to know they’ll probably revert to their fetish for watered down bi-partisan legislation and “taking the high road”. I’m willing to lose the pessimism if there’s a major change in leadership but not super hopeful about it.
I'm actually more excited they have enough power now to maybe get money out of politics once and for all
Imagine the progress when only small donations allowed and no-one can drop a HALF BILLION on a single state
Could actually pass universal healthcare once insurance industry is muzzled and can't buy politicians anymore
Undoing Citizens United also requires a constitutional amendment
Maybe not. Montana's plan to sidestep it looks like it just might work.
but can be overridden by another bad SCOTUS decision
People keep talking about citizens united. And sure it needs to go. But it doesn’t really solve more than a small part of the problem because it just reduces what /corporations/ can spend.
Wealthy people like Elon Musk can still go ahead and spend hundreds of millions on campaigns like they just did. There is no cap on that.
There is a personal cap at $3500, Musk uses the PAC organization that arose after CU. The big money is not giving directly or personally; it goes through PACs which CU enabled
(aiui)
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citi...
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/undoing-citizens-un...
https://legalhelp.us/how-much-can-a-private-citizen-donate-t...
That cap is what a person can give to a campaign.
CU let companies donate to campaigns and PACs. This talk about state by state changes to put a stop to that is nice (Montana, Hawaii). But Elon Musk is not a company, he actually is a person.
You can give unlimited to a super PAC. Ok, next you get rid of super PACs, which came after CU, fine.
But now still, how does that stop an Elon Musk going out and spending $100m on political advertising as a private individual? That’s what the Musks of this world can still do after you get rid of super PACs.
> That’s what the Musks of this world can still do after you get rid of super PACs.
I don't think so, political add spend counts towards personal spending afaik.
AFAICT the distinction is if it is “in coordination” with a campaign. Same with PACs. Your super PAC can’t coordinate with a campaign. It’s part of what differentiates them and why they can raise unlimited money.
All he has to do is spend the money himself, as a private, real person, without any coordination with a campaign, and he can spend as much as he likes.
not before lobbying gets abolished. so never.
Yeah that watered down boring giving people SNAP benefits, bringing insurance exchanges that helped millions, not going to the supreme court and making it the law of the land that people can be pulled over simply for their race. Ensuring women have the right to choose. Stopping government agencies from being like ICE and murdering people on the streets. Just that stuff. But both sides the same/Dems do nothing.
Schumer recruited Talarico to run for the Senate. What leadership person are you promoting who has both grown talent and demonstrated actively herding cats like the Dem leadership does every day within the big tent party?
Schumer is the same geriocracy we no longer want. He's compromised, time for fresh faces.
Schumer and Jefferies were directly involved with the biggest Democratic win in generations, with Schumer in particular picking the candidates with the biggest upsets, personally, and directing fundraising to weaker candidates like El-Sayed. EVERYBODY who thinks they need to be replaced, are fucking morons, who might be correct that somebody else could do it better, but do not understand that somebody else could do A LOT WORSE.
Who do you propose could do it better? Not vagueness, give me a person. We need real world candidates because these things are real world considerations not just internet talking points.
The Democrats did not win as much as the Republicans have been rejected. Don't read too much into it (like the DSA is), this was a rebuke of elites and do nothing politicians, the same reasons Biden lost and Trump got a 2.0
I do credit Schumer with staving off the far left. We still need to see if these new representatives are actually up to the task of governing effectively. But Schumer is still part of the old guard, he played a big part of making America what it is today.
You still haven't put anyone forward as a better replacement or actionable items you want different.
For me ending the fillibuster seems like the biggest way to prevent the gridlock versus getting rid of leadership for nebulous someone elses.
I'm not tuned in enough to pick an alternative, no one else has had a chance in how long? Chuckie is not a good leader and needs to be replaced
Ending the filibuster is a double edged sword, there is a reason the Republicans did not do it at Trump's request.
Yeah, Schumer's and Jeffries' job involves herding cats and taking the blame to let members and presidential candidates look good.
They've got a unique opportunity over the next couple of years -- I'm willing to bet there are now a handful of Republican members that are willing to vote against Trump on specific bills to help their general election prospects. And they only need a handful to assemble a filibuster-proof or even veto-proof majority.
That'll involve pissing off the progressives, since bipartisan bills will necessarily be moderate. But don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
> That'll involve pissing off the progressives, since bipartisan bills will necessarily be moderate. But don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Only possible bipartisan bill are far right ones. It does not matter how much democrats move to the right, right wing demand right wing radicalism. Left was never the blocker of the bipartisan bills. Conservatives always were.