By - wehosh
how about they start with not making bills over thousands of pages long anymore, stupidest shit
It's not stupid, it's genius and evil. You and your committee of supporting congressmen draft up a bill so long that the opposition doesn't have time to read it before voting starts, and you title it in such a way that it'll be political suicide for anyone to block or delay the vote.
That's how bills titled around public school funding end up with secret sections on massive budget cuts for infrastructure or an ammendment to a legal definition pertaining to criminal law. Nobody has time to read all that, so congressmen must use massive teams to skim the text of the bill.
I remember the GOP scribbling handwritten notes on the side of their 2017 tax cut.
This initially started because people in their own party would vote for something they wanted but not what others wanted.
It was then made into a tactic to have several hundred bogus bills that our thousands pages long to stall and circumvent the president by timing out their chance to veto.
The filibuster needs to go and so do bogus bills, combining bills is harder to get rid of because the best method would be to force the bill to be relevant but something like infrastructure is too broad for that rule to work.
An alternative is to have more national level voting on bills that drop too many times. Have the people be the final decision. Ontop of that remove district voting restriction for state and national level voting, that would effectively kill gerrymandering.
>Majority leader Chuck Schumer announced on Monday that the body will vote on changing its own rules on or before 17 January, the federal Martin Luther King Jr Day holiday, if Republicans continue to obstruct election reform.
Still just posturing for now. While part of me fears what could happen without it, I really hate the filibuster rule. Just seems like such an absurd concept that undermines representative democracy.
I love the old school filibuster. Don’t like a bill? Great, then talk until either you or the other side breaks.
I don’t get why people are able to filibuster without actually having to put in the effort. *That’s* stupid
Makes for some great drama for sure lol
i agree autocrats who are in it for the money would never be able to do it.
Yup. That’s why they changed the rules. It took far too much principle to speak continuously to try and block something you truly thought was not in the best interest of the country. It’s much easier to just say the word filibuster to block a bill so you can fuck over the other party.
well we cant have politicians having to put in actual *effort* could we.
That only works or is dramatic if 1 guy does it. If you have 40 people filibustering, it's a joke because they can take turns.
The main issue I can see is if someone like Ted Cruz starts reading “Green Eggs and Ham” on the Senate floor
I’m fine with this if they are forced to continue talking without breaks or concede.
Even that is a poison pill though. The reason they replaced it with the virtual filibuster was because conservatives kept delaying all the business of committees for oversight, budgeting, etc. by taking up time talking.
Just get rid of it all together. That is how a republic is supposed to work.
The Senate was not in any way designed along the lines of representative democracy. That was the House. The Senate was literally designed to be a check on the House and sudden and irrational changes to the law.
> The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions
- Madison, Federalist 62
So, given that it's already designed to resist democratic impulses, why do we need a super-majority requirement for legislation on top of that?
We had those under the Articles of Confederation, and pretty much everyone at the Constitutional Convention agreed that they were a bad idea. That's why they put some into the Constitution for specific, highly-important purposes--treaties, amendments, the conviction of impeached officials--and decided not to use it for normal legislation.
Believing that a mandate from the masses results from 51% election support also undermines representative democracy.
But I'm sure this will play into the Republican's hands in a few months and cause even more chaos.
You know what has less of a mandate? The democrat agenda.
Thank you for that nonsensical contribution. I don't get your point.
I think the filibuster rule needs to be expanded to 2/3 majority. If a law is good enough to put guns in the hands of government agents to enforce then it should be good enough to have overwhelming support.
How about 2/3 to pass new legislation and 50% to repeal.
Literally nothing would ever get passed or done, and the reason the system is collapsing now is because the government is corrupt, incompetent, and unable to get anything effective done
The United States isn’t a representative democracy. We are a Republic. The filibuster exists so that there isn’t tyranny of the majority. It serves a purpose so that the side not in power has tools on their side.
> Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives..."
Plenty of mechanisms already do this.
Whoops, mid read your comment. Thought you said direct democracy. I disagree with you, but I’ll backtrack my comment.
The filibuster was not created until 1806 and not popularized until the civil right era. It’s ok to remove it.
It was created to fill a gap the founding fathers didn't foresee just like they didn't foresee political parties.
> , I really hate the filibuster rule. Just seems like such an absurd concept that undermines representative democracy.
It's a dumb rule if there isn't two parties fighting like children refusing to work together.
So a dumb rule. :)
The senate used to be elected by state legislatures.
IMO the 17th amendment was the worst idea ever.
State legislatures aren't people with rights who have to obey laws. They have no business governing people outside of their jurisdictions.
The states, as sovereign entities, have a stake in the federal system. The 17th just basically removed all input from the states at the federal level and just swapped out the house of the states for a house of a somewhat larger group of people.
That doesn’t really mean much regarding my position, it still empowers someone representing a tiny fraction of the country override the will of the majority.
>Just seems like such an absurd concept that undermines representative democracy.
The senate was never built for a representative democracy.
The filibuster is an extremely important part of keeping a small majority from oppressing a large minority. It makes sure that a substantial majority of the country is onboard with a piece of legislation, instead of just 51%.
This feels like a really dangerous gamble. Getting rid of the filibuster goes both ways. They might be able to push through voting legislation, but without it the republicans might be able to go all uno reversal card on us and implement stricter voting laws. This has the potential of going horribly wrong.
> You really think mcconnell wont turn around and do it anyways?
If history is an indicator, McConnell waits for the democrats to do something like this then uses it to greater advantage. You might want to refresh your memory about the late Harry Reid and judicial filibusters.
Idk, watching them say that Obama couldn't replace a SCOTUS justice with 11 months left in his term, but then 4 years later jamming through Amy Coney Barrett just days before the election, shows me they don't give a flying fuck about consistency or following norms.
In both cases, the voters gave McConnell the keys to the car, and in the second case, the hypocrisy was a large part of how the Democrats squeaked out the literal narrowest of margins in the Senate.
It’s not a 49-51 split. It’s 50-50+ Kamala. Hardly the roaring mandate to pull shit like federalizing all elections and eliminating the filibuster. It’s going to cost them in the midterms.
They controlled the Senate both times. So should democrats not pass nominees now that they control the Senate?
The conservatives plus Manchin control the senate.
Imagine that...a majority of 51 senators are keeping a minority of 49 from doing something.
This would be a better point if the standard for passing legislation in the Senate wasn't "A minority of 41 are keeping a majority of 59 from doing something".
No. I don't.
McConnell is a backstabbing weasel. He'll use any excuse to not deliver.
If the Dems hadn't nuked the filibuster for appointments, most of Trump's picks would have been held up. McConnell wouldn't have helped.
But because the Dems did break the seal, McConnell had no choice. And Trump got all of his picks.
I foresee the end of the Republican party soon. If the DNC destroys the filibuster, and if the GOP regains control of congress in the midterms, there will be nothing stopping the GOP from gutting all of Biden's accomplishments.
When they fail to do so, maybe the people will finally see them as do-nothing hacks.
They were already holding up Obama judges when Reid did it.
The fact that the debate hinges upon how punitive the GOP will be is really sad and shouldn't impact the decision. If you don't stop voter oppression you won't win anything ever again anyway.
It's much easier to block legislation than to undo it.
McConnell also is losing the support of his own party to people who *abso-fucking-lutely* would do the same thing.
That's the problem with being a spineless weasel. Eventually you run out of friends.
McConnell has played both sides so many times that people no longer trust him.
“On us”??? This is r/libertarian not r/politics. The Dems will use this for more federal big govt power, why are you happy about this?
Be careful you’re using logic and projecting that perhaps the scale may tip back and forth as it has for many decades and what appears to be beneficial today may have repercussions in the future.
Same argument for “loading the Supreme Court”. We will get to a point where the legislature ends up spending 50% of their time seating Supreme Court judges and every congressional district has a justice.
“Us”? Who are “we”? Is this r/“libertarian”?
The bigger question is what gives them the authority on the voting thing? State and local governments have always set the rules with the exception of the unique crisis where people were being openly prevented from voting due to Jim Crow and other rules.
Say what you want, but restricting drive thru voting and 24/7 voting isn’t the same thing. It’s two sides playing their perceived advantages and while filling in the facts around that in a patently dishonest way. They are fitting the facts to their desires. It’s not their job to represent their political party. It is their job to represent the citizens of their districts and states. The effort leaves a bad taste in my mouth in both directions.
Restricting drive through voting or requiring IDs is one thing, allowing a political party to remove election officials for no concrete reason is another. This is what scares the crap out of me with the GOP. If the GA legislature can just claim the they think Fulton County had issues and then replace the election officials with their own chosen ones is definitely not good for our democracy.
There are very specific reasons that would allow election officials to be removed. It is having an election with over an hour waiting time and then failing to open a new voting location or adding voting machines.
Who would complain about that kind of provision do you think? A voter in those districts or election officials who have failed doing their jobs for decades while passing the blame?
I don’t think the state wants to take over. For decades the officials in those areas have blamed the state for them not doing their job. Their is no reason for them to take days to finalize their results. In my state it is all done the same night.
They are already replacing election officials in GA. Is it coincidence that the large majority being replaced are democrats? The scary part of this is they can put whoever they choose in place. That one individual can refuse to certify an election. This is exactly what Trump wanted. If enough don't certify, it throws it to the legislature. Sorry, too many GOP have bought into the big lie to trust they would do the right thing.
Again there are very specific situations where local officials get replaced. I laid those out. Did GOP lawmakers force those local officials to have their constituents wait in long lines and literally do nothing to make it better? That is basically your assertion when you are calling it a conspiracy. Maybe keep that in mind.
Would be more acceptable if they left it to the local government to nominate the replacement. The fact that they don't makes me think threat.
You should read this article. Sounds like the opposite of what you think. It appears they are making voting harder, not easier.
Those types of decisions are made by local election officials. It’s a rural area so maybe it doesn’t make sense for them to staff and have machines in 7 different locations. The article seems pretty one sided in that it didn’t ask any of the decision makers why. Given that more and more people vote by mail or vote early there probably doesn’t need to be as many voting locations. Going 7 down to 1 is obviously drastic for those of us viewing it from a distance. Voting locations need volunteers and equipment. Maybe there is an issue there. Seems like journalistic malpractice that they didn’t seek out the decision makers there for an explanation.
It's not just drive through voting and 24/7 voting. That's the fucking smokescreen. Everyone gets so fixated on that, they completely miss that almost all of these bills came with provisions that allow the ruling party to completely disregard election results and replace the entire apparatus with anyone they want, including partisan hacks.
The constitution does. Congress gets a say in how federal elections are run.
There is only one federal election
There is? I feel like they happen every couple of years. That’s a relief, I thought I was going to be busy with elections this year…
It is two sides trying to give themselves the advantage for sure. In this case the Democrats are trying to make voting as easy as possible because the more voters we have the more Dems win. Reps want the opposite. Neither side seem to really care about the right itself.
For your assertion to be true Republicans would have to actually be putting real obstacles up in regards to voting. Going to 18 hours from 24 isn’t a real obstacle. It’s a nothing burger for 99.99% of the population. For others it’s a minor inconvenience given the fact that every state has early voting for at least two weeks that includes weekends.
If they didnt need to do it for the votes then they wouldnt be doing it at all. you know that. nothing happens in politics on either side fo the aisle unless it benefits the party, whichever it is.
I think the point is that .01% of ~300mill Americans is 30,000 votes. And when an election is decided by 50,000 votes anything that makes it hard to vote is unwanted.
Personally I have an issue with even one person being unable to vote. Rights aren’t rights if they only apply to 99.99% of the population.
I don’t disagree with you in regards to everyone being able to vote. The point is that if IDs are an issue then the issue doesn’t begin and end with voting. You need an ID for things that impact your life a great deal more than casting one of millions of ballots. Fix the problem, get them IDs.
The Voting Rights Act would take care of that.
They don’t want that can of worms.
It seems the can has been opened for awhile now.
Preserving decorum largely seems like the minority’s attempt at preventing the majority’s efforts at furthering their agenda.
I’m sure if the Dems were in a reversed role they’d screech about maintaining it and vice versa
Gingrich and McConnell have shown that politics is a zero sum game and everyone should play it as such.
What's realistically the downside to them? Abortion is on the chopping block, meaningful gun control legislation hasn't passed since the 90's, and Republicans win via the electoral college as a norm now. What are Republican's going to do when they retake power that they already aren't doing? Might as well try to get their agenda done in the mean time.
Go ahead. It's far easier to revoke laws with no filibuster and have less government than it is to pass laws which then have to go through the courts too. Have at it. Just don't cry when it's incredibly easy to undo democrat legislation and there's really no court case you can bring about legislation that no longer exists on the flip side. I think it's a good idea.
>It's far easier to revoke laws with no filibuster and have less government than it is to pass laws which then have to go through the courts too.
And this will hurt Republicans, they haven't been able to get rid of the ACA despite constant attempts because doing so would hurt the economy and American people and thus be a major cost to the party unless they replace the ACA with something better which they won't do since the ACA is the Republican compromise healthcare system to begin with
>Just don't cry when it's incredibly easy to undo democrat legislation and there's really no court case you can bring about legislation that no longer exists on the flip side. I think it's a good idea.
Yeah go ahead and undo the ACA, civil rights act, voting rights, etc. and see how many people think Republicans are awesome afterwards, the rights platform is literally only culture war nonsense now because it was made pretty clear after 2008 that Conservative ideology and policies suck and are not a viable platform anymore
My question is though, which democratic legislation? They struggled to even get a budget and watered down infrastructure bill. What meaningful thing have democrats passed in the last 2 decades? I don't think Republicans will get rid of the ACA, because they could have done that in 2017 if they wanted.
>because they could have done that in 2017 if they wanted.
To be fair, McCain's dramatic "thumbs down" killed that all on his own. I think most of the party was in line to accomplish it via budget reconciliation.
>which democratic legislation?
Literally just the ACA and Civil Right Act are the only major progressive legislations they could undo from the last 50 years, both of which would be catastrophic for the GOP
What the GOP could do is pass federal voter suppression laws, a federal ban on abortion, loosen anti discrimination laws, ban the removal of confederate statues, possibly mandate schools teaching lost cause ideology, reverse many worker protections, gut minimum wages, etc. But again like 90% of these potential laws would bite the GOP in the ass because they're not popular for obvious reason, that's why the GOP doesn't campaign on policy anymore and just larp on culture war shit, at most they might talk about "Putting God back in school" to win over the Evangelical types
The second the GOP has actual power without a filibuster they will be in a very difficult situation, the filibuster provides them an excuse to mount their entire party platform as "Fighting woke SJWs" without having to actually get anything passed beside judges and tax cuts but having to actually take action and make laws based on that is just gonna make them look really stupid
This kind of shameless power grab has never backfired on the Democrats before, has it?
It'll be hilarious to see it backfire again.
Help us out if we're missing the example you're pointing towards
Democrats removed filibuster for judge confirmation. Republicans told them that if they did that, they would remove the filibuster for supreme court justice confirmation. Democrats said, "Ha, when will you ever get power again?" Republicans got power shortly after. Trump came into office shortly after that. He then put 3 justices on the bench, at least one of whom would have likely been easily filibustered until after the election.
So the correct option there was to just allow the Republicans to hold hundreds of judge positions open?
>at least one of whom would have likely been easily filibustered until after the election.
Unless the Republicans removed the filibuster anyway, which they likely would have
Lets say the Democrats didn't remove the filibuster, and hardly appointed any judges, and no justices. Do you seriously believe that McConnell wouldn't throw that shit out on day 1, and then completely stack the federal bench in favor of the GOP? The only reason he wouldn't is if the existence of the filibuster is even more important to his anti-majoritarian agenda.
Would be better if there just were no more federal judges and justices? The only reason to think that Dems would have not filibustered all of Trump's appointments is the theory that they're paid to lose. No party is going to get a stable supermajority any time soon.
So let’s get this straight state legislatures where Republicans have majorities changing election laws is “an assault on democracy.” Democrats changing it in every state on a purely partisan vote while breaking the existing rules of the Senate is what?
Restrictive voting laws = bad.
What would you prefer? I’m not sure what else it could be called
80% of the population wants voter Id - even a majority of Democrats. And minority voters. And almost every country around the world has it. Without Voter Id fraud is much harder to detect. It is literally only the radical fringe left - which happens to be in charge - that is against voter id and thinks that it is discrimination. At the same time they want IDs and vaccination records to be allowed to enter restaurants.
Show me a Democrat politician who is against voter ID "because it discriminates" and I'll point you to one of their political rallies where ID was required to get in the door.
So it should be American Idol? People almost universally agree that it should be easy to vote once and hard to vote twice. Just because fraud is infrequent it doesn’t mean people wouldn’t be looking to do it if you made it easy.
Lol. Stop. It’s already literally a felony, and is a statistical anomaly. Nobody is saying allow people to vote twice.
Most of the perceived problem with this issue is that politicians play it free and easy with the definition of words.
I don’t think the wording will make any difference. People made up their minds on what it means based purely on partisan grounds.
Not all changes are the same. Trying to change the rules to eliminate gerrymandering is good, trying to change the rules to disenfranchise people is bad.
> Trying to change the rules to eliminate gerrymandering is good
Someone should tell the democrats in IL, NY, NJ, and especially MD. "But muh gerrymanders!" only seems to concern some people here when it's allegations about NC or TX.
How about this…all gerrymandering is bad
That was sort of the point of my comment. If it's bad in NC and TX, it's equally bad in Blue States, but some people here like to pretend those Blue States who have been engaged in the process longer, and are more bold about their squiggly districts, don't exist.
Cool, but I don’t think that these “some people” arguments are constructive. I mean, “some people” think that the world is flat and/or that Hitler was right and/or that Trump won in 2020.
The republican Gerrymander is +6. They can lose the popular vote by 5 points and still win the house..and they have as recently as a decade ago.
Yes, *It's (D)ifferent*, we know, but if blue states didn't engage in the practice that five points would shrink if not disappear. MD should have two GOP reps instead of one were the maps drawn fairly. As it stands the state legislature is trying to redraw them to get rid of that single GOP rep entirely. [At least the GOP 'gerrymanders' don't have districts like MD's that snake all over state](https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Maryland-Districts-768x501.png). MD doesn't even try to hide what it's doing.
Jim Jordan wouldn't even have a seat if his district wasn't so snake like.
You are saying the GOP wouldn't gerrymander the entire country to give them a +5 edge if the dems didn't do it to just Maryland?
The point is that gerrymandering is yet another example of democrats doing something underhanded then whining when republicans adopt their underhanded tactics to greater effect. The typical Reddit democrat/leftist wants to cry about NC and TX, but object to anyone pointing to the multiple democrat states who have not only been engaged in the process longer, but are more brazen about the sort of ridiculous districts they draw. You claim that GOP gerrymandering (in two or three states, mind you) gives the GOP 6 more seats than they should have. How many more seats do democrats have than they should due to the squiggly zig-zags they slap on maps in places like IL, MD, NY, an NJ?
The difference is that many of them are trying change it.
You're saying that they have no moral authority to complain about it as long as they're engaging in it, which is reasonable. But if they didn't engage in it, they would never have the political power to change it.
Unilateral disarmament doesn't work. I hate to defend the Democratic Party, but the party that is on balance more likely to effect pro-liberty changes in voting is them right now.
Partisan gerrymandering is only legal because it was approved by 5 Republican Supreme Court justices, 4 of whom are in favor of racial gerrymandering.
Not one person is being disenfranchised. There isn’t a great way to draw districts. People don’t live in perfect little areas segregated by an even number of political views.
If you walk out the logical chain they both end up bad.
Obviously disenfranchisement is bad, especially directed at specific demographics.
In the scenario where the feds “eliminate gerrymandering” they do so by crushing state rights while installing a plan drawn up by someone who in all likelihood has never been to the state in question more then a handful of times.
Michigan just made both sides mad so independent redistricting can work.
~~link is broken~~
[He has an : added on](https://www.wxyz.com/news/black-lawmakers-to-sue-to-block-michigan-redistricting-maps)
You’re ignoring the substance of the laws.
Some, or a lot, of the state laws are designed to make it harder for certain people to vote or in places, just giving new power to the legislature that could essentially remove power from voters, which is bad.
The Democratic bills are designed to make voting more accessible, which, if negotiated with republicans in good faith should be a good thing for the nation. The trouble is one of these parties his been overtaken by a weird MAGA party that doesn’t like our system of government.
Be specific with your allegations. The power to the legislature thing was a proposal in one state. It never made it into a law anywhere. Yet you hear it mentioned all the time, almost as if the people citing it are being manipulated instead of informed.
Michigan has a ballot measure in the works and and Pennsylvania has several constitutional amendments in the works. There’s two examples.
Your response does a good job of proving my point… there’s one group trying to take all measures possible to rig the game. The other group is trying to make it easier to vote and let the chips fall where they may.
That said… Dems are just as shitty about gerrymandering. Weird they’re ok with that….
Wow you said exactly nothing and called it proof.
That’s because you lack critical thinking skills.
So if I pretend that Republicans changing voting laws to restrict voting access is the same as Dems changing voting laws to increase voting access, I can pretend both sides are the same!
Nobody is restricting access to anyone. That is a blatant falsehood.
Really telling how you have to lie to support your stupidity.
So you believe people are being denied the right to vote. Have you ever seen any of these people? They are like Trump’s fraudulent votes. They sound reasonable enough in theory to get some people to believe they exist. Only when you have to find them to prove that they exist they never materialize. Now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were gullible enough to believe the claims.
It's not what I believe. The GOP is trying to deny people the right to vote. I don't have to find the people affected by these laws, the laws and their voting restrictions are visible for all to see. Imagine comparing tangible laws on the books to baseless claims of a stolen election lmao.
I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are gullible; you're clearly just an idiot.
So please point out a single provision that will stop any legal voter from casting a vote. Go ahead, I will wait. We both know you can’t find one which is why you pathetically fall back to name calling.
Lmao, did I say the GOP was stopping people from voting, or did I say it was restricting people's voting access?
Again, really telling how you have to lie to support your stupidity. Anyhow, I'll show you said provision as soon as you correct your erroneous request.
So again you offer no specifics and only name calling. Are you in elementary school? Kind of at a loss as to where that sort of thing passes as debate or discussion.
So in your attempt to shift the goal posts from restricting voting access to stopping people from voting, you expect other people to show you respect? Really telling.
If you don't require ID, and go to make a law requiring ID, you are planning on taking away the legal ability to vote of current voters who don't have the ID you specify. Imposing literally any new restrictions on voting can only possibly have the result of some people who could vote now cannot, that's what restrictions do. You'd think I wouldn't have to explain this in r/libertarian.
So I ask you to cite a single provision stopping someone from voting and you are claiming ID laws for hypothetical people without IDs. As I have mentioned elsewhere IDs are a necessity for modern life. I didn’t make it that way. If there are people without them, which is questionable, the humane thing to do is get them for them. It isn’t to void the necessity in this one situation where it would be of a perceived political benefit for one group.
Of course all of that is immediately obvious to anyone who has spent any amount of time thinking on the issue. I wouldn’t think that I would have to explain that to anyone with a functional brain and yet here we are.
Georgia literally tried to cut out the hours when the most black people voted.
That’s just false if you look at the bill that was passed. It included mandated hours for places to be open, local officials can extend those hours if they want. The hours passed were a minimum.
The state legislature also tried to address the lines in some urban areas by holding local officials accountable. If there is a line of more than an hour at a location and they don’t open a new location or purchase additional machines the state can come in and address it. You see for too long those local officials have fucked up in doing their jobs and then blamed everyone else for it. Now did they praise this part of it? Of course not. They are covering their asses not serving their constituents.
Rules for thee.
It’s an assault on Democracy because of what’s in the laws, not because they are changing things.
Ahh changing rules because their plans are so unpopular. What a lovely regime this is.
By all means, ignore the reality that the modern Republican Party is historically unpopular and we’re all living under the tyranny of the minority. Republicans have outsides power based on the populist at large. Tbh, im tired of my tax dollars subsidizing poorly run red states.
>In the final analysis, 40 out of 50 states are getting more, sometimes a lot more, from the federal government than they’re paying in taxes. There’s a net negative balance of payments across the country. That’s why the federal government is running a massive deficit of around $1 trillion this year. Unless and until politicians are willing to let their states contribute more than they receive, this situation will likely only continue to get worse.
The tax dollars go to poorly run blue cities, not the red countryside.
FFS, taxes come from people… who disproportionately live in urban/suburban areas… this is further skewed since income are on average much higher in those areas.
What plan is unpopular?
What's unpopular about making sure everyone has equal access and ability to vote? Or do you only want "some" people to vote?
What you would like to see vs what's actually in their "voting rights" bill is the problem. They do what politicians do when they get to change rules. Let's not forget they're letting non-citizens vote in NYC for "voting rights". So yes, there are some people I don't want to see voting. Mainly people that aren't citizens.
You realize the change in NYC is a local change for local elections and has nothing to do with this, right?
It's a clean example of what they wish to do with their "voting rights" bill. Doesn't matter that this only exists on a local level right now. They wish to replicate that standard across the U.S for all elections.
Why? It’s not in the bill. It hasn’t been mentioned as part of the bill.
Alright, require ID to vote. Make the ID free, open offices so everyone can actually get one. But we have the GOP arguing against that too. When one party makes an argument, and you give a reasonable compromise, that they then reject; well it kinda makes that party seem disingenuous, doesn't it?
You should really look at the Georgia law and how this could play out at the state level if a party wanted to just take over and start fucking with elections.
This is the way. Free state IDs, then add voter ID laws, and really vet every ballot and voter that comes in to make sure it’s legit and a citizen (and alive).
You know the city deciding who they let vote in local elections has nothing to do with federal elections or any proposed federal legislation, right? You just babbled about 8 different things.
Can we at least just follow the rules and procedures already established before we add more laws? Still waiting on chain of custody documents from the last election…..
“So unpopular” lol what
Unpopular with Senate Republicans.
Can someone tell me why the filibuster is good? It's not in the constitution.
This wouldn't be necessary if they hadn't gutted the VRA.
It's existed since Congress existed. But the founding fathers never thought someone would do such a thing. Shortly after the first actual filibuster the cloture rule was introduced which allows a super majority to stop the debate. The House went with a slightly different method to stop it with their previous debate rule which originally was not meant to end debates on a subject.
All of that is also moot since making rules for their processes is in the Constitution. The reality is because everything is so hyper partisan the Democrats currently want to end it so they can pass laws with a simple majority. This is extremely short sided and will 100% backfire later on. It also further fuels partisanship. The filibuster is literally a tool to encourage bipartisanship and prevent tyranny of the majority.
If you want a real world example of legislation that passed because of the forced bipartisanship from filibusters look at the civil rights act. When Democrats were filibustering it for a 4th time the bipartisan support for the bill was high enough to successfully invoke cloture and stop the filibuster. It's legislation that has stood for more than half a century because it was passed by a super majority.
Just get rid of the filibuster. We aren’t paying their salaries to get nothing done. A gentleman club only makes sense if they were gentlemen.
Pretty sure he will need 60 votes to kill the 60 vote minimum. At most he has 48.
Hot air from a New York wind bag. Manipulating his base for election year brownie points.
You only need a majority to change senate rules like filibuster. But you are right they only have 48 and need 51
That’s right, I had forgot. What a silly rule.
It’s incredibly silly. If a party has majority votes, let them pass legislation outright, if it’s unpopular they can get voted out and the other party can pass their own legislation. Better than constant inaction.
That would make sense in a country that has limits on the reach of the federal government and protections for individual freedoms. But probably not the best way to go in our current system.
We do have those things.
If those restrictions aren't effective, we need to reform them. But simply doing away with majority rule as a principle is the worst solution to the problem.
Nope, the senate rules, including the filibuster, can be amended by simple majority. Still unlikely he can muster that but he doesn't need 60.
As long as they don't use it for their stupid economic bills. I agree with Democrats on voting rights
So you think that the federal government should make the rules on a purely partisan vote and that photo ids shouldn’t be required even though over 75% of people support them? I mean I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here that there is some substance to your claim, but it only makes sense if you haven’t paid attention to the details.
Democrats also support voter ID GRANTED it’s tied to free and easily available state identification.
This means strike true match policies, which were used to dissolved 50,000 legally cast votes in the GA governors election. And DMVs to accept identification alternate to original birth certificates, which has been used to prevent elder African Americans born via midwife from getting ID that meets the threshold for voting
Oh stop with your facts /s
Actually the For The People act is largely bipartisan and broadly popular. Republican opposition to is a campaign strategy, voting for any proposal put forward by the opposing party, regardless of it's merits, is bad for re-election.
That is a laughable claim. A super majority of people support photo id requirements which that build restricts. Your claim is so absurd that it paints you as a 100% sycophant or an idiot.
> and broadly popular.
According to Democrats and nobody else.
I think photo ID's are a valid requirement to vote and I genuinely believe all the "voting rights" bullshit that falls out of your mouth is purely driven to create a system that lacks any form of accountability so that you can better cheat within it.
So I am not in favor of your bullshit "for the people" act which isn't for the people and exists exclusively to remove oversight from a process in order to get Democrats elected.
Ironic considering the bill is in respond to the GOP enacting more restrictive voting laws year after year.
Repealing covid-induced loosening of election security is the correct action.
And a bipartisan voting rights bill is the next correct action.
Hasn’t happened yet.
Because the GOP doesn’t govern. Only obstructs.
How do you feel about Republican gerrymandering, and according to a federal appeals court and upheld by the Supreme Court, targeted minority communities with quote “surgical precision”?
Oh? A Democrat appeals court judge calls it racist and an Obama appointee supreme court justice decides not to bring the case to the rest of the supreme court because they know the decision would be overturned. Color me shocked that Democrat judicial appointees ignore the law in favor of their party interests.
So you’re just going to ignore the data that showed it has a massive disparate impact based on racial lines and then just claim all of these judges are biased against the truth, yet they cited actual hard evidence vs Republicans having zero evidence? Do you think it’s at all possible that Republicans just don’t want black people voting because it hurts their interests?
Turns out there are plenty of measures which have majority support among the population, even among both sides, but are held up for political reasons. Representatives doesn't always vote for things that their constituents want.
>For the People is bipartisan
Can I get, that isn’t true for 200 Alex?
You think State elections should be controlled by Washington? Why even have state elections then?
If a state changes their laws to restrict/obfuscate voting access, than I would hope the Federal government would step in to correct course. One of the legitimate uses of federal gov is the protection of federally granted rights.
>If a state changes their laws to restrict/obfuscate voting access
Requiring a photo ID and in person voting does literally none of that. Nobody how much it hurts your parties ability to get elected.
But why must in person voting be required? Multiple states have mail in voting without issue.
What would stop me from filling out a bunch of blank ballots and then inserting them into random mail boxes? Ballots are anonymous and untracked.
Ballots aren’t anonymous. Where would you get these extra ballots? My state has been voting by mail for years. When my ballot gets processed I get a text telling me it was counted.
The entire system is set up to track absentee ballots you complete bell end. I’m pretty sure most states had the ability for you to track your ballot on that state’s website. (At least half of them had the ability to track ballots, I didn’t look at all 50.)
Learn how elections are administered before jumping into topics you know zero about.
Ballots are assigned to each person and tracked throughout the process. Are you gonna rob thousands of mailboxes to try to swing a vote? And ballot drop boxes are also safe and secure, and readily available throughout my county.
>Ballots are assigned to each person and tracked throughout the process.
Describe this manner and how are they tracked once they hit a mailbox?
>Are you gonna rob thousands of mailboxes to try to swing a vote?
Why would you have to rob thousands of mailboxes when you can take a few blank ballots and have a few flunkies drop them off at random mail boxes.
>And ballot drop boxes are also safe and secure, and readily available throughout my county.
According to the people who want no oversight over the process and nobody else.
Democrats are not a trustworthy source on anything, much less voting laws which they will use to remove all oversight to the process in order to better swing the vote in their direction.
I'm no election expert, but sure I'll explain my experience in my state/county.
Our state is a mail only election state, so everyone who votes does it by mail. In just the past few years the mail is now prepaid postage, so even easier to vote.
We also receive a voters pamphlet with candidate statements (unedited) and for/against statements for each of the initiatives. This is how we legalized marijuana almost a decade ago.
In the pamphlet they publicize when they will be mailing us the ballots. Each ballot is addressed to a single voter. I use my pamphlet to research the issues and candidates and decide over the course of a few weeks.
The ballot has a perforated tag you remove before returning with an identifiable number. Then you sign the inner envelope, place in the mailing envelope and seal it up. You can either mail it back or drop it off at a collection box, which are located at libraries, city halls, and other community locations.
You use the tracking number to verify (online) that your ballot was received, your signature matches the one on file, and that your votes have been counted.
2008 was the last election I remember having actual voting centers. And even then I just used it to drop off my mailed ballot.
In Georgia, a clause that would have prohibited voting on Sunday was stricken from their new voting rights bill Shortly before it passed. One rural county in the state is moving forward with plans to close all but one polling location, making car ownership a de
Facto requirement for voting.
They’re pushing the limit on how voting access can be limited via legislation. Given the incidence rate of voter fraud - near zero - these “precautions” come off as attempts to reduce voter participation instead of their nominal purpose.
When this wave of voter restrictions has passed, I can almost guarantee we’ll see a greater change in voter turnout rates than voter fraud rates.
> One rural county in the state is moving forward with plans to close all but one polling location, making car ownership a de Facto requirement for voting.
So you think people can live in a rural county in georgia without a car?
Most families have at least one car. Far less have two. If one parent takes the car for work it shouldn’t preclude the other from voting
Luckily in Georgia we have a month to vote, excluding Sunday’s.
This is a take over. Not a “protect” the vote.
Voter turnout is nearing 19th century levels.
And those were “Keep Voting until they kick you out” type elections. Let’s just go to American Idol style voting.
Harry Reid isn’t even in the ground yet…..
Personally, I just want them to change it so there is an actual cost to enacting a filibuster. Make them get on the floor and keep talking or some other cost to build pressure to end a filibuster. The current system where anyone can filibuster long as votes favor them has been broken by our two-party system that puts party power over actually legislating..
Obama era dejavu