[HoosierDaddy]

Ranked choice would solve a lot of problems, but ultimately the Electoral College is the primary problem when it comes to presidential elections. And yes, that would be extraordinarily hard to overcome.

At the state and local level, the primary issue is participation, both as finding candidates and voting itself. Local and state elections usually draw such a small amount of people that the minority nearly always win. And God bless 'em, the Republicans vote because they know they HAVE to in order to maintain the current structure.

The one possible silver lining to Trump Point 2.666 is the possibility that there is such a colossal overreach of power that a generally united majority (think 70%+) of Americans completely overhauls the system. We're talking term limits, abolishing lifetime appointments, overruling Citizens United, etc.

Wishful thinking is where I'm at now. The finger in the dam will only hold for so long, and that's what we are hanging on to over here.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 26 July 2024 - 01:18 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

I think letting a few red states secede would probably solve a lot of problems. ʅ(ツ)ʃ

[HoosierDaddy]

Tiste Simeon, on 26 July 2024 - 01:24 PM, said:

I think letting a few red states secede would probably solve a lot of problems. ʅ(ツ)ʃ

Secession is unconstitutional. Well, at least it was. Who knows anymore.

For one, they are all Americans. Secondly, there are a lot of "blue" people in those states. Third, they'd want right back in. Fourth, I don't want multiple fascist Christian states on my front porch.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 26 July 2024 - 01:30 PM

[worry]

Real man of the people energy here.

[Primateus]

worry, on 26 July 2024 - 02:25 PM, said:

Real man of the people energy here.

I was about to ask if that there behind him was the couch in question, but I think it's just a chair.

[Cause]

Lady Bliss, on 26 July 2024 - 09:31 AM, said:

The popularity vote is the only just way. Electoral college must go. Hopefully the last minute excitement helps her.

I believe the only real solution to this problem is if enough states change there rules so their electoral college votes go to the winner of the popular vote of the country not the winner of just there state.

I believe this idea has been floating around a while and several states are already in agreement to enact it but won’t until they have enough states onboard that it would guarantee victory to the popular vote.

Edit; https://en.m.wikiped...0of%20Columbia.

Seems we are one state short.

This post has been edited by Cause: 27 July 2024 - 01:43 AM

[worry]

Cause, on 27 July 2024 - 01:42 AM, said:

Lady Bliss, on 26 July 2024 - 09:31 AM, said:

The popularity vote is the only just way. Electoral college must go. Hopefully the last minute excitement helps her.

I believe the only real solution to this problem is if enough states change there rules so their electoral college votes go to the winner of the popular vote of the country not the winner of just there state.

I believe this idea has been floating around a while and several states are already in agreement to enact it but won't until they have enough states onboard that it would guarantee victory to the popular vote.

Edit; https://en.m.wikiped...0of%20Columbia.

Seems we are one state short.

It's an interesting idea. Then again, what popular vote...?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 27 July 2024 - 08:04 AM, said:

Cause, on 27 July 2024 - 01:42 AM, said:

Lady Bliss, on 26 July 2024 - 09:31 AM, said:

The popularity vote is the only just way. Electoral college must go. Hopefully the last minute excitement helps her.

I believe the only real solution to this problem is if enough states change there rules so their electoral college votes go to the winner of the popular vote of the country not the winner of just there state.

I believe this idea has been floating around a while and several states are already in agreement to enact it but won't until they have enough states onboard that it would guarantee victory to the popular vote.

Edit; https://en.m.wikiped...0of%20Columbia.

Seems we are one state short.

It's an interesting idea. Then again, what popular vote...?

Wait a second... starting at 32 seconds in it sounds like he admits he's not Christian? lol, guess when he babbles like that occasionally something honest bubbles out...

In context:

"I love you Christans, I'm not Christian"

Says they'll only need to vote "just this time"... and then no more: "you won't have to do it any more".

[Lady Bliss]

I’m not sure how that could work with our constitution, but when there’s a whip, there’s a way

[Cause]

https://youtu.be/VoA...m4OJZC--J5UNsnx

[Tsundoku]

Lady Bliss, on 27 July 2024 - 08:02 PM, said:

I’m not sure how that could work with our constitution, but when there’s a subservient SCOTUS and cronies installed in DOJ and Defence, there’s a way

FTFY

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

Internet erupts after Fox News poll shows Harris beating Trump's approval in swing states

Spoiler

"Better than the numbers is the fact that this is a Fox News poll."

[...] "Without having had a convention yet! OMG! I just realized this is a FOX NEWS poll! Trump must be furious with FOX."

[...] "A new Fox News poll shows that Trump's significant lead over Biden in battleground states has disappeared when compared with Vice President Harris."

Former [Trump] White House aide[...]:

"The ketchup is going to hit the wall in Mar-a-Lago after this new Fox News poll."

Internet erupts after Fox News poll shows Harris beating Trump's approval in swing states - Alternet.org

When I read this I got up off the toilet and did a happy dance.

Cackling like Kamala, with my arms in the air...

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 29 July 2024 - 06:16 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

The three recommended changes to the Judicial branch proposed by Biden are as follows:

Removing presidential immunity for acts committed while in office. - No one is above the law. Nuances and mitigating factors can be determined to make something not a crime, but prima facie saying official acts are legal is against our values as a country.
18 year term limits. - A minimal idea of keeping judges somewhat in line with modernity and keeping one administration, who might be minority elected, from determining the course of the country for decades because of deaths, retirements, etc.
Judicial ethics code - If they won't enact their own, then it should be placed on them. They ALSO are not above the law.

These are all common sense ideas. I'd be interested in hearing arguments against these. Right now, the only real argument is "this will hurt us as a minority because we are a minority and we like making the rules."

If we want ANY chance of having a judicial branch that is not viewed by the majority of the population as simply an extension of a political ideologies that will rule on matters based on precedent and not based on what outcome they want, this is a good first step.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

HoosierDaddy, on 29 July 2024 - 08:03 PM, said:

The three recommended changes to the Judicial branch proposed by Biden are as follows:

Removing presidential immunity for acts committed while in office. - No one is above the law. Nuances and mitigating factors can be determined to make something not a crime, but prima facie saying official acts are legal is against our values as a country.
18 year term limits. - A minimal idea of keeping judges somewhat in line with modernity and keeping one administration, who might be minority elected, from determining the course of the country for decades because of deaths, retirements, etc.
Judicial ethics code - If they won't enact their own, then it should be placed on them. They ALSO are not above the law.

These are all common sense ideas. I'd be interested in hearing arguments against these. Right now, the only real argument is "this will hurt us as a minority because we are a minority and we like making the rules."

If we want ANY chance of having a judicial branch that is not viewed by the majority of the population as simply an extension of a political ideologies that will rule on matters based on precedent and not based on what outcome they want, this is a good first step.

The argument against them: they'd require a constitutional amendment.

Of course most Trumpublicans probably have no issue with arguing that the president should be above the law, so long as it's Trump... if anyone else does anything they're a tyrant, naturally.

If playing "devil's advocate" of course a conservative argument for not having term limits is that the Supreme Court should rule based on the law and be a continuation of established precedent rather than trying to "keep in line with modernity"... though the dominant present-day "conservatives" have basically jettisoned those premises and made a mockery of them...

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 29 July 2024 - 08:47 PM

[Lady Bliss]

If the speaker refuses to even bring this to the floor, it’s a flat out non starter. Some republicans probably would cross the aisle if it did come to a vote. It’s only logical. If Kamala were elected for instance they would want to be able to prosecute her if she did something wrong, but right now they only care about Trump. Biden’s ideas right now are about as worth of him wanting to declare that Santa Clause is real.

[worry]

I wouldn't think these proposals are expected to become viable legislation any time soon, per se, but meant more as 1) a common-sense wish list, and 2) a line in the sand to draw contrast between the parties and -- more immediately -- the candidates, up and down the ticket. This SCOTUS is, as far as these things are measured, extremely unpopular and mistrusted.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 30 July 2024 - 09:04 AM, said:

I wouldn't think these proposals are expected to become viable legislation any time soon, per se, but meant more as 1) a common-sense wish list, and 2) a line in the sand to draw contrast between the parties and -- more immediately -- the candidates, up and down the ticket. This SCOTUS is, as far as these things are measured, extremely unpopular and mistrusted.

IDK about "up and down the ticket". Republicans in purplish competitive districts could just claim they support it. Even vote for it in the Senate. As Lady Bliss pointed out, Johnson could then refuse to allow it to come an actual vote in the House. And while Johnson is up for reelection in November, his district is so non-competitive that the Democratic party has decided not to bother even trying to run against him:

Quote

[Johnson] will face not even token Democratic opposition in his November re-election campaign.

Louisiana Democrats put up no challenger to U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson • Louisiana Illuminator (lailluminator.com)

Given how much gerrymandering there is... are there enough non-competitive Republican House seats to constitute more than 1/3 of the House? Almost certainly:

Quote

[...] estimates 85% of House seats in 2024 will be "safe" for one party, a factor that incentivizes partisanship in elections. Ahead of the 2022 cycle, 80% of House seats were projected "safe."

Most House lawmakers represent uncompetitive congressional districts (usatoday.com)

OTOH it's better than nothing. And it might have some effect, even down the ticket, by associating Republicans in purple districts more strongly with unpopular Supreme Court policies via their association with / support for the national party. And of course it's possible for previously non-competitive seats to become competitive... if enough causal factors combine (for example, if a fresh pandemic kills off almost all the Trumpublicans... or maybe after many of them die of old age). So maybe this will help a little bit.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 30 July 2024 - 01:41 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Shit, Harris says her first rally with her new VP pick will be this coming Tuesday in Philadelphia... which might mean it will be the governor of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania), Josh Shapiro.

That would be a big mistake on multiple levels.

Shapiro is vocally pro-Zionist and in favor of crackdowns on protests in spite of the First Amendment. He's compared protestors of the Palestinian genocide to white supremacists.

The most notable thing he's done in Pennsylvania is attack and try to supersede Philadelphia's progressive district attorney Larry Krasner. A lot of people in Philadelphia fucking hate Josh Shapiro.

He isn't particularly charismatic. And since this is America it probably also matters that he's ugly.

Quote

More than two dozen public education advocacy groups wrote a letter asking Harris not to select Shapiro over his support for private school vouchers

How Kamala Harris' Running Mate Could Undercut the Central Theme of Her Campaign. She probably should not pick a VP nominee who's hostile to a pillar of the First Amendment. (slate.com)

Quote

Advocates for public education say voucher programs funnel much needed funding away from public schools and into private religious schools as well as for-profit startups that often don't perform well and tend to close after just a few years.

Education Activists Urge Harris Not to Tap Josh Shapiro for VP | Truthout

... the more brainwashed young Trump cultists the merrier, eh?

But wait, there's more:

Josh Shapiro Accused of Sex Harassment Cover-up (thedailybeast.com)

Her list had reportedly been wittled down to Shapiro, Tim Walz, or Mark Kelly.

Tim Walz is most notable so far for getting on national tv recently to attack Trump and Vance for being "weird"... "just weird". Using "weird" as an unqualified pejorative in this day and age is just willfully ignorant bigotry. Many core Democratic constituents have had the use of "weird" as a pejorative used against them by close-minded bigots. And just about every new progressive idea has---at least initially--- been condemned as "weird" for being different than what people were accustomed to. Same goes for many innovations (social, technological, and otherwise). Be more specific ffs. It's galling that so many people in the United States seem to find it more socially acceptable to condemn people or ideas for being "weird" than for being "irrational" or "not well grounded in empirical evidence" or actually providing a rational critique.

Perhaps that leaves the astronaut, Mark Kelly. The big problem with him (afaik) is that his Senate seat---while it would initially be filled by someone appointed by Arizona's Democratic governor---would then be up for grabs in 2026.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 31 July 2024 - 12:22 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

A non-Trump presidency is 10x more important than any 1 Senate seat. I don't care if that flips the Senate to Republican control.

Also, I have zero problems with calling strange Republican talking parts weird. I'm weird. I revel in my weirdness. But there's quirky and individualistic weird, and then there's: "something is realllllly wrong here" weird. The Republican weird is the latter.

[worry]

I agree with you about Shapiro (relative to other front-runners at least), but we'll see. Not sure the location of the VP announcement has ever been linked to the choice though, at least in recent history.

Regarding "weird", most of the time I've seen Walz in the last week, he's been pretty specific about what makes the MAGAs weird, linking it to their policy wish list and behaviors. But even when folks are not, it's the VIBE of it that HD is talking about, and it is exactly right. Petey B's been great at this recently too. MAGAs are weird like any creep you get bad vibes from anywhere, and it's extremely relatable. When Walz talks about MAGAs fixating on controlling people's private lives, or what they get from the library, or how Thanksgiving gets ruined by MAGA uncles, he is nailing the vibe that people have been feeling since 2015 with these cultists. They're gross, skeevy weirdos. Trump and Vance chief among them.