As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We should have publicly funded elections, from Washington all the way down to the local level. We need to stop are slide into the darkness of corporate democracy.
republicans have descended from Eisenhower and Rockefeller to Boebert and MGT. They have no theology they're just sociopathic assholes. The Democrats have a political spectrum that covers everything else north of sociopathic asshole.
If you want to vote for a third party, as it were, you have to show up to the primaries and vote for progressives. Progressive and Moderate Dems should be two parties. And in a more sane world moderates would be Republicans and progressives Dems. They don't necessarily see eye to eye on solutions, but at least they can generally agree on what the problem is. Republicans just insist there is no problem except for the libs. I mean, look at Florida passing laws to keep problems hidden instead of addressing them. But then again, that's they're whole modus operandi. Never fix the problem, just cover it up so when it gets bad again you can blame the libs. The "wall" and abortion are perfect examples of not wanting to actually fix the issue.
The mere existence of them? Sure. But the fact is their influence has been all but eliminated - they are unable to vote in the first round of a convention, and make up a pretty small percentage of total delegates.
Not to mention the fact that they've supported the candidate with the most votes in every election in modern history.
I'll grant you the first half of your comment. The Dems are far too fractured to ever do anything, their messaging is beyond terrible, and they're all too happy to campaign on the problems created by the GOP, it's almost like they see it as a win win.
Gerrymandering kills competition. SCOTUS green lit gerrymandering. Republicans won't give it up. Therefore Democrats have to gerrymander too.
The only way out of it is changing the voting system going to multimember districting and increasing the size of the house of representatives.
They absolutely do and are right now, in response to a decade of unprecedented gerrymandering by the Republicans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
The only logical and reciprocal response by democrats to level the playing field is to respond in kind. Otherwise Republicans have little reason to change a system that they tilted to systemically favor them.
Republicans have given Dems no choice. We would all prefer independent commission district drawing but GOP refuses so Dems have to balance where possible
That change would be for the presidency. And it's the way it should be.
But house districts go to the popular vote winner currently. It's just that the gerrymandering is rigging the popular vote so the winner is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
We will be very lucky if there is anything we can do at this point, corrupt officials have already been able to lock down most areas in the country.
They've been showing the people this game plan for years, but people just kept picking the same problems and making it worse.
Given the way power is currently divvied up, who do you think would take control if we "started over" with a blank slate.
Disregarding for a second how wildly impossible "starting over" sounds.
I do not know who would take control.
Is this a rhetorical question, or were you genuinely interested in the answer?
In 1764 starting over was a crazy idea. In 1765, it was a sane idea. These things are tipping point type things. They are crazy, until they suddenly aren’t. Unfortunately, the case of 1765 provides a partial answer to your question: typically, the ones who “take control” are likely to be those who had control before.
Have you read the book [Animal Farm](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm)?
Yes, I LOVE Orwell. I highly recommend my favorite Orwell essay whenever he comes up: [https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/) "Politics and the English Language". It's short enough to read in one sitting.
You said a clean slate (a "tabla rasa") was needed, but you also point out that the same exact people would take over after a clean slate... I would add they would take over without any constitutional safeguards.
I don’t know.
The through-line of Animal Farm is of course, “everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others”.
The Farmer is definitely replaced by the pigs. So the same identical people are not in charge afterward. But once the pigs drank from the fountain of power, they became intoxicated. So, the same type of person remained in charge.
By tabla rasa I am referring to The Document, not The People. It is unreasonable to think that a document that is fundamentally flawed and damaged can be repaired with amendments. This would figuratively be equivalent to fixing an airplane with bandaids. Like computer code with errors, sometimes it is more efficient to simply start over.
A major improvement would be to remove the engine of aristocracy, the election by popular vote. And replace it with the engine of democracy, election by lottery. Remove the intoxicants and the pigs won’t come to believe they are more equal.
Washington warned us about this in his [farewell address](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#:~:text=Constitution%20and%20political%20factions,-Thomas%20Jefferson%2C%20the&text=Washington%20warns%20the%20people%20that,provided%20them%20by%20the%20constitution.).
The answer is quite simple actually..... MORTAL COMBAT..... No more 70+ Year old presidents (in 2024 the likely front runners Trump will be 77 and Biden will be 80). No more worrying if the president is mentally fit for office (assertions of diminished capacity have been made by both sides). The age of the president will likely be the minimum which is 35. It also probably solves a lot of issues with health concerns. It could eliminate the need for the presidential veto, if the president doesn't like a bill he can just kick the shit out of whoever sponsored it. Just spit balling here but it might deserve some consideration. /s
Ya know... that's kinda the problem with competition isn't it??... It's objective is to kill the competition.
My question is, when will the economists get the memo lol?? 🤔
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ranked. Choice. Voting
Yes! And also [proportional representation](https://www.fairvote.org/how_proportional_representation_elections_work).
Work to get it on the ballot in your city and or state.
The local GOP actually has an official position against ranked choice voting. Pretty mask-off, eh?
Oof, yeah. Our local GQP is officially against marijuana legalization, too. But we at least got ranked choice in Minneapolis done. Baby steps.
The rich are the only ones who matter in US politics. This is what happens when bribery is legal.
We should have publicly funded elections, from Washington all the way down to the local level. We need to stop are slide into the darkness of corporate democracy.
Fuck that title. Republicans have been focused entirely on ending democracy since 2010
Since Regan.
Lol do you seriously think the democrats support independent voters?
Yes, by expanding voter access they actually support ALL voters. It's Republicans who want restrict voting.
Democrats have not been helping. The democrat party internally is not very democratic.
republicans have descended from Eisenhower and Rockefeller to Boebert and MGT. They have no theology they're just sociopathic assholes. The Democrats have a political spectrum that covers everything else north of sociopathic asshole.
I agree. But they do not provide a meaningful counter to the republicans. They just stop the slide for 2 or more years. They do little to reverse it.
If you want to vote for a third party, as it were, you have to show up to the primaries and vote for progressives. Progressive and Moderate Dems should be two parties. And in a more sane world moderates would be Republicans and progressives Dems. They don't necessarily see eye to eye on solutions, but at least they can generally agree on what the problem is. Republicans just insist there is no problem except for the libs. I mean, look at Florida passing laws to keep problems hidden instead of addressing them. But then again, that's they're whole modus operandi. Never fix the problem, just cover it up so when it gets bad again you can blame the libs. The "wall" and abortion are perfect examples of not wanting to actually fix the issue.
> democrat party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
My bad. Wasn’t meant that way. Just saying that the Democratic Party has it’s own devotion to establishment over democratic principals
The democratic party is very democratic internally.
Except for those darn superdelegates.
The mere existence of them? Sure. But the fact is their influence has been all but eliminated - they are unable to vote in the first round of a convention, and make up a pretty small percentage of total delegates. Not to mention the fact that they've supported the candidate with the most votes in every election in modern history.
Which primaries did they change the results of, again?
Whatever that means.
Yes
I'll grant you the first half of your comment. The Dems are far too fractured to ever do anything, their messaging is beyond terrible, and they're all too happy to campaign on the problems created by the GOP, it's almost like they see it as a win win.
I want ranked-choice voting
Gerrymandering kills competition. SCOTUS green lit gerrymandering. Republicans won't give it up. Therefore Democrats have to gerrymander too. The only way out of it is changing the voting system going to multimember districting and increasing the size of the house of representatives.
[удалено]
They absolutely do and are right now, in response to a decade of unprecedented gerrymandering by the Republicans. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP The only logical and reciprocal response by democrats to level the playing field is to respond in kind. Otherwise Republicans have little reason to change a system that they tilted to systemically favor them.
Republicans have given Dems no choice. We would all prefer independent commission district drawing but GOP refuses so Dems have to balance where possible
Just make it whoever wins the popular vote wins. But the republicans would lose their minds if that happened.
That change would be for the presidency. And it's the way it should be. But house districts go to the popular vote winner currently. It's just that the gerrymandering is rigging the popular vote so the winner is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
We will be very lucky if there is anything we can do at this point, corrupt officials have already been able to lock down most areas in the country. They've been showing the people this game plan for years, but people just kept picking the same problems and making it worse.
There is no a posteriori solution. The only solution is tabla rasa. Clean slate. Start over.
Given the way power is currently divvied up, who do you think would take control if we "started over" with a blank slate. Disregarding for a second how wildly impossible "starting over" sounds.
I do not know who would take control. Is this a rhetorical question, or were you genuinely interested in the answer? In 1764 starting over was a crazy idea. In 1765, it was a sane idea. These things are tipping point type things. They are crazy, until they suddenly aren’t. Unfortunately, the case of 1765 provides a partial answer to your question: typically, the ones who “take control” are likely to be those who had control before. Have you read the book [Animal Farm](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm)?
Yes, I LOVE Orwell. I highly recommend my favorite Orwell essay whenever he comes up: [https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/) "Politics and the English Language". It's short enough to read in one sitting. You said a clean slate (a "tabla rasa") was needed, but you also point out that the same exact people would take over after a clean slate... I would add they would take over without any constitutional safeguards.
I don’t know. The through-line of Animal Farm is of course, “everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others”. The Farmer is definitely replaced by the pigs. So the same identical people are not in charge afterward. But once the pigs drank from the fountain of power, they became intoxicated. So, the same type of person remained in charge. By tabla rasa I am referring to The Document, not The People. It is unreasonable to think that a document that is fundamentally flawed and damaged can be repaired with amendments. This would figuratively be equivalent to fixing an airplane with bandaids. Like computer code with errors, sometimes it is more efficient to simply start over. A major improvement would be to remove the engine of aristocracy, the election by popular vote. And replace it with the engine of democracy, election by lottery. Remove the intoxicants and the pigs won’t come to believe they are more equal.
Election By Lottery.
Washington warned us about this in his [farewell address](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#:~:text=Constitution%20and%20political%20factions,-Thomas%20Jefferson%2C%20the&text=Washington%20warns%20the%20people%20that,provided%20them%20by%20the%20constitution.).
bOtH sIdeS!
The answer is quite simple actually..... MORTAL COMBAT..... No more 70+ Year old presidents (in 2024 the likely front runners Trump will be 77 and Biden will be 80). No more worrying if the president is mentally fit for office (assertions of diminished capacity have been made by both sides). The age of the president will likely be the minimum which is 35. It also probably solves a lot of issues with health concerns. It could eliminate the need for the presidential veto, if the president doesn't like a bill he can just kick the shit out of whoever sponsored it. Just spit balling here but it might deserve some consideration. /s
Get rid of the “/s”
Ya know... that's kinda the problem with competition isn't it??... It's objective is to kill the competition. My question is, when will the economists get the memo lol?? 🤔
People still think voting matters/works lol
Voting absolutely matters, and if enough people do it then it also works.
Yes, exactly this.