🇺🇸 Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 3

[THORin]

Again, there. Depends on which republicans - the sane ones or Trump’s lap dogs. He has many of them well trained.

If we can pull some of Trump's lap dogs away from him, that would make me very happy. But I think moderates (the sane ones) would be easier to work with, yes.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

The Washington Post - Opinions - The Democratic majority’s first order of business: Restore democracy
By Nancy Pelosi and John Sarbanes

In the face of a torrent of special-interest dark money, partisan gerrymandering and devious vote-suppression schemes, voters elected a House Democratic majority determined to bring real change to restore our democracy

First, let’s end the dominance of money in politics. For far too long, big-money and corporate special interests have undermined the will of the people and subverted policymaking in Washington — enabling soaring health-care costs and prescription drug prices, undermining clean air and clean water for our children, and blocking long-overdue wage increases for hard-working Americans

Next, let’s make sure that when public servants get to Washington, they serve the public. Restoring the public’s trust means closing the revolving door between government and private industries, and imposing strong new ethics laws to stop officials from using their public office for personal gain. To do so, we will expand conflict-of-interest laws, ban members of Congress from serving on for-profit boards, revamp the oversight authority of the Office of Government Ethics and prohibit public servants from receiving bonus payments from their former employers to enter government. We’ll curb the influence of high-powered Washington insiders by closing lobbyist registration loopholes that allow big-money power brokers and foreign actors to operate in the shadows. That way, well-connected special interests won’t be able to steer the policy agenda away from the priorities of the American public.

We must renew the Voting Rights Act to protect every citizen’s access to the ballot box and restore the vital safeguard of pre-clearance requirements for areas with a history of voter suppression. We will promote national automatic voter registration, bolster our critical election infrastructure against foreign attackers, and put an end to partisan gerrymandering once and for all by establishing federal guidelines to outlaw the practice. No American should face hours-long lines, broken voting machines or rules rigged to keep their vote from being counted in our elections.

 

[Sithborg]

It is a smart strategy. Something which generally gets bipartisan support and is more than just oppose Trump.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

It's the correct and moral thing to do, but they're up against a party cult and leader that thinks people change clothes to vote multiple times and that voter I.D. is connected to buying cereal.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I think the Dems should absolutely **** can impeachment talk and actions until the special counsel gives his report or their own House led investigations through oversight and intelligence produce findings based on evidence of corruption or wrongdoing.

But... I think we are seeing indication of cold feet... FROM THE "CENTRISTS" in the party right now. While all politics is local still holds to a certain degree let's be honest that this was a nationalized mid term election and the people voted in a Dem House majority to in fact act as a check on Trump and to properly investigate the campaign as well as the administration's in plain sight corruption on multiple levels.

Should everything be put on hold just to be a party of NO to Trump and do nothing but hold hearings on Trump corruption and the Campaign Collusion allegations? That would be unwise. They should for sure put forth their agenda to show they are about governing. But to put ALL hearings on the back burner for now is a wasted political and practical moment. At least move forward with the House Intel committee as soon as the new House gets in session. You can chew gum and walk at the same time, right Nancy?

 

[AResistor]

It is a smart strategy. Something which generally gets bipartisan support and is more than just oppose Trump.

In theory.

Problem is - getting Republicans on board getting money out of politics when big money interest owns the Republican party most, getting them to pass ethics laws since those were among the first to be targeted for destruction when Trump got in, and Republicans have made it loud and clear they don't care about voting rights - they care about white Christians outvoting everyone else and they'll sink to any level fathomable to secure that.

These sane means of restoring democracy will be seen as attacks by the right, because they don't want democracy - they want "loyalty."

 

[Aximili86]

"Restore democracy from the guy the democratic process voted in."

2018, sweet.

 

[AResistor]

"Restore democracy from the guy the democratic process voted in."

2018, sweet.

At which point did gerrymandering become democracy?

 

[Aximili86]

Gerrymandering's local elections, didn't affect the federal. And even then the local stuff's arguable.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Gerrymandering's local elections, didn't affect the federal. And even then the local stuff's arguable.

In most states, the state legislature has primary control of the redistricting process, both for state legislative districts and for congressional districts. 37 state legislatures have primary control of their own district lines, and 42 legislatures have primary control over the congressional lines in their state (including five of the states with just one congressional district).

Seeing the authority of the members of the STATE legislatures to draw the districts it would appear it matters a lot what happens in local elections and what they do with said authority. This is fairly common knowledge.

 

[Sithborg]

Gerrymandering's local elections, didn't affect the federal. And even then the local stuff's arguable.

It affects the House.

 

[Sithborg]

Looks like some of the freshmen are looking to upset the old balance, even if Pelosi still gets the gavel.

Rejecting Israel Lobby’s Influence Over Congress, Rashida Tlaib Plans to Lead Delegation to Palestine

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

ABC News - [Democratic] North Carolina governor wins again in balance-of-power case [against Republican lawmakers who voted his power away]

 

[Dr. Evil]

Watching the funeral for George HW Bush, I am thinking "Jimmy Carter is going to outlive them all isn't he?"

 

[Sithborg]

Sounds like Pelosi has agreed to retiring the gavel after 4 years as a compromise to staying Speaker. Which, given her age, seems reasonable. Let the new blood get some experience before handing over the reigns.

 

[samsnee]

Honestly, there should be term limits for all branches of government, including Supreme Court.

 

[MaceB]

Gerrymandering's local elections, didn't affect the federal. And even then the local stuff's arguable.

Its not arguable that gerrymandering doesn't affect local elections. And states hold and maintain elections, whether it be local or federal. So you could easily make the case that gerrymandering has an affect on the national level too.

 

[Herofan]

Honestly, there should be term limits for all branches of government, including Supreme Court.

3 terms-18 years in the Senate, and 10 terms-20 years in the House would probably be a good limit, enough to do significant good for some long time, not long enough that it's more like perpetual/endless.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The whole system needs an overhaul. My recommendations are:

Representatives serve six years limited to two terms.

Senators serve eight years limited to two terms.

Supreme Court members limited to a twenty year appointment.

President serves six years limited to two terms.

The number of Representatives need to be increased by at least half. Make congressional districts smaller, allowing greater influence of the constituents.

The number of Senators should also be increased to include an additional Senator to each state.

Obviously if one moves from one office to another the term limits of one do not apply to another. So if someone won as a Representative and served two terms (which would be twelve years) and ran for a Senate seat that would be fine as the term limit applies to their time in the house and they would now be subject to the term limits of a Senator. If that person were lucky to get two terms (which would be sixteen years) in the Senate and then run for president that's fine but then if they lose well they can't run again for either Senate or as a Representative.

I think this would have net positives all around. For one it would mean a slow down of the constant politics of running campaigns congressionally speaking that we are in now. Politicians seem to be running for their next term almost from the moment they take office. The calls for money and the preening for the media begin as soon as they get sworn in. This would slow it down from the two year cycle we are in now. The length of the terms and their limits might also make people more wary of who they vote for. Knowing that even giving someone a single term meets giving them authority and influence for six/eight years means that you can't rationalize a poor or flippant choice by saying "Well if this doesn't work out I can register my displeasure in only four years at the next election." This also buffers public policy from the wildly swinging pendulum of populist sentiment. There would be greater continuity of policy rather than whip turns that blunt the impact of anything trying to accomplished.

Our constitutional system has mechanisms in place to upgrade through amendments. In a world where lifespans are vastly different from the 18th century, and with the obvious corrosiveness of sending the same people back to Congress and the Senate for over twenty years or more, plus the drastic differences in both our population and the diversity of our demographics we need to change our system to make sure we have a government that is responsive to our 21st Century environment.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

This should be rejected and the federal Congress should exercise their powers until Article 1 of the Constitution to undo it everywhere, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

This should be rejected and the federal Congress should exercise their powers until Article 1 of the Constitution to undo it everywhere, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."

You can't hold the high ground morally with actions such as this. Principled Democrats from across the nation need to sound off on this. This reminds me of the choice given during the time Al Franken had his scandal and Roy Moore was running for Senate in Alabama. The Democrats showed moral clarity in getting rid of Franken. It showcased more than lip service to public ethics by elected officials and the party itself. So too with this story.

 

[Sithborg]

New Jersey already chose to re-nominate Menendez. Also, not a lot of good things to say about the state level politics of NY Dems.

 

[Schlosser85]

Actually Franken probably shouldn’t have resigned.

 

[CaptainWagner]

So McCaskill did an interview with NYT about the end of her political career. She raises a few good points, but spends most of the time complaining about "young people" and bemoaning her party becoming more Progressive. Which shows, much like a certain failed presidential candidate, she still doesn't get it. Her and Donnelly spent their whole election running away from their party. Tester and Manchin owned their positions and stood firm on their record. Which two got reelected?