Paul Cantrell
If — here's hoping, and I dare to hope — if we not only get a Harris presidency but Dem control of both houses of Congress, let's light a hell of a fire under our reps to slam the door shut on right-leaning minoritarian rule in the US.
•That• is how we end up not fighting fascism by the skin of our teeth in every singly election in the near/medium term.
#uspol https://ngmx.com/@sysadmin1138/112889505930426171
Paul Cantrell
@sysadmin1138 To be clear, by “minoritarian rule,” I mean the situation where a specific subset of the country that is substantially less than a majority still manages to win elections & control policy.
What stops that? Things like…
- a new and stronger VRA (we were so close, but for Manchin & co)
- a (more) proportional Senate
- ending the filibuster
- ending the EC (or finishing the NPVIC)
- SCOTUS reform
- etc etc
Paul Cantrell
More on minority rule (ht @Osteopenia_Powers):
#uspol
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/04/minority-rule-is-threatening-american-democracy-like-never-before/
(Take a moment with that “scales of injustice” graphic.)
Paul Cantrell
@virtualinanity @sysadmin1138
“Biden then used manchin, sinema and the parliamentarian as an excuse to do nothing.”
☝️I have so little patience for bullshit like this.
Biden went to bat for the new VRA. It came damned close. The idea that he had some magical lever he could have pulled and his failure to pull the magic lever reveals his true intention is just fucking nonsense. Presidents are not kings.
wasabi brain
@inthehands @sysadmin1138 during Obama tenure, they had both houses with more than enough dems to spare and he did nothing to advance voting rights. Then we got 2016. Base got energized and despite massive voter repression, again gained both houses and presidency in 2020. Biden then used manchin, sinema and the parliamentarian as an excuse to do nothing. And once again we find ourselves hoping that black and brown people put up with shitty laws and long waits to save us
Paul Cantrell
@virtualinanity @sysadmin1138
Now is there some better political strategy he could have used, some different way of playing his cards, to make Manema do it? To make Sinchin do •all• the things he desperately wanted for his legacy? Well, maybe. I don’t know what it is, but sure, maybe.
But if so, that’s at most an indicator of strategic failure, not secret intent.
Rufus J. Cooter
@inthehands Love all of these!
Would add:
- end disenfranchisement of convicts (so imprisoned people can vote, putting an end to districts where most/many of the 'residents' can't vote)
- a 'Wyoming' rule, where any state that has fewer people than the most populous district in any other state, ceases to be a state, its territory to be divided among its neighbors, and borders to be redrawn accordingly.
Paul Cantrell
@RufusJCooter
I mean, I’m fine with Wyoming continuing to be a state as long as voters there stop getting TEN TIMES the Senate votes per person that I do.
Paul Cantrell
@RufusJCooter
IIRC, Dakota was originally created as two states specifically for some kind of gerrymandery purpose. I forget….
Rufus J. Cooter
@inthehands I mean, honestly, at this point, what purpose does having two Dakotas serve? It's not like there's a big college basketball rivalry that driving a bunch of TV ad dollars...
Paul Cantrell
As long as we’re tossing ideas out, here’s one of my (which to be clear is much less fundamentally important than the ones above, but could be a useful step if a proportional Senate is impossible):
Instead of requiring 60 Senate votes to invoke cloture, require votes representing 50% of the US population. Basically, a majority of the country can filibuster something that a minority is trying to push through the Senate.
Call it a “majority filibuster.”
Shannon Clark
@inthehands one option that doesn’t take anything radical like a new state or amendments would be to repeal the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 which sets the 435 members of the House of Representatives based on the census of 1910. Resulting in each Representative representing wildly different numbers of people. If instead each Representative had closer to 250000 people in their district than over 750000 we would have closer to 1320ish Reps (likely a few more)
Making the electoral college 1400+
Paul Cantrell
@provuejim
None require a constitutional amendment except (1) the proportional senate (but see downthread re majority filibuster) and (2) fully abolishing EC instead of using NPVIC.
Jim Rea
@inthehands I’m all for these ideas, but how are you planning to get the necessary constitutional amendments passed?
Paul Cantrell
@provuejim
Basic reform requires either 60 votes or filibuster elimination, I believe. Either way, no constitutional amendment needed; it’s only an act of Congress.
Jim Rea
@inthehands SCOTUS reform can be done with a bare majority? If so, cool, but. I’ll bet the current SCOTUS won’t agree. Of course SCOTUS invented their authority to judge the constitutionality of legislation over 200 years ago. In school I was taught that was a good thing, now I’m not so sure.
YetAnotherGeekGuy :verified:
@Osteopenia_Powers @inthehands Misdiagnoses the problem with the Electoral College.
The first problem is the winner-take-all perversion at the state level. And that doesn’t take a constitutional amendment to fix.
YetAnotherGeekGuy :verified:
@inthehands
No need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC.
Just stop the winner-take-all perversion at the State level. That’s only a class-action lawsuit away.
Paul Cantrell
@YetAnotherGeekGuy @Osteopenia_Powers
Yeah, I don’t think the article mentions the NPVIC, which is too bad
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.