If the DNC wanted to, it could pass ballot & electoral reform. It doesn’t, because FPTP/winner takes all benefits them doubly - either they lose and can fundraise off “red team bad” messaging, or they win power and get their turn at the levers of power.
If you’re politically homeless on the right, anything even slightly to the right of median is preferential to ‘conserve’ the world you’re clutching to. Slowing or preventing change is your mantra politically, because you like the status quo today/previously
If you’re politically homeless on the left, you’re bullied in liberal unity under big-tent centrism, even though it’ll never effectively serve your core interests like right wing unity would. There may be some overlap, but good luck with actual legislative movement on LGBTQ+, unionization, campaign finance reform, alternative policing, etc
Under a different system we’d actually have coalitions and better representation on issues- especially topics with entrenched left-right collusion like foreign policy.
The DNC could have passed ballot and electoral reform under Obama when they had good majorities in both the house an senate, but they will not be able to in the foreseeable future (because they likely will not have strong majorities in both chambers for a very long time). I do agree that they probably wouldn’t, even if they could, unless the party changes drastically.
I do have (a tiny amount of) hope that “progressives” can gradually change the party. The Republican party has changed quite a bit over the last few decades; neocon under Bush, Tea Party under Obama, and now MAGA. So, it’s definitely possible to change a party.
They didn’t have those majorities for a long time. Runoff elections and deaths gave them a two month window or so. They passed Obamacare with that, and had to remove a single payer option to get the last necessary votes.
But also, the Democrat party was a lot less left in those days. There were a lot of Manchin types of conservative Democrats. We’ve never had the votes for electoral and ballot reform. We needed to build on our majority in 2010 to do it, and we instead we lost the majority entirely.
DNC was sued over the Bernie Sanders 2016 politicial era. DNC is considered a corporation.
Justice Democrats were the “progressives” elected to change the Democrates, if you follow how they vote and talking points changed over the years, the party changed them not the other way around.
Sabby Sabs had the lawyers of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit.
Because the former still won’t apologize for saying diseases were all in your head during the AIDS epidemic, and the latter compared COVID safety measures with Nazi Germany? RFK Jr is a certified antivaxxer as well.
Tell me, do these two need to earn votes as well, or does that only apply to Biden?
I’d say the RNC has had a hostile takeover that’s going to lead to a schism, versus an evolution. Post/Reaganism was an evolution that the RNC did very successfully co-opt. Trump’s populist rhetoric has been damaging to the status quo for vested interest, both political and corporate. The tea party movement fizzled out because Obama was popular and had majorities, so their impotent rage didn’t have a strong figurehead until Donnie in 2016.
I don’t see the progressives changing the party - see: Talib’s censure, Bernie being sidelined until late, or how intra-party caucuses like the squad or the black caucus falls in line. On the right where gridlock is a feature, the house freedom caucus can force an embarrassing number of speakership votes until their ultimatums are met, and be lauded as heroes. Progressives and their voter bloc want a progress, and so have to play ball with the DNC.
Remember that DoMA went away from a court case, not primary legislation. The ‘gay vote’ was seen as reliable by the DNC, because it’s not like the right is opening its arms to those voters, so there wasn’t any political capital spent on that issue. Just lip service all through the Obama majority years
AFAIK, most details of elections are set by the states, right? I think at the federal level, it might require an amendment to require that states use ranked choice, STAR. 3-2-1 or whatever.
They’re one of the two 800lb gorillas in the room, you think they can’t move public opinion or make policy? Yes the states run their own elections parallel to the feds, but that just means they pass 51ish laws instead of 1.
If you told the American electorate, who is chronically pissed off with the Congress and vacillating on the President, that under STV they could pick their actual favorite AND a safe/tactical vote? I think even Republicans would take that with both hands.
A perennial gripe of rural America is that state and/or federal government don’t prioritize them, the urban vote gets preference. Minorities, gun owners, migrants, small business, etc all can spin the same story with different players. Why wouldn’t they want to pick someone closer to their values or needs than a candidate who appeals to a different voter bloc instead?
Yes the states run their own elections parallel to the feds, but that just means they pass 51ish laws instead of 1.
The federal government doesn’t run any elections.
States run their own elections for federal offices. The only election run by the federal government is when the electoral college meets to elect a president, and that’s usually just a formality.
The president can endorse a system and can probably tie federal funding to implementing it, but AFAIK can’t force states to use it.
And I think you underestimate the amount that politics in the US is knee-jerk “we have to take the other side of this issue”. There’s a lot of everyday Republicans who oppose STV due to assorted FUD from right wing media.
that under STV they could pick their actual favorite AND a safe/tactical vote?
As an aside, STV doesn’t let you do that. STV satisfies later-no-harm so it has to fail favorite betrayal. In other words, it guarantees that picking a second tactical vote can’t harm your actual favorite, not that voting for your actual favorite is safe.
How? Look at the recent Alaskan special election for the House. If the final round were Begich vs Palin or Begich vs Peltola, Begich would win. However, Begich was eliminated first, so the final round was Palin vs Peltola, and Peltola won.
Palin voters would have been better off voting for Begich; voting for Palin first wasn’t safe. Actually, they could have elected Begich if the exact right number of Palin voters stayed home (STV doesn’t guarantee voting can’t hurt you), or even voting Peltola (STV has odd corner cases where you can defeat someone by voting for them)
If the DNC wanted to, it could pass ballot & electoral reform. It doesn’t, because FPTP/winner takes all benefits them doubly - either they lose and can fundraise off “red team bad” messaging, or they win power and get their turn at the levers of power.
If you’re politically homeless on the right, anything even slightly to the right of median is preferential to ‘conserve’ the world you’re clutching to. Slowing or preventing change is your mantra politically, because you like the status quo today/previously
If you’re politically homeless on the left, you’re bullied in liberal unity under big-tent centrism, even though it’ll never effectively serve your core interests like right wing unity would. There may be some overlap, but good luck with actual legislative movement on LGBTQ+, unionization, campaign finance reform, alternative policing, etc
Under a different system we’d actually have coalitions and better representation on issues- especially topics with entrenched left-right collusion like foreign policy.
The DNC could have passed ballot and electoral reform under Obama when they had good majorities in both the house an senate, but they will not be able to in the foreseeable future (because they likely will not have strong majorities in both chambers for a very long time). I do agree that they probably wouldn’t, even if they could, unless the party changes drastically.
I do have (a tiny amount of) hope that “progressives” can gradually change the party. The Republican party has changed quite a bit over the last few decades; neocon under Bush, Tea Party under Obama, and now MAGA. So, it’s definitely possible to change a party.
They didn’t have those majorities for a long time. Runoff elections and deaths gave them a two month window or so. They passed Obamacare with that, and had to remove a single payer option to get the last necessary votes.
But also, the Democrat party was a lot less left in those days. There were a lot of Manchin types of conservative Democrats. We’ve never had the votes for electoral and ballot reform. We needed to build on our majority in 2010 to do it, and we instead we lost the majority entirely.
DNC was sued over the Bernie Sanders 2016 politicial era. DNC is considered a corporation.
Justice Democrats were the “progressives” elected to change the Democrates, if you follow how they vote and talking points changed over the years, the party changed them not the other way around.
Sabby Sabs had the lawyers of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit.
DNC Fraud Lawsuit Lawyers Speak Out! Why Marianne & RFK Jr. Can’t Win (Interview Clip) [55:31 | May 15 2023 | Sabby Sabs]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi4XKwdVSNo
Because the former still won’t apologize for saying diseases were all in your head during the AIDS epidemic, and the latter compared COVID safety measures with Nazi Germany? RFK Jr is a certified antivaxxer as well.
Tell me, do these two need to earn votes as well, or does that only apply to Biden?
deleted by creator
The video is much more than these two, the lawyers themselves even explain why they don’t like or would vote for any of them.
Any politician needs to earn the vote, and should be highly criticized instead of defended.
Many of us ex-Bernie supporters learn that the hard way, even if we have to learn it multiple times over until we fully understand US politics.
I’d say the RNC has had a hostile takeover that’s going to lead to a schism, versus an evolution. Post/Reaganism was an evolution that the RNC did very successfully co-opt. Trump’s populist rhetoric has been damaging to the status quo for vested interest, both political and corporate. The tea party movement fizzled out because Obama was popular and had majorities, so their impotent rage didn’t have a strong figurehead until Donnie in 2016.
I don’t see the progressives changing the party - see: Talib’s censure, Bernie being sidelined until late, or how intra-party caucuses like the squad or the black caucus falls in line. On the right where gridlock is a feature, the house freedom caucus can force an embarrassing number of speakership votes until their ultimatums are met, and be lauded as heroes. Progressives and their voter bloc want a progress, and so have to play ball with the DNC.
Remember that DoMA went away from a court case, not primary legislation. The ‘gay vote’ was seen as reliable by the DNC, because it’s not like the right is opening its arms to those voters, so there wasn’t any political capital spent on that issue. Just lip service all through the Obama majority years
Could they?
AFAIK, most details of elections are set by the states, right? I think at the federal level, it might require an amendment to require that states use ranked choice, STAR. 3-2-1 or whatever.
They’re one of the two 800lb gorillas in the room, you think they can’t move public opinion or make policy? Yes the states run their own elections parallel to the feds, but that just means they pass 51ish laws instead of 1.
If you told the American electorate, who is chronically pissed off with the Congress and vacillating on the President, that under STV they could pick their actual favorite AND a safe/tactical vote? I think even Republicans would take that with both hands.
A perennial gripe of rural America is that state and/or federal government don’t prioritize them, the urban vote gets preference. Minorities, gun owners, migrants, small business, etc all can spin the same story with different players. Why wouldn’t they want to pick someone closer to their values or needs than a candidate who appeals to a different voter bloc instead?
The president can move public opinion, sure.
The federal government doesn’t run any elections.
States run their own elections for federal offices. The only election run by the federal government is when the electoral college meets to elect a president, and that’s usually just a formality.
The president can endorse a system and can probably tie federal funding to implementing it, but AFAIK can’t force states to use it.
And I think you underestimate the amount that politics in the US is knee-jerk “we have to take the other side of this issue”. There’s a lot of everyday Republicans who oppose STV due to assorted FUD from right wing media.
As an aside, STV doesn’t let you do that. STV satisfies later-no-harm so it has to fail favorite betrayal. In other words, it guarantees that picking a second tactical vote can’t harm your actual favorite, not that voting for your actual favorite is safe.
How? Look at the recent Alaskan special election for the House. If the final round were Begich vs Palin or Begich vs Peltola, Begich would win. However, Begich was eliminated first, so the final round was Palin vs Peltola, and Peltola won.
Palin voters would have been better off voting for Begich; voting for Palin first wasn’t safe. Actually, they could have elected Begich if the exact right number of Palin voters stayed home (STV doesn’t guarantee voting can’t hurt you), or even voting Peltola (STV has odd corner cases where you can defeat someone by voting for them)