Supreme Court- Kennedy set to retire is more bad new for Dems.

[Bitek]

...

The term credible threat means a threat which is “real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Kegler v. United States DOJ, 436 F. Supp.

You do make a point that the threat and action actually has to come from Democratic officials in position to execute, which is a serious flaw in the plan.

However, the SCOTUS is now operating undemocratically, yet has tremendous power, so the situation is fundamentally unstable and will have to change, even if it means burning it to the ground in the process. It may take leadership time to catch-up to the voting base, but that's the direction it's going in.

Hope Gorsuch was worth it.

 

[fskimospy]

The Founding Fathers sought to strike a balance between majority and minority rule, as there is a compelling case why neither is healthy for a democracy.

No one is arguing for pure majoritarian rule. We are arguing for a return from minority rule.

The Republicans are guilty of gaming the system in a disingenuous way to control the levers of government, but it still boils down to winning elections. You can’t blame the Russians for the Democrats losing their majority so early in the Obama Administration, or losing Senate seats and state governor’s mansions. The Democrats may have solid majorities in their centers of power, but they have zero ground game outside of them. If they are unable to harness the power of the blue wave to a flip the House, at some point it is on their leadership.

The current system requires Democrats to win the House vote by somewhere between 7 and 10 points to get a one seat majority. Remember, Obama's 'landslide' victory in 2008 was 7 points. ie: it's possible that even with a landslide of historic proportions the minority will remain in power. That's not on their leadership, that's a system that has lost all semblance of balance. As for the senate you can certainly blame the system for that too. Our system created large numbers of states out of what is essentially empty land, drastically increasing the minority population protections that were originally created in the Constitution. At the time of enactment the largest state was about 10 times the population of the smallest. Now the difference is 70 times. This is not healthy for any country.

 

[ivwshane]

Nothing, that is why these sorts of games are ultimately destructive to our system of government. Unfortunately it is the only reasonable response to the sort tactics being used by the Republicans. This is how democracies fail and republics fall.

Personally I look forward to being a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States when they come to the inevitable conclusion and they make every citizen a Justice and we give up on the rule of law.

No its not the only response. There is a much better response that virtually guarantees Republicans would have no power for decades.

 

[ivwshane]

No one is arguing for pure majoritarian rule. We are arguing for a return from minority rule.



The current system requires Democrats to win the House vote by somewhere between 7 and 10 points to get a one seat majority. Remember, Obama's 'landslide' victory in 2008 was 7 points. ie: it's possible that even with a landslide of historic proportions the minority will remain in power. That's not on their leadership, that's a system that has lost all semblance of balance. As for the senate you can certainly blame the system for that too. Our system created large numbers of states out of what is essentially empty land, drastically increasing the minority population protections that were originally created in the Constitution. At the time of enactment the largest state was about 10 times the population of the smallest. Now the difference is 70 times. This is not healthy for any country.

There's an easy fix for that.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The Republicans are guilty of gaming the system in a disingenuous way to control the levers of government, but it still boils down to winning elections.

Part of what they did to game the system was make it hard for the other party to win elections. The solution to that will be just what we have been talking about, retribution with whatever powers the Democrats can get ahold of, and that is going to be destructive to our system. It is going to lead us to a point of no return where another civil war is inevitable.

You can’t blame the Russians for the Democrats

I don't, and I don't think most people, blame Russians at all. Russians are just doing what is best for Russia. We do the same sort of dirty politics all over the world. It is Republicans that I blame for allowing it, for capitalizing on it, for personal gain at the cost of the welfare of our nation. It is treason.

If they are unable to harness the power of the blue wave to a flip the House, at some point it is on their leadership.

If you agree that Republicans gamed the system it is disingenuous to say that it is Democrat leadership that failed. If someone cheats at a game it is not the other players fault that they lost. That is FYGM thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Politicians MUST put the welfare of the country first, any that does not is a traitor.

I am afraid it is close to time to refresh the tree of liberty.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No its not the only response. There is a much better response that virtually guarantees Republicans would have no power for decades.

I must have missed where you told us that response. Please point me to it, because as of right now I see only two answers, either we get the Republicans to see reason, or this ends in bloodshed. We are now past the point where we can simply vote them out of office.

 

[ivwshane]

I must have missed where you told us that response. Please point me to it, because as of right now I see only two answers, either we get the Republicans to see reason, or this ends in bloodshed. We are now past the point where we can simply vote them out of office.

I was hoping you guys would be a little more creative before I gave you the actual solution but I don't think it's going to happen.

The solution is a simple one, its credible, and its actually something that needs to be done and should be an easy sell to all but the most partisan of people.

The solution is to increase the number of representatives we have in the house. We went from having 1 representative for every 30k people to 1 representative for every 700k+ people. This cap was set by Congress in the early 1900's and can be removed by Congress. There are currently a couple of different methods for adjusting how many representatives there should be and how big of a population they should represent but either way results in more representation and more representation is better. It would make lobbying a lot more expensive as lobbying would require more people to be "bought". It would make gerrymandering almost pointless as districts would be split up into smaller chunks. It would lower the costs of elections (because candidates would be reaching out/appealing to less people). And here is the kicker, it would dramatically increase the amount of representation "liberals" get in the house which would essentially shut out Republicans and the issue of minority rule.

Estimates I've seen would increase the amount of representatives from 435 to 2000+ to as high as 6000+ representatives.

This solution would be totally legal and there would be nothing Republicans could do to counter it.

Now watch the extreme partisans tell us why more representation is a bad thing.

 

[dank69]

I was hoping you guys would be a little more creative before I gave you the actual solution but I don't think it's going to happen.

The solution is a simple one, its credible, and its actually something that needs to be done and should be an easy sell to all but the most partisan of people.

The solution is to increase the number of representatives we have in the house. We went from having 1 representative for every 30k people to 1 representative for every 700k+ people. This cap was set by Congress in the early 1900's and can be removed by Congress. There are currently a couple of different methods for adjusting how many representatives there should be and how big of a population they should represent but either way results in more representation and more representation is better. It would make lobbying a lot more expensive as lobbying would require more people to be "bought". It would make gerrymandering almost pointless as districts would be split up into smaller chunks. It would lower the costs of elections (because candidates would be reaching out/appealing to less people). And here is the kicker, it would dramatically increase the amount of representation "liberals" get in the house which would essentially shut out Republicans and the issue of minority rule.

Estimates I've seen would increase the amount of representatives from 435 to 2000+ to as high as 6000+ representatives.

This solution would be totally legal and there would be nothing Republicans could do to counter it.

Now watch the extreme partisans tell us why more representation is a bad thing.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea but I wouldn't characterize it as simple.

I think I'd rather go to some sort of online voting system where everyone can vote on the pressing issues of the day if they are so inclined.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not saying it's a bad idea but I wouldn't characterize it as simple.

I think I'd rather go to some sort of online voting system where everyone can vote on the pressing issues of the day if they are so inclined.

The reason we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy is that the founding fathers understood that not all people are "qualified" to make policies and policy decisions. I certainly don't have the time to be educated about every little piece of legislation and then make an informed vote on it, do you?

In terms of simplicity, its certainly easier than playing the game of escalation where each party tries to out do each other when they gain power.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This solution would be totally legal and there would be nothing Republicans could do to counter it.

Now watch the extreme partisans tell us why more representation is a bad thing.

It is an interesting solution, but there are two problems with it.

First, I am not sure it would work like you think it would. They would still be capable of gerrymandering districts by spreading them out between blue and red areas. Districts would just become even more convoluted thin lines breaking up areas. The end result could be even less representation. Only the courts can change that, and the courts are part of what is being gamed.

Second, the Republicans have given up on any semblance of non-partisan politics. This would not help their side so they will not support it, and won't even care about excuses on why. Opposing 'Liberals' is reason enough for them. So for something like this to happen the Democrats would have to gain enough power to unilaterally make these changes first, which if they could do we would not be in this situation.

 

[dank69]

The reason we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy is that the founding fathers understood that not all people are "qualified" to make policies and policy decisions. I certainly don't have the time to be educated about every little piece of legislation and then make an informed vote on it, do you?

In terms of simplicity, its certainly easier than playing the game of escalation where each party tries to out do each other when they gain power.

I bet the founding fathers just didn't have the mechanisms in place that we have today. I don't have that time and so I would only vote on issues that are important to me. I imagine most people would do the same. There is nothing in the constitution that says people need to be informed to vote. Hell, if someone wants to vote specifically to make America shittier that is their right to do so.

 

[ivwshane]

It is an interesting solution, but there are two problems with it.

First, I am not sure it would work like you think it would. They would still be capable of gerrymandering districts by spreading them out between blue and red areas. Districts would just become even more convoluted thin lines breaking up areas. The end result could be even less representation. Only the courts can change that, and the courts are part of what is being gamed.

Second, the Republicans have given up on any semblance of non-partisan politics. This would not help their side so they will not support it, and won't even care about excuses on why. Opposing 'Liberals' is reason enough for them. So for something like this to happen the Democrats would have to gain enough power to unilaterally make these changes first, which if they could do we would not be in this situation.

Its much harder to gerrymander a district that's significantly smaller than what it is currently. In fact what you would actually end up with is simply more districts and in some cases that means Republicans would get more representatives but in most cases you would end up with Democrats getting even more representatives.

As to how this would work with Republicans currently being against anything that helps Democrats or that weakens their power, its all on who and how you sell it.

Imagine a tea party 2.0. The original tea party, the one that was the basis for our revolution, was about taxation without representation. That's exactly what we have now. TP2.0 would be about people getting better represented again. Its an easy sell when you tell people they will get more representation and representation that is a closer match to their beliefs than what they get now.

Its certainly a better sell then telling voters to vote for party X so we can one up the gridlock and insanity of party Y.

 

[ivwshane]

I bet the founding fathers just didn't have the mechanisms in place that we have today. I don't have that time and so I would only vote on issues that are important to me. I imagine most people would do the same. There is nothing in the constitution that says people need to be informed to vote. Hell, if someone wants to vote specifically to make America shittier that is their right to do so.

Except the founding fathers set our government up to be a representative democracy not a direct one and they did so on purpose and it wasn't because of the feasibility of being able to have everyone vote. You do remember that the only people allowed to vote were rich, white, land owners and it was because they thought those types of people were smart enough to keep our democracy safe and lasting.

 

[dank69]

Except the founding fathers set our government up to be a representative democracy not a direct one and they did so on purpose and it wasn't because of the feasibility of being able to have everyone vote. You do remember that the only people allowed to vote were rich, white, land owners and it was because they thought those types of people were smart enough to keep our democracy safe and lasting.

And do you agree with that philosophy? Rich, white land owners? Yeah, me neither.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Imagine a tea party 2.0. The original tea party, the one that was the basis for our revolution, was about taxation without representation. That's exactly what we have now. TP2.0 would be about people getting better represented again. Its an easy sell when you tell people they will get more representation and representation that is a closer match to their beliefs than what they get now.

That tea party kicked off a war that lasted 8 years and killed off nearly 1 in 10 people on the continent.

 

[ivwshane]

And do you agree with that philosophy? Rich, white land owners? Yeah, me neither.

Did you miss the point or do I need to dumb it down for you?

 

[ivwshane]

That tea party kicked off a war that lasted 8 years and killed off nearly 1 in 10 people on the continent.

Yes, and it created one of the greatest democracies in history.

Your point being what exactly? That more representation would lead to war? But your plan of rising escalation would lead to what? A stronger democracy?

 

[dank69]

Did you miss the point or do I need to dumb it down for you?

That you want to limit voting to people that are informed enough? If that's not the point then you need to dumb it down for me.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yes, and it created one of the greatest democracies in history.

Your point being what exactly? That more representation would lead to war? But your plan of rising escalation would lead to what? A stronger democracy?

Just pointing out that your idea probably still leads to one two solutions I'm hoping is not inevitable.

 

[ivwshane]

That you want to limit voting to people that are informed enough? If that's not the point then you need to dumb it down for me.

My point was that our founding fathers specifically setup our government to be a representative government. People may not be too stupid to vote but they certainly are too stupid to make policy that can impact millions of lives. I know I'm certainly not smart enough to craft policy, are you?

 

[ivwshane]

Just pointing out that your idea probably still leads to one two solutions I'm hoping is not inevitable.

Yes and I countered that by explaining why those points would be moot.

 

[glenn1]

Except the founding fathers set our government up to be a representative democracy not a direct one and they did so on purpose and it wasn't because of the feasibility of being able to have everyone vote. You do remember that the only people allowed to vote were rich, white, land owners and it was because they thought those types of people were smart enough to keep our democracy safe and lasting.

The founding fathers never intended nor likely imagined "democracy" being used for the express purpose of redistributing wealth from those rich, white land owners to solve the problem of "income inequality."

 

[ivwshane]

The founding fathers never intended nor likely imagined "democracy" being used for the express purpose of redistributing wealth from those rich, white land owners to solve the problem of "income inequality."

I'm sure they didn't imagine a lot of things. I don't know what that has to do with the point being made though.

 

[dank69]

My point was that our founding fathers specifically setup our government to be a representative government. People may not be too stupid to vote but they certainly are too stupid to make policy that can impact millions of lives. I know I'm certainly not what enough to craft policy, are you?

I know how they set up our government. We are debating "why" they set it up that way and how (or if) it benefits us anymore. I'm not suggesting people like you or me craft legislation, but I certainly think it is possible now for us all to directly vote yay or nay on a majority of issues. It's not like our representatives are crafting policy anyway.

 

[ivwshane]

I know how they set up our government. We are debating "why" they set it up that way and how (or if) it benefits us anymore. I'm not suggesting people like you or me craft legislation, but I certainly think it is possible now for us all to directly vote yay or nay on a majority of issues. It's not like our representatives are crafting policy anyway.

They aren't crafting legislation because they aren't beholden to the American people because they have to campaign for donations for a majority of their time. They don't craft legislation because the tools they used to have were taken away under newt gingrich watch when he was the speaker of the house. They don't craft legislation because it's pointless because Republicans have rigged it that a majority of the majority have to all agree with a policy to even have it get a vote on the floor.

THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS TO GET REPUBLICANS OUT OR WEAKEN THEIR CONTROL SO THAT CONGRESS CAN BE FUNCTIONAL AGAIN.

I get it, you wish to burn everything down because you think the current system doesn't work. I'm telling you, you don't have to burn it all down, you just have to make it work like the founding fathers intended it to and that's where having better representation comes in.