Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

One way to think about it is that the Electoral College system, itself, is one big gerrymander. The elections ARE rigged.

Yes... the knowledge that a resident of ND, for example, has like 8x the voting power on a federal level than I do is just bullshit. Electoral College = Federal Gerrymandering is a great way to phrase it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I wonder why they're so unpopular.

It's a mystery.

 

I know that Bernie is an independent - however, why is Bernie forcing D senators to take this vote?

It only forces you to piss someone off in your state. I may actually agree with the policy but taking these votes when they have zero chance to pass may have negative ramifications as you try to win seats in 2026.

You can’t enact better policies until you have a majority.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

One pet idea that I've held for the past 20 years and think could get the ball rolling on some reforms would be to increase the number of representatives, which used to happen regularly with each Census as the nation's population grew. Congress capped the number of House seats at 435 in the 1920s. So, when the nation was founded, the typical rep served 35,000 people. By 1910, that had grown to 1 rep per 210,000, while in 1950 it was 345,000. In 2000, it had risen to 650,000, and today, it stands at over 760,000.

Adding a bunch of seats would break up these massive districts that allow our unrepresentative State legislature (which has the same population growth problem) to manipulate these massive districts that span from Denton to Dalhart or San Antonio to El Paso, that emphatically do not represent "communities of interest" while also increasing the cost of elections and almost guaranteeing that your representive does not have you and your neighbor's best interests in mind.

I don't know if the Texas Constitution allows for an expansion of the State Lege, but the US Congress absolutely could pass a law allowing expansion to happen. 

My pet idea is to fracture Congress so instead of one member per district we would have multiple sub-Congressional bodies with one member per body per district, where each body more or less has the same "jurisdiction" as the current Congressional committees. That would in theory allow each district to send someone who truly represents its interests at a greater granularity.

For example, a Houston district can send a pro-Oil MAGA guy to the Energy body and anti-MAGA pro-Immigration guys to the Homeland Security body, the Foreign Affairs body, and the Judiciary body.

Edited by chainsaw
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

And progressives have no choice but to vote for them unless they want to help Republicans by voting for a third party.

It sucks.

Which goes back to, if you supported the formation of a third party those 19 "democrats" who voted against bernie's bill, you'd have room for more democrats that would have voted for that bill. 

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Corruption is so deeply ingrained in the American electoral system that you'd have to blow everything up and start from scratch for a 3rd party to have a legit chance. 

I'm still convinced the electoral college is the most harmful apparatus in our national politics, and it will continue to prevent any progress being made. Truly the stupidest shit I've ever seen. 

 

 

I deeply disagree.  Unless you are talking about blowing everything up and starting from scratch, this time without an EC, then I could see it depending on the re-archituring of the nation.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I deeply disagree.  Unless you are talking about blowing everything up and starting from scratch, this time without an EC, then I could see it depending on the re-archituring of the nation.

What even is your position here? You seem to be just disagreeing to be contrarian. These points are barely contested by anyone, anywhere.

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What even is your position here? You seem to be just disagreeing to be contrarian. These points are barely contested by anyone, anywhere.

The position is that for a representative democracy and federal system to work as a federation of (United) States, then it makes sense to have the system we have.

If you want to re-architect the system (burn down and build from the ground up, as you or someone else suggested was the way to break free from the chokehold of a two-party system) then I can see doing away with the EC for something else that might a) be deemed more appropriate for 2025 and b) something that would need buy-in or ratification.

Maybe just the former small-state resident in me (Live Free or Die!), but I find it personally distasteful to have agreed and entered into a political system and construct with an architecture undergirding the federal system of states that was agreed to and then completely changing the system to a population system where 3 or 4 states effectively run the rest of the 46-47. I won't use "pull the rug" or "bait and switch" as granted it's been 250 years, but it's definitely not something to be undertaken lightly.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
17 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

The position is that for a representative democracy and federal system to work as a federation of (United) States, then it makes sense to have the system we have.

If you want to re-architect the system (burn down and build from the ground up, as you or someone else suggested was the way to break free from the chokehold of a two-party system) then I can see doing away with the EC for something else that might a) be deemed more appropriate for 2025 and b) something that would need buy-in or ratification.

Maybe just the former small-state resident in me (Live Free or Die!), but I find it personally distasteful to have agreed and entered into a political system and construct with an architecture undergirding the federal system of states that was agreed to and then completely changing the system to a population system where 3 or 4 states effectively run the rest of the 46-47. I won't use "pull the rug" or "bait and switch" as granted it's been 250 years, but it's definitely not something to be undertaken lightly.

Again, I'd start with a single, simple act by Congress to increase the number of representatives for everyone, including smaller states: a) making them more "in touch" and accountable to their *local* constituents because that was what was intended initially at the country’s founding, b) softening the effect of gerrymandered districts, and c) increasing the chance of other electoral reforms through constitutional means.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Again, I'd start with a single, simple act by Congress to increase the number of representatives for everyone, including smaller states: a) making them more "in touch" and accountable to their *local* constituents because that was what was intended initially at the country’s founding, b) softening the effect of gerrymandered districts, and c) increasing the chance of other electoral reforms through constitutional means.

I love this, it's actually quite brilliant.

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Corruption is so deeply ingrained in the American electoral system that you'd have to blow everything up and start from scratch for a 3rd party to have a legit chance. 

I'm still convinced the electoral college is the most harmful apparatus in our national politics, and it will continue to prevent any progress being made. Truly the stupidest shit I've ever seen. 

 

 

It never once worked the way that Mr. Madison thought it would. It should have been trashed when we we started directly electing senators. 

It wouldn't be much of a problem if states weren't mostly winner take all and if we had far more representatives in the house. But it's been winner take all in pretty much all states ever since political partisans realized how much of an advantage it would give their party in the early 1800s.

It's really kind of incredible to think about how naive the Framers were about factionality. Even as they descended into factionality. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, elfenix said:

It never once worked the way that Mr. Madison thought it would. It should have been trashed when we we started directly electing senators. 

It wouldn't be much of a problem if states weren't mostly winner take all and if we had far more representatives in the house. But it's been winner take all in pretty much all states ever since political partisans realized how much of an advantage it would give their party in the early 1800s.

It's really kind of incredible to think about how naive the Framers were about factionality. Even as they descended into factionality. 

Our entire constitutional framework needs to be restructured. 

Unfortunately, Constitution worship in this country borders on the fanatic and that makes actual reform absent a complete collapse of the American experiment hard to imagine.

Posted
11 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Unfortunately, Constitution worship in this country borders on the fanatic

Merely the word Constitution is worshipped like the word Bible. Then the worshippers run off and use merely the word to justify malign acts that neither document condones or promotes.

Posted
37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

At least include a candidate's age on the ballot.

Imagine the maga conspiracies about people’s ages after the Obama birth certificate bs, it would be hilarious.

Posted

I found this interesting... 

Stop them before they Democrat again

Quote

Because when the time comes that you need a real change agent, the super-empowered want to have nothing to do with them and Washington insiders recognize any one who actually wants to promote change to be challengers to their ability to resist it while pretending to embrace it.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

I found this interesting... 

Stop them before they Democrat again

 

Quote

The problem is that because all elections are change elections, the leaders of our political parties spend all their time coming up with talking points designed to persuade people that they’re not actually the reasons people want change…when, in fact, they are.

 

Posted

On the subject of Texas Dems, I like the effort from the 51 who have fled the state but I've seen this movie before so I'm not going to give any of them any credit until the special session is over. Anything less than an effective opposition is purely performative. In other words, the jury's still out whether we've got fighters or "more of the same" (folders).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

On the subject of Texas Dems, I like the effort from the 51 who have fled the state but I've seen this movie before so I'm not going to give any of them any credit until the special session is over. Anything less than an effective opposition is purely performative. In other words, the jury's still out whether we've got fighters or "more of the same" (folders).

Unfortunately, this is purely performative. They don't have the power to stop these districts from being redrawn.

What they can do, however, is motivate blue states to redraw their own districts in response.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

You sure they don't?

Republicans have a majority in both houses. A Republican is governor. How can Democrats stop redistricting from happening if Republicans have the votes?

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Republicans have a majority in both houses. A Republican is governor. How can Democrats stop redistricting from happening if Republicans have the votes?

 

 

They need quorum though. So if the Dems remain strong the redistricting can't pass during this special session

Posted
3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

They need quorum though. So if the Dems remain strong the redistricting can't pass during this special session

What's to keep Wheels from just calling another special session once everyone returns?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

What's to keep Wheels from just calling another special session once everyone returns?

Nothing, but they can just flee again.

Posted (edited)

Come on.  You guys really expect these 51 people to stay out of Texas, away from their home and families, live on nothing for an entire year.  Cause that is what it would take.  Lets see any of you do that.   

This is performative and to garner national attention and for other, more rational states, to maybe counter a bit or at the very least start a national dialog about extreme gerrymandering.   That is all they can do with the voting minorities the good people of Texas have provided.   The population of Texas  deserves  the shit  representation they have voted for for almost 50yrs. 

Edited by Horn Dog
Posted
3 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

 The population of Texas  deserves  the shit  representation they have voted for for almost 50yrs. 

no, we don't. we have been living under minority rule my whole life. the r's have been gaming things in their favor since the dawn of time because they know ultimately their policies are not popular. we're looking at things through a current lens, but historians will will see this for what it is - one party completely capitulating and selling its soul for power to the worst and most abhorrent members of society. whatever bullshit they have pulled since Richards (I dunno, I was a kid at the time and I'm not keen to brush up on Texas history that I lived through) it has worked. but clearly they are doing this because they realize it won't last. they have to keep gaming the system (read: cheat) to maintain power. they've done it my whole life, this is just one of countless examples and a pretty extreme one, but anyone paying attention for any length of time should not be surprised by this

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 7/30/2025 at 11:06 AM, Vegas64 said:

I'm sure I don't know what you mean, as I'm obviously agreeing with what at least 7 other people have posted or cosigned, which is having more than 2 parties is good for voters and in the long run good for representative democracy. You seem to disagree? You think a two party system is optimal or what?

The two-party system is inevitable, given our political structure. 

Environment drives evolution.  Our political environment is mostly driven by the structure of our government - namely the direct-ish election of the President and the power that position holds.  I don't believe a third party has survived (been relevant) for more than two cycles because it just doesn't work for our structure.  You see across world parliamentary systems where multiple parties survive and influence policy.  That ain't us, not because the Democrats or Republicans, or the Electoral College, or gerrymandering. It's the environment we built and are very unlikely to unbuild without some major, painful event. Too many stakeholders with too much power for it to change.  And given the current political environment, the idea of major constitutional changes scares the shit out of me. 

 

On 7/31/2025 at 11:36 AM, bolverk said:

 

One pet idea that I've held for the past 20 years and think could get the ball rolling on some reforms would be to increase the number of representatives, which used to happen regularly with each Census as the nation's population grew. Congress capped the number of House seats at 435 in the 1920s. So, when the nation was founded, the typical rep served 35,000 people. By 1910, that had grown to 1 rep per 210,000, while in 1950 it was 345,000. In 2000, it had risen to 650,000, and today, it stands at over 760,000.

Adding a bunch of seats would break up these massive districts that allow our unrepresentative State legislature (which has the same population growth problem) to manipulate these massive districts that span from Denton to Dalhart or San Antonio to El Paso, that emphatically do not represent "communities of interest" while also increasing the cost of elections and almost guaranteeing that your representive does not have you and your neighbor's best interests in mind.

I don't know if the Texas Constitution allows for an expansion of the State Lege, but the US Congress absolutely could pass a law allowing expansion to happen. 

Absolutely.  But the pushback would be for part of the reason I like it: it would dilute the small-state advantage for the electoral college.  The other reason for the pushback is most Reps prefer being one of 435 to being one of 2000.  A lot more power in the former.  You'd need to get people to vote themselves out of their current job into one with less power and prestige. 

But I do love the idea that more, smaller elections would increase the relative power of boots on the ground, meeting the people directly, rather than large marketing campaigns.  And, of course, neutering gerrymandering. 

Posted
41 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

no, we don't. we have been living under minority rule my whole life. the r's have been gaming things in their favor since the dawn of time because they know ultimately their policies are not popular. we're looking at things through a current lens, but historians will will see this for what it is - one party completely capitulating and selling its soul for power to the worst and most abhorrent members of society. whatever bullshit they have pulled since Richards (I dunno, I was a kid at the time and I'm not keen to brush up on Texas history that I lived through) it has worked. but clearly they are doing this because they realize it won't last. they have to keep gaming the system (read: cheat) to maintain power. they've done it my whole life, this is just one of countless examples and a pretty extreme one, but anyone paying attention for any length of time should not be surprised by this

Oh I hear ya, and don't necessarily disagree.  But counterpoint...

turnout.thumb.jpg.840f66a61ca2fc337a13deb6df70f2dc.jpg

Posted

yes, because the R's have been waging effective voter suppression measures for-fucking-ever too. it's not the people who have been showing up I care about right now. it's riling up those that haven't been to see what is going on and vote accordingly. the r's see this and are trying to rig things even more in their favor

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

You guys really expect these 51 people to stay out of Texas, away from their home and families, live on nothing for an entire year. 

Most of them are independently wealthy or have day jobs that can be done remotely. Their families can join them in Illinois. This is too important.

Posted

Come on.  Let's get serious.  There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING the tiny minority of dems in the TX leg can do to stop this redistricting from happening.   You really think this generation of pubs is just gonna sit back and say, " well we we tried but those dems our foxed us and left so I just nothing we can do?"   The control EVERY branch of power in TX, including most importantly, the Texas SC, so anything they do will be declared legal.  Furthermore pubs have a power hungry POTUS and a SCOTUS all of which are completely and perfectly aligned in their aim to make this happen.   

All the dems can do is stall a week or 2, maybe draw a little bit of attention to the dumb masses who are not even paying attention and maybe, maybe get a few dems who do have some power to counter a bit thru reciprocal action.  That's it.  That is best case scenario and even that is likely to fail. 

Posted

Oh my sweet summer child... you mean "the rules"?  Are you really thinking that there is some set of sacred "rules" that are driving this process.  What are you, I,  or anyone gonna do when they say fuck it and pass it anyway?  We gonna sue and take it to SCOTUS?  IS that the plan?  Come on.

The average Texan doesn't even know this is happening and even if they did, they are all for it.  Guns, Gays and Genes (white).  That is all that motivates the average TX voter.   All we can hope for is some attention, maybe 0.8% of the dumb masses to fire 2 axons that say "dat don't seem right"  and maybe vote in the mid terms.  That is all they can accomplish. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Oh my sweet summer child... you mean "the rules"?  Are you really thinking that there is some set of sacred "rules" that are driving this process.  What are you, I,  or anyone gonna do when they say fuck it and pass it anyway?  We gonna sue and take it to SCOTUS?  IS that the plan?  Come on.

The average Texan doesn't even know this is happening and even if they did, they are all for it.  Guns, Gays and Genes (white).  That is all that motivates the average TX voter.   All we can hope for is some attention, maybe 0.8% of the dumb masses to fire 2 axons that say "dat don't seem right"  and maybe vote in the mid terms.  That is all they can accomplish. 

battlefield 1 time GIF

Posted
They can't pass the new maps without a quorum. How would the texas supreme court dispense with that requirement?

“Texas Supreme Court rules quorum not necessary for this one thing they really wanna do.”

That’s how.
Posted
2 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Most of them are independently wealthy or have day jobs that can be done remotely. Their families can join them in Illinois. This is too important.

You are going to be so disappointed.

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

You are going to be so disappointed.

my expectations are pretty low, so i expect them to return at some point the way they returned in all the other quorum breaks. and when they try to fundraise off of this i will tell them to gtfo. speaking of which, is that AMA with Scudder still on @pyrohornIII

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

my expectations are pretty low, so i expect them to return at some point the way they returned in all the other quorum breaks. and when they try to fundraise off of this i will tell them to gtfo. speaking of which, is that AMA with Scudder still on @pyrohornIII

Instead of political stunts, I wish they'd try harder to win elections.



×
×
  • Create New...