Donald is about to go through some things...
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
To be fair, then they are not actually working together, they are lemmings following the money off the cliff.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Here is the verbiage:
Text - S.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): For the People Act of 2021
Text for S.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): For the People Act of 2021
www.congress.gov
So what is exactly the part where they are trying to take more power, as stated?Here is the verbiage:
Text - S.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): For the People Act of 2021
Text for S.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): For the People Act of 2021www.congress.gov
Found this summary. Interesting. Also didn't this get killed last year? Are they reintroducing it this year? Shows it stalled in the senate. Is this what they want to reintroduce in place of the republican bill? Does the republican bill have any hidden agendas?
HR1, "For the People Act of 2021"
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
That was Chuck Schumer's first attempt that had everything, and yes it died. Then Schumer and the democrats cut a ton of stuff out of it to make S.4 The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and that too has stalled. A group of more moderate democrats joined with a group of moderate republicans to actually get something done to close the squishy areas Trump seemingly tried to exploit with none of the add-ons Schumer wanted, and that had broad republican support. This third, bipartisan effort is the Electoral Reform Act and Schumer came out against it, calling it "The McConnell Plan", because if this passes then first effort S.1 and second effort S.4 are both permanently dead.
So again what is the verbiage of what they are trying to do in place of the republican one that is already out there that specifically is a power grab? If they have cut stuff out and made it more moderate, then what is the remaining provisions that make it a blatant power grab? Did they cut the part about the 6 to 1 match with taxpayer dollars for campaign funding, which I would highly oppose personally. I hope they get the redistricting part passed as I have always thought it should have always had 3rd part oversight. Not sure what else they are trying to use as the power grab. They mention vote harvesting but nowhere did I see verbiage that supported that assertion. It does very much loosen the controls over voting, making it much easier, but imo not a lot better. It is a 2-edged sword.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I thought it died last year too since there weren’t enough votes to overcome the filibuster and Manchinema didn’t want to blow the filibuster.Found this summary. Interesting. Also didn't this get killed last year? Are they reintroducing it this year? Shows it stalled in the senate. Is this what they want to reintroduce in place of the republican bill? Does the republican bill have any hidden agendas?
HR1, "For the People Act of 2021"
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politicsballotpedia.org
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Start at the beginning, read the table of contents, and understand that all of those are currently functions carried out by the states. What Schumer wanted/wants to do is take that power from the states and create a federal authority to dictate to the states every one of those issues.
Yeah but I don't necessarily disagree with any of those. One of the major problems for a national election, for the presidency, is everyone does it differently. That is decidedly NOT a strength in diversity or whatever anyone wants to call it. We would be much better off with that piece standardized so it is fair and consistent everywhere the same to eliminate the possibility of a Trump calling various state officials in states where he deems the laws to be more lax or the process to be more convoluted and asking them to decertify the election. If the same process is followed everywhere this is greatly diminished if not completely eliminated. What is wrong with that? Now how it is done is a matter of considerable debate, but the idea of standardizing the process is laudable and likely the best idea given the circumstances. Not every power given to the states is best handled at the state level, especially when things become more complicated and onerous, such as elections like this, which need to be clear and untainted and simplified as much as possible to limit the opportunities for corruption. Corruption loves red tape. That is almost exclusively what Trump has been tugging on, all the red tape he can find. The more of that we can eliminate the better. Where is it written that every power given to the states is sacrosanct and perfect in every way? It is all up for interpretation and reinterpretation depending on the needs of the times, hence the addition of an amendment process by the founders.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
In this I could not more strongly disagree with you. Decentralization has time and time again proven to be a strength. No authority has proven to be perfect. It is a strength to have 50+ different sets of people independently trying solutions to a problem, stress testing it, seeing what doesn't work, copying ideas from other groups that got something better, and iterating over and over to improve. Top-down, centrally controlled solutions are brittle and do not evolve solutions nearly as fast as a distributed, federalism approach.
If you want an authoritarian strong man to come to power, the best way to do it is to build this type of centralized instrument of control because then all the strongman has to do is gain control of that one thing. For security, it is far safer to have power decentralized with no single point capable of taking down the system.
Ok so you really took a specific topic and went super broad with it. Where did I say I wanted literally everything the states do to be centralized in the federal government. Yes it is a strength to have the states have their own control over certain things. I do not think the national election is one of them. Look at the chaos it has created in this election cycle. To be clear, I did not say that a central power should fully control the election at a single point. What I said was that it should be standardized and held the same in each state to minimize cracks and loopholes in a critical system. The states are still in control, they just all do it the same way.
Imagine if every state decided on their own shape of a stop sign. So why isn't that in control of the states? Their transportation systems are their lifeline, they should be in full control, right? I think California should adopt an oval stop sign that is blue, that would be way better than the current one. Even better would be the German system of Hauptstrasse and Nebenstrasse with very few stop signs, and the only sign being a diamond sign with a yellow diamond in the middle. That would be cool. Hell everyone can have their own! See some things make sense to be standardized. By the way, that is all standardized nationally, but still managed with laws governing traffic in that state at the state level. How in the hell is that even possible?!?!?
Why do you lump everything together, can you not accept that every topic deserves its own discussion and resolution. So your best solution then would be for every state to simply make every single decision and then negotiate with each other about how to handle the thousands of varied topics involved. Hmm, seems like separate countries at that point. There has to be a balance, and I am sorry but your are fatally incorrect in your implied assertion that EVERY topic should be resolved at the state level. As I said, nothing about that is sacrosanct and in no way is it the perfect system.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Yes. That is why our districts are called "states" when in the rest of the world 'state' is synonymous with 'country' and why our nation in the civil war was called "the union". States are more than areas of the USA and I think that is to our benefit. There is an advantage to the decentralization of power.
You refer to the chaos of our system in the 2020 election, but in reality it was the safeguard that held. The candidate with the most electoral votes wins and the voting took place in mid-December. The January 6 riots had no chance of doing anything precisely because the power was not centralized. The Electoral Reform Act is further codifying the lack of centralized control for further safeguard against future shenanigans.
BTW...your suggestion that states are in control but have to follow the standards imposed by a central government authority is an oxymoron. If the states have to do as they are dictated to do then they aren't in control.
As for speaking in broad terms, I do that so you can see the forest for the trees. Decentralization and massively parallel solution development is an advantage even when it comes to electing leaders.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
Well done Log. I mean you will never get through to him but everything you posted made the most sense. Problem is that making sense is detrimental to the nonsensical so it will never pierce the armor of nonsense.
Guess we will just agree to disagree. Like your little jab that I am not looking at the big picture, when it is exactly the big picture that tells us that the system we currently have for this type of election is rife with opportunities for corruption, but since the big big big picture is, hey the election still worked, nothing to see here, then you are ok with fostering possible corruption as long as it happens at the state level. Gotcha. You have your blind eye working well I see.
And by the way, that is exactly how the traffic codes in the US works. A centralized standardized system administered under somewhat varying laws at the state level. I mean it works that way, EXACTLY that way, right this very second. It is in actual fact a real thing. You should check it out.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
A blue stop sign might be kinda cool. Never seen one of those before. All the stop signs I’ve seen in South America, the UK, and France were red. But blue might be cool. Makes me wonder if other countries do this? Do some make red for go and green for stop? Is there a better color for these sorts of things? I’m always blinded headed west in downtown salt lake due to the sun. Maybe we should have megaphones shouting traffic signals out instead of lights?
What a cool new world that’s been opened to me today.
What a cool new world that’s been opened to me today.
Thanks fish. Yeah I usually stay out of these things, but it is a slow day at work and I am kind of bored. lol
Red
Well-Known Member
Jennifer Rubin argues that Democrats should take yes for an answer. I like that this particular bill would not allow states to chose electors after Election Day. That helps.
Washington Post, no paywall…
A bipartisan bill negotiated under the leadership of Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) would make some needed changes in the Electoral Count Act, the vague and problematic law that Donald Trump and the defeated former president’s allies tried to exploit to remain in power. The Post reports: “Collins and Manchin’s proposal is expected to set a deadline for when states can change their rules, clarify that states cannot choose their electors after Election Day, create more stringent requirements for Congress to object to the certification of a state’s electors and clarify that the vice president’s role is ceremonial with no power to reject electors.”
Democrats can preach all day about the need for a broader bill, and they would be right. But until they control the presidency, the House and a Senate majority sufficient to alter the filibuster, they are not going to obtain more than this.
Taking a win and coming back for more when they have the votes are the essence of democracy — the very thing Democrats are striving to protect. Civil and voting rights have always been attained incrementally (and lost abruptly). So it must be with reforms to make it harder for a replay of the coup attempt.
Washington Post, no paywall…
A bipartisan bill negotiated under the leadership of Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) would make some needed changes in the Electoral Count Act, the vague and problematic law that Donald Trump and the defeated former president’s allies tried to exploit to remain in power. The Post reports: “Collins and Manchin’s proposal is expected to set a deadline for when states can change their rules, clarify that states cannot choose their electors after Election Day, create more stringent requirements for Congress to object to the certification of a state’s electors and clarify that the vice president’s role is ceremonial with no power to reject electors.”
Democrats can preach all day about the need for a broader bill, and they would be right. But until they control the presidency, the House and a Senate majority sufficient to alter the filibuster, they are not going to obtain more than this.
Taking a win and coming back for more when they have the votes are the essence of democracy — the very thing Democrats are striving to protect. Civil and voting rights have always been attained incrementally (and lost abruptly). So it must be with reforms to make it harder for a replay of the coup attempt.