Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, the 2/3 majority thing I already mentioned. That would require a Constitutional amendment, but I think we need to stop being afraid of that. It can happen, we just have to make it happen.
The most promising reform movement I see right now is to change the voting system so that consensus is encouraged rather than punished. That's something that we can change at the local level without dealing with the feds. And it's actually happening. Maine has switched and other states are considering it. Many local governments across the country have adopted it.
It's not going to work on the federal level though unless more people become liberal or more people become conservative.
You can't dance with a girl that won't get off her chair. You at least have to get her to stand up. A 2/3 House rule would bring our country to a screeching halt. Yes, that would mean a lot of bad things don't get passed, but it would also mean anything good will not get passed either.
Because candidates can win elections with second-place votes. They have built-in incentive to avoid alienating voters. Let's say, for example, Democrats are running Bernie Sanders, and he has wild support from progressives and most of their base. But Republicans, and Libertarians, and a lot of independents, hate socialism and will rank him dead last every time. If Republicans are smart, and they run a conservative candidate who has some appeal for liberals - or at least doesn't inspire them to bitter opposition - they'll get a lot of second place votes from Democrats and independents. And they'll win. Being able to rank a candidate dead last actually allows voters to vote "against" a candidate they don't like.How does it "build consensus?"Doh - I left that outThey have "adopted" what?So what rules are you talking about? These two parties are who made the rules in the first place.
Well, the 2/3 majority thing I already mentioned. That would require a Constitutional amendment, but I think we need to stop being afraid of that. It can happen, we just have to make it happen.
The most promising reform movement I see right now is to change the voting system so that consensus is encouraged rather than punished. That's something that we can change at the local level without dealing with the feds. And it's actually happening. Maine has switched and other states are considering it. Many local governments across the country have adopted it.
What I meant to say ways "Maine has switched to ranked-choice voting". That's what I'm referring to. It's a system that actually encourage consensus building. It also does away with the lesser-of-two-evils crap.
Like I said earlier, if we dropped the 2/3 majority rule on the existing Congress it would be immediate gridlock. That would mean, in the short term, a lot of stupid, partisan laws wouldn't get passed. And I suppose some laws we need might be blocked as well. But eventually, Congress would get tired of the gridlock and start looking for ways to agree instead of acting in constant opposition. That's the point.
It is working. Just very poorly. When either side can manage to get a slim partisan majority, they slam stuff through. That's how we got saddled with ACA. A 2/3 majority requirement would have stopped that dead in its tracks. The only option would have been to go back to the drawing board and actually create legislation that both parties could get behind. It IS possible. But most of us are too steeped in the two-party pissing match to see it.Like I said earlier, if we dropped the 2/3 majority rule on the existing Congress it would be immediate gridlock. That would mean, in the short term, a lot of stupid, partisan laws wouldn't get passed. And I suppose some laws we need might be blocked as well. But eventually, Congress would get tired of the gridlock and start looking for ways to agree instead of acting in constant opposition. That's the point.
If that's so, why isn't it working between the House and the Senate now?
It is working. Just very poorly. When either side can manage to get a slim partisan majority, they slam stuff through. That's how we got saddled with ACA. A 2/3 majority requirement would have stopped that dead in its tracks. The only option would have been to go back to the drawing board and actually create legislation that both parties could get behind. It IS possible. But most of us are too steeped in the two-party pissing match to see it.
It is working. Just very poorly. When either side can manage to get a slim partisan majority, they slam stuff through. That's how we got saddled with ACA. A 2/3 majority requirement would have stopped that dead in its tracks. The only option would have been to go back to the drawing board and actually create legislation that both parties could get behind. It IS possible. But most of us are too steeped in the two-party pissing match to see it.
In that particular instance you have two parties: one party doesn't want any government healthcare system, and the other wants a total government healthcare system. Where is the middle ground for that?
Expanding Medicare for the hard luck cases? That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure they could come up with other options. Here's the thing Ray: what I'm really saying is that if a law can't get a 2/3s majority, it shouldn't be a law. We shouldn't allow government to be a tool for the 51% to beat up on the 49% whenever they get an edge.
Let's say a majority of people want a wall. The Democrats are against it and the Republicans for it. There is no possible way voters are smart enough to elect Republicans to get that accomplished with 2/3 of the vote. Our border patrol is exhausted, our holding cells full, kids we can't take care of, illegal immigrants killing our people either deliberately or driving around drunk. Your suggestion is we just have to put up with it and allow our country to be invaded because party line voters will never change.
Yep. If you can't get a 2/3 majority, then you can't have a wall. You'll have to find some way to deal with border security that more people can agree on. The whole point of my proposal is to prevent 51% from forcing their will on 49%.
Yep. If you can't get a 2/3 majority, then you can't have a wall. You'll have to find some way to deal with border security that more people can agree on. The whole point of my proposal is to prevent 51% from forcing their will on 49%.
Then what we'd have is a government we have no realistic way to change.
You need to face the reality that being two faced while claiming neutrality is a sorry position to take.This is just a guess, of course, but somewhere around 48% of those who vote in November will be voting for Donald Trump. Without going into the laundry list of obvious examples or any of the standard talking points, there are certainly plenty of reasons not to. Yet he has a perfectly reasonable chance of winning.
Right now, polls show that about 43% of Americans approve of the job he's doing. This, after everything that has happened, and that number should be a very sobering indication of where this country is right now. Personally, I try to understand how these people can do this, but I still only understand some of it.
Anyway, here's the point: Elections are about contrasts. Choices. How can that many people support this disaster of a person? For many of them, they're looking at the alternative. And when those who provide their information and opinions for them point at things like PC and Identity Politics and Cancel Culture and an overall culture in decay, they can make reasonable points not to vote for the Democratic party. Even with, amazingly, this profoundly damaged person in the White House.
It's certainly too late to make any changes before November, but the Democratic party had a chance to take over the middle, and I don't see that happening. There is no excuse, zero, none, for the race to be this close. Regardless of who wins, the Democrats have too often allowed the wrong voices to represent them. It allows the Trumpsters to tie all the silliest crap coming from the hardcore Left to the milquetoast, feeble Biden.
This should be a learning experience, but I'm doubtful.
I see problems on both ends of this issue. Even my side. I can be honest.You need to face the reality that being two faced while claiming neutrality is a sorry position to take.This is just a guess, of course, but somewhere around 48% of those who vote in November will be voting for Donald Trump. Without going into the laundry list of obvious examples or any of the standard talking points, there are certainly plenty of reasons not to. Yet he has a perfectly reasonable chance of winning.
Right now, polls show that about 43% of Americans approve of the job he's doing. This, after everything that has happened, and that number should be a very sobering indication of where this country is right now. Personally, I try to understand how these people can do this, but I still only understand some of it.
Anyway, here's the point: Elections are about contrasts. Choices. How can that many people support this disaster of a person? For many of them, they're looking at the alternative. And when those who provide their information and opinions for them point at things like PC and Identity Politics and Cancel Culture and an overall culture in decay, they can make reasonable points not to vote for the Democratic party. Even with, amazingly, this profoundly damaged person in the White House.
It's certainly too late to make any changes before November, but the Democratic party had a chance to take over the middle, and I don't see that happening. There is no excuse, zero, none, for the race to be this close. Regardless of who wins, the Democrats have too often allowed the wrong voices to represent them. It allows the Trumpsters to tie all the silliest crap coming from the hardcore Left to the milquetoast, feeble Biden.
This should be a learning experience, but I'm doubtful.
Dem, Republican, American.My proof that we haven't always had a binary system is that 3 different parties got electoral votes in 1968.1968We haven't always had one...A win is a win. But yeah...both parties are losing ground and hopefully a sensible centrist 3rd party will emerge.This is just a guess, of course, but somewhere around 48% of those who vote in November will be voting for Donald Trump. Without going into the laundry list of obvious examples or any of the standard talking points, there are certainly plenty of reasons not to. Yet he has a perfectly reasonable chance of winning.
Right now, polls show that about 43% of Americans approve of the job he's doing. This, after everything that has happened, and that number should be a very sobering indication of where this country is right now. Personally, I try to understand how these people can do this, but I still only understand some of it.
Anyway, here's the point: Elections are about contrasts. Choices. How can that many people support this disaster of a person? For many of them, they're looking at the alternative. And when those who provide their information and opinions for them point at things like PC and Identity Politics and Cancel Culture and an overall culture in decay, they can make reasonable points not to vote for the Democratic party. Even with, amazingly, this profoundly damaged person in the White House.
It's certainly too late to make any changes before November, but the Democratic party had a chance to take over the middle, and I don't see that happening. There is no excuse, zero, none, for the race to be this close. Regardless of who wins, the Democrats have too often allowed the wrong voices to represent them. It allows the Trumpsters to tie all the silliest crap coming from the hardcore Left to the milquetoast, feeble Biden.
This should be a learning experience, but I'm doubtful.
We have a binary system.
When?
1968 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Your proof that we don't have a binary system is the 1968 Presidential Election where Democrat George Wallace ran as an independent and received zero electoral votes?
View attachment 415076
That didn't happen
I just told you that
You're wrong. I just proved that.
Can you name the three different parties?
George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in 68. Libertarian party popular vote counts do real well. John Anderson made an impact .Ross Perot got 19 million votes but no electoral votes. There is viable third party support out there. It just need to get organized.
This election reveal a play by the Libertarian Party to make a move on the GOP. They want to take all the liberal (libertarian) leaning Republicans and leave the GOP with the warmongering neo-cons.A win is a win. But yeah...both parties are losing ground and hopefully a sensible centrist 3rd party will emerge.This is just a guess, of course, but somewhere around 48% of those who vote in November will be voting for Donald Trump. Without going into the laundry list of obvious examples or any of the standard talking points, there are certainly plenty of reasons not to. Yet he has a perfectly reasonable chance of winning.
Right now, polls show that about 43% of Americans approve of the job he's doing. This, after everything that has happened, and that number should be a very sobering indication of where this country is right now. Personally, I try to understand how these people can do this, but I still only understand some of it.
Anyway, here's the point: Elections are about contrasts. Choices. How can that many people support this disaster of a person? For many of them, they're looking at the alternative. And when those who provide their information and opinions for them point at things like PC and Identity Politics and Cancel Culture and an overall culture in decay, they can make reasonable points not to vote for the Democratic party. Even with, amazingly, this profoundly damaged person in the White House.
It's certainly too late to make any changes before November, but the Democratic party had a chance to take over the middle, and I don't see that happening. There is no excuse, zero, none, for the race to be this close. Regardless of who wins, the Democrats have too often allowed the wrong voices to represent them. It allows the Trumpsters to tie all the silliest crap coming from the hardcore Left to the milquetoast, feeble Biden.
This should be a learning experience, but I'm doubtful.
It won't work. The GOP is way too powerful and the Dems respect the Duopoly too much to help the LP do a take-over.
The establishment Rs and Ds do not want to share the power structure. Often times, they offer the illusion of a choice.
I should know better but here it goes...
Imagine what would happen if Biden put into place a plan to pay for education like we have for social security except reverse it. With SS you pay all your work life and then get a reward at the end. Pay for two years of the education/job training up front (books, tuition, fees, uniforms, etc...) and then deduct the costs of it over the working life. But (as anyone who has had work on their car done can tell you) waive the repayment or part of the repayment if you go into the trades such as auto/body or ac/refrigeration technician. Make it available to anyone who wants to learn. If you're graduating high school...you're able to go to college right off the bat. If you're already in the work force, you can go back on your own schedule. If you're already into a career and want to, I don't know, learn another language to get a promotion... Joe's got you covered.
There is nothing wrong with a high school graduate living at home for a while and getting a full time job. Save your money for two or three years, then go to college or trade school. Continue working part time during the school year and full time when not in school. You should have enough money by the time you graduate to have your education paid for or at least most of it where a student loan is very small.
We should also have college savings accounts; money the parents or other family members can contribute to during the years of a child's life. Start that account the day the baby is born. A couple of years ago one of my tenants was throwing a birthday party for her one year old. I wanted to get her a college savings account. They don't have them. I was kind of shocked.
I disagree somewhat.
When a third party does plant it's flag in the ground I think it will be as follows.
Someone not named Trump but like Trump (lets say Adam Carolla just to name a celebrity who has political aspirations) ascends to a place of governmental prominence on a major party ticket. And, once in office, they divorce themselves from the major party and forms a new one. It would only happen if she/he has some numbers in Congress that are going to go along with them because each of those congressmen/women will be making a career decision. It would also require massive personal popularity.
I don't think it happens like you say...a third party fighting it out in the Georgia 7th district and winning. Getting into Congress. Then being on an island while Pelosi gives the chairmanship to a democrat or (if they win Statewide) sit there and let McConnell give the chairmanship of every committee they are on to a Republican. They would be independent in name only and have to caucus with one or the other parties (like Sanders).
That'd be another way to go. Oh wait...those exist already and American competiveness has suffered. The only growing industry in the nation is conspiracy theorist...soft-in-the-head Trump supporters who believe whatever they are told, get frustrated and then resort to xenophobia and of course pining for a civil war.
Need an example? Consult a mirror.
Dem, Republican, American.My proof that we haven't always had a binary system is that 3 different parties got electoral votes in 1968.1968We haven't always had one...A win is a win. But yeah...both parties are losing ground and hopefully a sensible centrist 3rd party will emerge.This is just a guess, of course, but somewhere around 48% of those who vote in November will be voting for Donald Trump. Without going into the laundry list of obvious examples or any of the standard talking points, there are certainly plenty of reasons not to. Yet he has a perfectly reasonable chance of winning.
Right now, polls show that about 43% of Americans approve of the job he's doing. This, after everything that has happened, and that number should be a very sobering indication of where this country is right now. Personally, I try to understand how these people can do this, but I still only understand some of it.
Anyway, here's the point: Elections are about contrasts. Choices. How can that many people support this disaster of a person? For many of them, they're looking at the alternative. And when those who provide their information and opinions for them point at things like PC and Identity Politics and Cancel Culture and an overall culture in decay, they can make reasonable points not to vote for the Democratic party. Even with, amazingly, this profoundly damaged person in the White House.
It's certainly too late to make any changes before November, but the Democratic party had a chance to take over the middle, and I don't see that happening. There is no excuse, zero, none, for the race to be this close. Regardless of who wins, the Democrats have too often allowed the wrong voices to represent them. It allows the Trumpsters to tie all the silliest crap coming from the hardcore Left to the milquetoast, feeble Biden.
This should be a learning experience, but I'm doubtful.
We have a binary system.
When?
1968 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
Your proof that we don't have a binary system is the 1968 Presidential Election where Democrat George Wallace ran as an independent and received zero electoral votes?
View attachment 415076
That didn't happen
I just told you that
You're wrong. I just proved that.
Can you name the three different parties?
Nobody stole anything.
