Abolish the filibuster!

[LABEVO 928]

 

[bad_teammate 13482]

so happy to be living in a nation run by billionaires and white men over 80

It rules.

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

so happy to be living in a nation run by billionaires and white men over 80

It rules.

I've only personally known one white billionaire over 80 in my life, and he's on trial for massive tax fraud. Granted, it's not a large sample size, but it ain't representin' real well.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

18 hours ago, Js1 said:

So he put out his compromise bill that he's working on getting the necessary GOP votes for and I have to say, I'd be okay with this.

Voting Legislation For the People Act Compromise

• Make election day a public holiday (New)
• Mandate at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections (include 2 weekends)
• Ban partisan gerrymandering and use computer models (New)
• Require voter ID with allowable alternatives (utility bill, etc.) to prove identity to vote (New)
• Automatic registration through DMV, with option to opt out.
• Require states to promote access to voter registration and voting for persons with disabilities and older individuals.
• Prohibit providing false information about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties for voter intimidation.
• Require states to send absentee by mail ballots to eligible voters before an election if voter is not able to vote in person during early voting or election day due to eligible circumstance and allow civil penalty for failure. (New)
• Require the Election Assistance Commission to develop model training programs and award grants for training. 10.
• Require states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days before election, if his/her polling place has changed.
• Absentee ballots shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage.
• Require the Attorney General to develop a state-based response system and hotline that provides information on voting.
• Allow for maintenance of voter rolls by utilizing information derived from state and federal documents.
• Establish standards for election vendors based on cybersecurity concerns.
• Allow provisional ballots to count for all eligible races regardless of precinct.

 

And by ok with this, I mean in a fucking heartbeat and progressives have to recognize that this is a huge fucking win for voting rights.  Banning partisan gerrymandering will do more than most of HR1 would accomplish.  Most states have some form of voter ID and studies show it has negligible impact on turnout, especially with easy alternatives.  Would hope it would pair with funding to get free government IDs available and easy to obtain. 

That's a hell of a compromise.  2 of the first 3 would be enough for me.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

18 hours ago, Js1 said:

So he put out his compromise bill that he's working on getting the necessary GOP votes for and I have to say, I'd be okay with this.

Voting Legislation For the People Act Compromise

• Make election day a public holiday (New)
• Mandate at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections (include 2 weekends)
• Ban partisan gerrymandering and use computer models (New)
• Require voter ID with allowable alternatives (utility bill, etc.) to prove identity to vote (New)
• Automatic registration through DMV, with option to opt out.
• Require states to promote access to voter registration and voting for persons with disabilities and older individuals.
• Prohibit providing false information about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties for voter intimidation.
• Require states to send absentee by mail ballots to eligible voters before an election if voter is not able to vote in person during early voting or election day due to eligible circumstance and allow civil penalty for failure. (New)
• Require the Election Assistance Commission to develop model training programs and award grants for training. 10.
• Require states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days before election, if his/her polling place has changed.
• Absentee ballots shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage.
• Require the Attorney General to develop a state-based response system and hotline that provides information on voting.
• Allow for maintenance of voter rolls by utilizing information derived from state and federal documents.
• Establish standards for election vendors based on cybersecurity concerns.
• Allow provisional ballots to count for all eligible races regardless of precinct.

 

And by ok with this, I mean in a fucking heartbeat and progressives have to recognize that this is a huge fucking win for voting rights.  Banning partisan gerrymandering will do more than most of HR1 would accomplish.  Most states have some form of voter ID and studies show it has negligible impact on turnout, especially with easy alternatives.  Would hope it would pair with funding to get free government IDs available and easy to obtain. 

That's a hell of a compromise.  2 of the first 3 would be enough for me.

[Js1 86965]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That's a hell of a compromise.  2 of the first 3 would be enough for me.

Stacey Abrams went on CNN and said she supports the compromise bill 

[bad_teammate 13482]

If Joe Manchin gets that through with enough GOP votes to avoid a filibuster I will change my avi to his face and rename one of my dogs after him.

 

Also, for Js1, your built-in need to scold progressives at every breath is annoying as hell.

Edited June 17, 2021 by bad_teammate

[Js1 86965]

That’s extremely ironic coming from your need to scold everyone 

[Js1 86965]

And yes name it the Joe Manchin is Awesome and also very Handsome Voting Rights Act if that works 

[bad_teammate 13482]

The public holiday thing is nice, but I don't think that's what is driving low turnout

 

[wildcat09 29562]

That's a good compromise among Democrats. There's absolutely no way in hell we get 10 Republicans on board, so the question is will Manchin, Sinema, and the other squishes who prefer not to stand out vote to "reform" the filibuster to get it passed. Because if not, this is meaningless.

[bad_teammate 13482]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That's a good compromise among Democrats. There's absolutely no way in hell we get 10 Republicans on board, so the question is will Manchin, Sinema, and the other squishes who prefer not to stand out vote to "reform" the filibuster to get it passed. Because if not, this is meaningless.

This is our concern, dude.

I really hope this is the right-wing Dems clearing the way for themselves to say, "We really really really tried to work with our GOP friends, but the Senate doesn't seem to be a chamber where real deliberation and bipartisan work happens right now. We hope it will be that way again, but in the meantime we cannot allow democracy to just stall..." and then they reform the filibuster.

[Js1 86965]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That's a good compromise among Democrats. There's absolutely no way in hell we get 10 Republicans on board, so the question is will Manchin, Sinema, and the other squishes who prefer not to stand out vote to "reform" the filibuster to get it passed. Because if not, this is meaningless.

Also true.  The voter ID (not PHOTO ID, which is a big difference) seems like a way to lure a GOP vote or two (besides Murkowski, who is seemingly on board with a JLVRA already), which isn't a *huge* deal.  

Getting Abrams to agree is huge for the rest of the non-Manchin side of the party to say "ok, this is a good start.  Pass it, win more seats in 2022, and then pass a better one" 

Him releasing his compromise bill on the same day as him making noise about the talking filibuster/41 to sustain/55 to override doesn't like a coincidence.  He is the point man to find 5 GOP votes if "55 to override" becomes the new norm (and it's catchy too - Politics 101 is good marketing). 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Js1

[wildcat09 29562]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Also true.  The voter ID (not PHOTO ID, which is a big difference) seems like a way to lure a GOP vote or two (besides Murkowski, who is seemingly on board with a JLVRA already), which isn't a *huge* deal.  

Getting Abrams to agree is huge for the rest of the non-Manchin side of the party to say "ok, this is a good start.  Pass it, win more seats in 2022, and then pass a better one" 

Him releasing his compromise bill on the same day as him making noise about the talking filibuster/41 to sustain/55 to override doesn't like a coincidence.  He is the point man to find 5 GOP votes if "55 to override" becomes the new norm (and it's catchy too - Politics 101 is good marketing). 

I don't think the voter ID is even about luring any Republicans. Republicans wouldn't vote to save the planet from a meteor if a Democrat were President. It's just signaling an attempt at bipartisanship to idiot centrist voters.

[Js1 86965]

Studies show it has minimal effects on turnout.  Unlike actual voter suppression bills - cutting hours, closing polling places, purging voters, restricting mail-in voting for the elderly and disabled. 

"Voter ID" is supported by most of the American people (bc most of them are idiots, TBH).  It's just adding something "popular" into the bill to burnish it's "bipartisan" credentials that doesn't actively harm voters.  And I'm ok with it, because the rest of the compromise is so so so good.

Don't hurt me again, Joe Manchin.  

Edited June 17, 2021 by Js1

[kevwun 16313]

Joe Manchin will end up voting against his own compromise bill.

[Sawbonz 28091]

 

 

I am convinced the Republicans want the filibuster gone for when they get back into power. They’re just hoping they can get the Dems to kill it

Edited June 17, 2021 by Sawbonz

[wildcat09 29562]

 

 

['stache 22117]

23 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

 

I am convinced the Republicans want the filibuster gone for when they get back into power. They’re just hoping they can get the Dems to kill it

They have been very clear about this for years. Yes, it is always the democrats who hold a large majority among the electorate but only half of the Senate, with at least two of the being so "centrist" that they will refuse to do anything the majority of voters want. 

Get it through your fat fucking skulls, they have no interest in "bipartisanship" or "compromise." They want to destroy anything the majority wants, because power, and because the way the senate is composed the right will always have a huge advantage of minority rule.

Fuck all of this. They are openly against voting rights, and will continue to dominate the Senate. This country is heading towards a serious constitutional crisis. The senate was composed at a time when states were intended to hold more power. We've changed over time where the federal government has enormous power. The original colonies also didn't have the vast population disparties that exist between Wyoming and California. The fact that both have the same representation in the senate is about as undemocratic as any system can get. One person, one vote, or GTFO.

One more republican president who can't win the popular vote, and I think all hell breaks loose.

Edited June 17, 2021 by 'stache

[wildcat09 29562]

By 2040, 70% of the American people will be represented by just 30 senators. The survival of the Senate (at least as it's currently constructed) and the survival of American democracy are mutually exclusive.

[elfenix 34661]

On 6/16/2021 at 2:22 PM, Js1 said:

Ban partisan gerrymandering and use computer models

obviously written by someone who doesn't understand computer models are what has allowed the extreme gerrymandering the republicans have been doing since 2010. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19408]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The public holiday thing is nice, but I don't think that's what is driving low turnout

 

Bunch of shitty candidates is what drives low turnout. 

[Captainant 28414]

15 minutes ago, elfenix said:

obviously written by someone who doesn't understand computer models are what has allowed the extreme gerrymandering the republicans have been doing since 2010. 

I actually had a project back in undergrad CS to develop some quantifiable measure of how gerrymandered a district was, and the idea I came up with was a proportion between surface area (perimeter length) of the district and its encompassed area. It's by no means perfect but it did a good job of identifying the worst offending gerrymandered districts in Texas, and I wish some mechanism like that was used to gut-check district shapes

[elfenix 34661]

^^while the courts still look at it, i don't know that compactness is necessarily a strength when districts have ~750,000 people in them.  i guess perimeter vs. area might cut down on some of the block-by-block sawtoothing that goes on in houston.  but a district, that, say, encompasses the more built up areas of the golden triangle also cutting some narrow line down I-10 to get over to baytown and pick up a similar population while letting the rural areas in between be able to represent themselves doesn't really offend my sensibilities. 

[Sawbonz 28091]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Bunch of shitty candidates is what drives low turnout. 

 

[Captainant 28414]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

^^while the courts still look at it, i don't know that compactness is necessarily a strength when districts have ~750,000 people in them.  i guess perimeter vs. area might cut down on some of the block-by-block sawtoothing that goes on in houston.  but a district, that, say, encompasses the more built up areas of the golden triangle also cutting some narrow line down I-10 to get over to baytown and pick up a similar population while letting the rural areas in between be able to represent themselves doesn't really offend my sensibilities. 

And there's also some statutory requirements from the VRA to ensure that minority communities are kept together, even if geographically disbursed. There's definitely shades of just how bad the gerrymandering can be though, and 538's Gerrymandering Project is a really nice study series on how and why our districts look they way they do.

I think an interesting metric is % of wasted votes in a district, along the lines of comparing total (for a state) percentage of votes cast for one party or another compared to the total percentage of seats/representation won. It doesn't do much to inform what an "optimal" shape is, but it's another strong indicator of gerrymandering in action.

It's a really interesting and unfortunate problem in that we struggle to even describe what the most fair shape of district is, considering how subjectively and objectively it's clear that our districting is not fair or representative of the actual aggregate vote of the people.

[bad_teammate 13482]

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris should be touring Arizona preaching the benefits of HR1 and outlining a true history of the filibuster to counter Sinema's stupidity.

Make it clear: You either support black rights or you oppose black rights. You cannot be neutral on a moving train. Sinema is choosing her side, and it is the side of white supremacy.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The overt sabotage of Biden’s agenda by Sinema and Manchin is the most appalling.  It’s as if they’re getting paid for every stupid OpEd they write defending the indefensible. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The overt sabotage of Biden’s agenda by Sinema and Manchin is the most appalling.  It’s as if they’re getting paid for every stupid OpEd they write defending the indefensible. 

It's one thing to stand in the way of universal healthcare or minimum wage or some ostensibly economic issue, but this is just straight up promotion of white supremacy. What good is this woke capitalist version of liberals if it doesn't even deliver on the woke side.

They are just Republicans.

[Js1 86965]

Jeanne Shaheen (up in '22) continues to appreciate your crazy-ex-girlfriend like obsession with only Manchin and Sinema re: the filibuster.  Takes all the heat off her. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

crazy ex-girlfriend like obsession with making sure black people can vote in America

Need to focus on important things like praising Democrats a lot for... reasons.

[BillyBadAss 197]

On 6/17/2021 at 3:45 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Bunch of shitty candidates is what drives low turnout. 

And partisan gerrymandering drives shitty candidates.

[BillyBadAss 197]

When sane people can win primaries again I think the cultures of the parties will start to change, the messaging and tactics will change, the national narratives will change, etc.  And hopefully we can get back to some sane semblance of governance where it's harder for shitbirds to be taken seriously and gain support in statewide/national races.

[Js1 86965]

16 minutes ago, BillyBadAss said:

And partisan gerrymandering drives shitty candidates.

This is also true.

Good candidates don't want to run in some of this shittily drawn districts that are extremely hard to win.  Like TX-02, there are probably dozens of people who live in Montrose/Heights/Spring Branch that could adequately represent their neighborhood and the local issues, but would lose because Spring/Kingwood (30-40 miles away) drown them out. 

[Queen Bitch 1692]

TBH I'm more mad at the voters in Maine and Cal Cunningham's sexts than I am Manchin or Sinema.

[Neonmoon 38130]

I found a song to celebrate today's vote

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34081]

 

[wildcat09 29562]

2 hours ago, BillyBadAss said:

And partisan gerrymandering drives shitty candidates.

Yes, as does the electoral college, and the existence of the Senate.

We get shitty candidates because there's not enough public demand for better, and there's not enough public demand for better because too few people vote, and too few people vote because the electoral system constantly tells them their vote doesn't matter.

[Js1 86965]

Not 10 GOP votes for today but Manchin is voting FOR. 

 

[Chuckie Finster 22987]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Not 10 GOP votes for today but Manchin is voting FOR. 

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

Pointless with the filibuster. Who gives a fuck 

[Satchel 6982]

On 6/17/2021 at 9:09 AM, Js1 said:

Stacey Abrams went on CNN and said she supports the compromise bill 

Yeah, that’s the problem. Some Russicans were warming up to the compromise until Stacey Abrams spilled black all over it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Some Russicans were warming up to the compromise

[washparkhorn 9967]

I wonder what cosplay character Sen. Sinema will be today when she votes. 

[Js1 86965]

I can *kind of* understand her op-Ed that blowing up the filibuster would mean the GOP can repeal anything with 50 votes. 

So fuck with the rules - 50 to pass something, 60 to repeal it. It should be harder to get rid of a law than it should be to pass one.  Repealing something is a tougher decision, politically. 

Hell it takes 50 to approve a SCOTUS nominee and 67 to get rid of them.  Make it make sense for legislation. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Js1

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The filibuster is a completely made up thing.  It’s not a law. It’s a rule a Senator made up for stupid reasons and they want to keep it for even more stupid reasons.  

[Js1 86965]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The filibuster is a completely made up thing.  It’s not a law. It’s a rule a Senator made up for stupid reasons and they want to keep it for even more stupid reasons.  

Exactly it’s a rule. So fuck with the rule to your liking. 

[washparkhorn 9967]

Republicans filibuster any debate on voting rights. 

[lemonlime 5503]

49 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I can *kind of* understand her op-Ed that blowing up the filibuster would mean the GOP can repeal anything with 50 votes. 

So fuck with the rules - 50 to pass something, 60 to repeal it. It should be harder to get rid of a law than it should be to pass one.  Repealing something is a tougher decision, politically. 

Hell it takes 50 to approve a SCOTUS nominee and 67 to get rid of them.  Make it make sense for legislation. 

The Republicans don't want to repeal anything. They only want to campaign on repealing shit.  They don't actually want their voters to be pissed off for losing health insurance, etc.   They just want to gin up grievances against Obamacare and black people.  The Republicans are fine with the filibuster even when they control the Senate-judges and tax cuts only need 50 votes.  There's no actual legislation they want to pass.

[David Dennison 19441]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Exactly it’s a rule. So fuck with the rule to your liking. 

What happens to a bill if it passes as a result of the legislative body blowing off its own rules?