Bothsidesing

[macdoc]

"The Honorable Member has been in so many panties he is a complete political harlot."

read that wrong first go ....

[pErvinalia]

[Seabass]

You have such a weird fucking system. We have a highly professional independent Electoral Commission that handles everything to do with voting at all levels. Parties appoint their own scrutineers, but they are purely observers, and I don't remember any protests from scrutineers or controversies whatsoever. You have an antiquated system that is creaking and showing its horse and buggy age...

You'll never guess which party has been trying to update and secure our election systems and which party has put the kibosh on all of it.

For the People Act of 2019

This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration and voting access and limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.

The bill also sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, protecting the security of the voter rolls, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect the security and integrity of U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

This bill addresses campaign spending, including by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; expanding disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political advertising.

This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices. The system involves federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.

This bill sets forth provisions related to ethics in all three branches of government. Specifically, the bill requires a code of ethics for federal judges and justices, prohibits Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, expands enforcement of regulations governing foreign agents, and establishes additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... use-bill/1

Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019

This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices in these areas may take effect. (Preclearance is the process of receiving preapproval from the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making legal changes that would affect voting rights.)

A state and all of its political subdivisions shall be subject to preclearance of voting practice changes for a 10-year period if (1) 15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the state during the previous 25 years; or (2) 10 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years, at least one of which was committed by the state itself. A political subdivision as a separate unit shall also be subject to preclearance for a 10-year period if three or more voting rights violations occurred there during the previous 25 years.

A state or political subdivision that obtains a declaratory judgment that it has not used a voting practice to deny or abridge the right to vote shall be exempt from preclearance.

All jurisdictions must preclear changes to requirements for documentation to vote that make the requirements more stringent than federal requirements for voters who register by mail or state law.

The bill specifies practices jurisdictions meeting certain thresholds regarding racial minority groups, language minority groups, or minority groups on Indian land, must preclear before implementing. These practices include changes to methods of election, changes to jurisdiction boundaries, redistricting, changes to voting locations and opportunities, and changes to voter registration list maintenance.

The bill expands the circumstances under which (1) a court may retain the authority to preclear voting changes made by a state or political subdivision, or (2) the Department of Justice may assign election observers.

States and political subdivisions must notify the public of changes to voting practices.

The bill revises the circumstances under which a court must grant preliminary injunctive relief in a challenge to voting practices.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... use-bill/4

[Brian Peacock]

Meh. Tinkering round the edges rather than addressing the failings of an antiquated system as a whole. Jim's point is that political organisations shouldn't have authority over electoral systems because they have skin in the game.

[Seabass]

The hell? You call that tinkering?

[Brian Peacock]

I'd call that an attempt to ameliorate the legislative burdens placed on the systems by the other lot without addressing the underlying issues. Tinkering.

[JimC]

It would certainly be an improvement, I can see that, but won't it attract the wrath of the "State's Rights" people? Part of your problems seem to be that every state has it's own idiosyncratic way of running elections, and won't want to be told how to do it by the feds...

Is there a chance in hell the measures could be actually achieved?

[Seabass]

I'd call that an attempt to ameliorate the legislative burdens placed on the systems by the other lot without addressing the underlying issues. Tinkering.

There's a lot of great stuff in those bills... national holiday for voting, automatic voter registration, independent commission to draw districts, a new voting rights act which is sorely needed after what Republicans have been doing since scotus gutted the old one, etc...

If you want to call that "tinkering", fine, but can you at least admit that on this issue the Dems are light years better than Republicans?

It would certainly be an improvement, I can see that, but won't it attract the wrath of the "State's Rights" people? Part of your problems seem to be that every state has it's own idiosyncratic way of running elections, and won't want to be told how to do it by the feds...

Is there a chance in hell the measures could be actually achieved?

Well, the Republicans certainly aren't going to support it, so to pass it, the Dems would have to control the WH, both chambers of Congress, and get rid of the filibuster. Given how much the apportionment of senators and the Electoral college help the Republicans, yes, it is a steep hill to climb...

[JimC]

What I meant was, even if passed federally, the States may stand on their constitutional rights, which I understand includes effective control of the voting process their way in each state...

[pErvinalia]

Organising the US states is like trying to herd cats.

[Hermit]

Organising the US states is like trying to herd cats.

Excuse me! Don't insult cats!!!11!!!1!!

They may be difficult to herd, but it's a skill that can be mastered.

[pErvinalia]

[Joe]

Organising the US states is like trying to herd cats.

Yeahbut, we have instruction manuals.

[Seabass]

What I meant was, even if passed federally, the States may stand on their constitutional rights, which I understand includes effective control of the voting process their way in each state...

Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate how our elections are run. The states would have to comply with federal laws.

[Brian Peacock]

What I meant was, even if passed federally, the States may stand on their constitutional rights, which I understand includes effective control of the voting process their way in each state...

Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate how our elections are run. The states would have to comply with federal laws.

Congress is made up of people and parties who have a vested interest in how the system operates at both the federal and state level, which is why you've ended up in the situation where one side or the other effectively attempts to wiggle into a position to coral the operation of democracy around their political interests. This is a dilemma for all democracies of course, and to balance it all parties to Democracy (voters and political operators, society) have to acknowledge some need for an electoral systems that operates independently of political imperatives and control.

In the US's current climate I doubt that there could be enough consensus on the first principle that every citizen has an automatic and de facto right to vote, and therefore should be automatically registered and entitled at the age of majority regardless of who they are and where they live, to effect a meaningful change in the operation of democracy.

As Jim mentioned, the state's right to order elections as their legislatures see fit is a lever of power one suspects most US political operatives would be reluctant to abandon - simply because the system which brings a party to power is the one least likely to be changed by that party once in power, particularly under a plurality voting system. This suggests to me that electoral reform needs to start at the other end of the system - from the ground up, at the local level of the precinct, district, or county, and bubble up through the system until it finally reaches Congress. I'm sure both of us could come up with at least five arguments liberals and neo-liberals might forward as to why an electoral system free from political control would be a bad idea - and it is those kind of arguments that, at the moment at least, form the basis and context of the debates around electoral reform, because, culturally speaking, liberalism's voice is the loudest of all participant as well as being assumed to be correct in all matters.