As a long-time advocate of election-based progressive social change I have called for things like economic boycotts to pressure the elites toward a more democratic order. I am beginning to believe that is a naive outlook. Howso? Because a democratic society is no longer possible given the fact that there are, at least in western developed countries, too many people. Unhappily, the elites understand this very well, but their solution to overpopulation is to kill off a major segment of it and to justify that genocide by convincing the
"underclasses" of their own undesirability and turning them on each other. The stress that creates leads to desperate competitive efforts to survive, and to ill health among those who lose the struggle. Absent healthcare, these people will die off across generations and the world will ultimately be home to a fraction of today's population. This scenario is possible because of the forced changes of technological progress whose effects are to eliminate or at least drastically limit economic opportunities. Right now the basics of this plan are in place and their effects are only going to expand. So win all the elections you can, but there will remain the increasing problem of what to do about all those people who awake every day with no place to go or nothing meaningful to do within the law. The easiest solution? Kill them off. Only how to do it without destroying the trappings and treasures of civilization is the issue that remains. Neutron bombs anyone?
More like the population bomb. Have humanity grow unchecked, deny them the resources to survive, and then watch them eat each other like a plague of rats. The elites should (or I guess for our sake shouldn't) be careful. The phrase "eat the rich" exists for a reason and the people might very well turn on the elite.
like let's have a war, everybody! or several wars....while we're denying 3/4 of the world adequate water, food, and health care...... is that what you're getting at? malthusian theory in real life?
Does voting overhaul include taking the money and revolving doors out of politics? If not it's a ploy from neoliberal Democrats.
"...ensure that Every Voter has their Voice Represented in Congress and make real progress toward Bi-Partisan Focus on getting results for the American People."
At this point it is obvious that 300 Million Citizens need FAR more than merely a Bi-Partisan Choice.
First of all, Both Parties take the Same Bribe Money. in lieu of actually representing their Constituent's wishes..
Chuck the Duopoly.
We the People need a New Party to finally TELL THE TRUTH about where our Tax Money goes, and Why it should go Elsewhere.
About who Tampered with our Elections, AFTER we voted in Our President in 1960, by overthrowing him through CIA/Miltary/FBI treason.
Theme Song already recorded, by Derek and the Dominoes.
Instead of focusing on the real issue, we are getting all ginned up about a minor issue. We set ourselves up intentionally with our arcane voting system, that no other Democracy would tolerate. Putin/Trump lost the popular vote by 10.6 million votes! France beat back the Putin/Le Pen machine. OK so Putin?May have won, BUT? The new "MAIL IN YOUR VOTER LIST scheme is also scary. Can you imagine a national voter data bank in the hands of one political party?
Secure, encrypted, online voting is the future. Why not now?
Scrap the Electoral College!
The website for The Kobachchurians ( Kobach + brainwashed folks ) Voter Data Collection System is not secure. It is not intended to be as its data can be directly downloaded to the White House. Pretty brazen if you think about it, unfortunately it's entirely predictable, too. Simply, not cool, folks.
The last people on U.S. soil I want having my voting information, or anything else like that, is an official working in the Trump Adm. They've earned they're questionable reputation.
As to the issues put forth in this article ( gerrymandering ) and proposed legislative remedies to our current state voting laws, counting systems, etc; I certainly endorse any effort to increase participation, accuracy and transparency.
P.S. Trump lost by 2.86 million, right?
From the article:
"they must follow Beyer's lead and become "the party of democratic renewal" by "promoting bold and meaningful changes that empower voters to end the malaise"
There's not much chance of that happening as long as the Democratic party is controlled by the corrupt, corporate Democrats. - They lost to Trump, for Jake's sake! --- The people have seen what they want - Bernie Sanders. Polls show he continues to be, by far, the most popular politician in America.
It's time for a Progressive force, be it in the Democratic party, or in the new People's party being proposed to draft Bernie Sanders.
While ranked voting or IRV would be a significant improvement, I would like to modestly suggest another solution that would both strengthen third parties and make gerrymandering irrelevant in the same move. That is, everyone who runs for office and gets an arbitrary minimum of the vote - e.g. 5% - goes to office and wields a vote in the legislature proportional to their share of the electorate.
I think independent redistricting is far more important than what method we use to select a candidate for office. Unfortunately, under the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I worry a constitutional amendment would be needed to ensure independent redistricting is upheld--a long shot for sure.