Home | About | Donate

Reintroduced 'For the People Act' Praised for Its Potential to Bring Sweeping Democracy Reforms

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/05/reintroduced-people-act-praised-its-potential-bring-sweeping-democracy-reforms

1 Like

So, it has now finally become clear that there is an assault on democracy in America.
Someone must have wiped the dust and dirt off of their rose colored glasses. Who knew? A trumpian remark.
Who knew democracy would be so hard?


"About Damn Time."

It must be promoted to show to the nation that whosoever votes against it, is “not” someone who wants to represent the American people.

Unanimous Consensus Or Bust!


Here is another important reform - how about a uniform primary election system eliminating interference by the parties? How about it Democrats, follow through with democratic elections.


One good thing to come out of this travesty of an administration. And I mean one.

1 Like

SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 2013, claiming that the Act was “based on 40 year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day”.

In the past six and a half years, have the Democrats held any Congressional hearings to gather current facts, build popular support for a new Act, and put the Republicans on the spot?


But the primaries are party events. There should be no state participation in party processes, including party primaries. Why does the state run primary elections for political parties? Let the parties put forward their party candidates, selected by whatever process the party uses. And let the state set simple, fair, equitable ballot qualification standards that do not give preference or privilege to party candidates.

Let every candidate who meets the qualifications, appear on the ballot, and let the qualifications be simple and equitable: Citizen, resident, of age, and achieve a certain level of public support through signatures representing a small percentage of the electorate, say 5%.

Get the state out of the business of party candidate selection. It’s just a function of duopoly politics.

Or, conversely, let there be a single state-run all-candidate primary election that determines which candidates will appear in the general election. Again, giving no preference or privilege to party candidates in the state-run all-candidate primary election. Any primary candidate achieving a set percentage of the vote – again, say 5% – will appear on the general election ballot.

And let the general election be run by a voting system that allows voters to weigh in on every candidate on the ballot, like Approval Voting or Score Voting or Ranked Choice Voting, so that voters can vote for their preferred candidate without worrying about “wasting their vote” or “lesser evil” voting.



Yes - they held hearings and passed this bill in the last Congress. It was not moved in the Senate.


Thanks for the update.

I obviously missed the news about the hearings, and today I’m too lazy to do the research. That’s why I posted the question without griping about the Democrats!


Because of GATS and TISA they have a vested interest in having other excuses to blame the policy lock FTAs created on, so no.

Let’s wait & see if it passes fairly intact, both House & Senate + signed by Biden. Then I can say, “1 good thing”.
(I think I’ve become jaded?)

1 Like

Indeed. It’s only been overdue for 70 years or so, but Dems never want to rush into things.

1 Like

Think of the absolute numbers 5% represents. Even ONE percent for a presidential candiate would be about 2M verifiable signatures—and who would verify them?. If support could be shown online (sign in and tick boxes) that’d be okay as long as everyone has meaningful web access, but there’s no way in hell it would be legitimate to require 5% otherwise.

i’m fine with electronic signatures. No reason not to be. And 5% is just a number, maybe 2% for a national office. Just putting ideas out, but the general principle that the state should not be involved in party processes stands, as does the need for clear equitable ballot access that does not give preference to parties.


Then the problem backs up a step: universal access to the inet, using their own computer. How do we solve that, other than making the inet a public utility?

1 Like

Haven’t we all. (Become jaded.)

After today, I suspect the impulse will be great for positive change.

1 Like


1 Like

First we have to go back in time to before the early 1990s. Before the WTO was created, binding services.

Then we have to not google Universal Service Obligations, Since it doesnt exist.

It seems there is nothing written that I know of thats specific to the US but you can read about USOs in Europe and how they interact with SGEIs . Markus Krejewski has written about it.

If we have any sense, we’ll dump the WTO and NAFTA, because they create the antithesis of free trade (but you know that).