Progress is slow but........

Minnesota Legislature Passes Pro-Voting Reforms in Funding Bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Thursday, April 20, the Minnesota Senate passed House File 1830, an omnibus state government funding bill that includes several pro-voting election reforms. The 182-page bill already passed the House, but lawmakers must agree on the differences between each chamber’s version before H.F. 1830 heads to Gov. Tim Walz (D) for his signature.

H.F. 1830 covers a range of spending priorities, but also outlines a handful of voting reforms. Election law changes incorporated within H.F. 1830 include:

• Establishing 18 days of in-person early voting. Currently, Minnesota has an early voting period of 46 days before Election Day, but the only options available during that time are sending in a mail-in ballot or filling out a mail-in ballot at an elections office.

• Restricting voter challenges, a process by which, under current Minnesota law, any eligible voter can challenge the eligibility of another voter. H.F. 1830 would ban mass challenges by requiring officials to reject any effort to challenge “the eligibility of more than one voter,” limit the time frame before an election and add new evidence expectations for the grounds of a challenge. “The filer has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the basis for challenging the individual’s eligibility to vote is valid,” the bill text reads.

• Joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an alternative to the Electoral College that would ensure that the winner of the national popular vote becomes president. Currently, 15 states and Washington D.C., accounting for 195 electoral votes, have signed onto the interstate agreement; it will take effect once states with 75 more electoral votes join. Once signed, Minnesota will move the compact 10 electoral votes closer to enactment.

https://www.democracydocket.com/new...re-passes-pro-voting-reforms-in-funding-bill/

It is said “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I don't know if we will ever achieve majoritarian governance in this country but seeing incremental progress gives me hope. Getting rid of the EC is a step in the right direction. Now if gerrymandering could only be outlawed perhaps the people's agenda might have a chance of being enacted.

 

The national popular vote interstate compact is unconstitutional.

 

Sorry, but no.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.1

 

The Supreme Court ruled that faithless electors are unconstitutional. A states electors have to vote the way of their state.

Are you pushing for fake electors?

 

You sure about that?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/amp/

We are pushing for elections that represent the will of the people. Each person’s vote should be equal when determining president.

The only reason y’all don’t support it is you know y’all might win once a decade looking at history.

 

This from someone who believes ONLY his side is right.

 

No, that's a Trump thing.

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for president.

More specifically, the decision allows states to pass laws requiring presidential electors to cast their votes in a manner that faithfully reflects their commitment to vote for the person they promised to choose when they were nominated as an elector.

Supporters of a popular vote for president should understand two important and positive things about the court’s decision. First, the ruling underscores the fact that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution accords states broad power over their electors. Justice Kagan wrote in the opinion for eight justices:

“Article II, section 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As [the Constitution says], each State may appoint electors ‘in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.’ … This Court has described that clause as ‘conveying the broadest power of determination’ over who becomes an elector.”

The opinion goes on:

“The Constitution is barebones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, [its presidential electors]. The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. … That is all.”

 

I believe the country's agenda should be set by the majority of voters. And that the president we elect should be determined by who gets the most votes. If you find those to be radical ideas perhaps you are not familiar with the fundamental concepts of democracy.

 

Hi, Lee Atwater.

If you are expecting Republicans to opt for simple majority rule based upon the concept of 'one person, one vote', with every vote of equal 'strength', don't.

The party platform of the Texas Republican Party for 2022 aims to reverse the present popular vote for our Federal Senate members, among other things. See Section 19. d. on page 4 of the document. Other sections make interesting reading, too.

To be fair, the drafters of the Constitution seemed to place little faith in the vote of the hoi polloi. Voting at that time was limited to what we would today term the 'elite'.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Ref: 2022-RPT-Platform.pdf (texasgop.org)

 

I am not so naive as to think Repubs will relinquish the power their minority status affords to them. As for the intent of the Founders, I am not an originalist because it is objectively true to say the Constitution has been amended......by necessity......in numerous instances. The Founders came up with a great concept but were not omniscient. One of their mistakes was the now anachronistic concessions they made to less populated states of the time in order to get the Constitution passed and the country's government established. Much of what they set in motion has stood the test of time. The EC has not. Nor has the disproportionate composition of the Senate favoring states with small populations but that's a subject for another day.

 

Yeah because you always convince 50.001% that they are entitled to the 49.999% life, liberty and wealth. Never mind that history reveals that the governing powers they have yielded to will never give them much more than table scraps, and expect in return for that as much ass kissing as the leadership feels they deserve which means prepare to spend the rest of your days on your knees puckered up.

 

Indeed much of what was originally envisioned by the constitution has been shown to be inefficient given the many more years the world has had to observe the successes and failures of liberal democracies. First past the post voting used instead of instant runoff / ranked choice voting. Single member districts for legislative bodies. Direct appointment of judges instead of keeping them separate from politics. Probably these are the most important in my opinion. The 2nd of which would solve your gerrymandering problem.

Of course making said changes would remove the mechanics that ensure the political establishment remain established. So their likelihood of changing is exceedingly low.

 

Ok then, THIS from someone who believes Trump is the worst thing to happen to the United States…….. EVER….
Your kind remembers nothing PB (pre-biden).

Obviously your kind remembers, but will never admit: pre-biden was a time when the average taxpaying citizen didn’t struggle nowhere near as much as they struggle today….

I get it, in your world President Trump destroyed our country, right?

However, in reality: things didn’t get this bad until our current leader came into power.

My point: brace yourself and your loved ones for the next presidential election because: POS politicians are addicted to power and will do ANYTHING to keep that power.

So Lee, when things come undone during the 2024 election, you CANNOT say someone didn’t warn you…..


Also, you can’t blame tRump this time because: those you elected are currently in charge….

 

In just ways are things so bad now?

 

?

 

We're all working and everybody's hiring everywhere. . That's always been the main general indicator that things are going well, unless Republicans are out of power. .

 

If you want to look at what is the primary driver of things not being as “good” as one should expect in an economy growing like the US, especially comparatively to the rest of the world — look at the profit margins of the largest corporations here. We are being bled dry as they profiteer while inflation is still running rampant.

 

You and I agree on the profit margins, however I doubt we agree upon where the blame lies.
I blame corrupt politicians on both sides. They have meetings with other countries, big tech and the worlds richest people that you and I will never know the details of.

The biggest problem in the U.S, today is that the people are so divided that it’s so much easier to attack “your fellow citizens” than to work to unite each other and fight against the obvious corrupt politicians.

 

No it’s not. And declaring it so and then enforcing it would be impossible.

It’s a State’s right and responsibility to conduct elections, that’s all the Constitution says about it. At one time EC electors had the ability to vote as they saw fit, which is how the votes of the EC were originally envisioned. Now an EC voter can be penalized if they don’t vote with the outcome in their State. The upshot is State’s have assumed the right to control how their EC votes are cast.

 

Pssssst! Out of control price increases caused by government. The low unemployment was caused indirectly by government as well. Government shut down the economy because of a bad flu outbreak and people are back in the market place, no thanks to government.

 

I think I understand you. You say that the states have constitutional authority to operate elections but can have the results of that election undermined by one or more black sheep electors. Bizarre.

 

No, you don’t understand. In Federalist 68 Hamilton explains and justifies the EC. His justification is that “choosing the highest magistrate in the land is far to important a decision to be left to the general population, that might be easily swayed by a glib conman. Therefore it should be done by educated men who would not be so influenced and would be a safe guard against a man of low moral character attaining the office of president.

Since then States have decided their EC electors are bound by the general election, short circuiting the original intent of the EC.

 

Electors can't go against the popular vote of their state.

That's democracy. Right?

 

As it should be. The founders could never have envisioned what we have done to government and politics. The intent of the EC was to put states on a fairly equal footing, not to undermine an election.

 

Oh I 100% agree this is due to companies buying politicians who then turn around and allow this to be possible. The reason is still the corporations though. Politicians are just their tool.