President Biden said he won’t expand the Supreme Court because doing so would “politicize” the court in an unhealthy way. But it’s a political institution by its nature — and a disturbingly undemocratic one.

President Biden said he won’t expand the Supreme Court because doing so would “politicize” the court in an unhealthy way. But it’s a political institution by its nature — and a disturbingly undemocratic one.

  • TinyPizza@kbin.social
    6·
    1 year ago

    I love the idea of getting people out to vote. I’ve knocked on thousands of doors for dems to such ends. How is asking more of politicians and calling them out unrealistic? Is that not what the Kochs and other wealthy conservatives did when they funded the “grassroots” Tea party which then largely began a race to the right for Republicans? Because that worked.

    I can understand that frustration with voters. How about we demand legislation making the vote mandatory (like australia) or that all votes be made federal holidays? The point is that there’s things that can be done. More than the bare minimum isn’t idealism. And we can say we’d never get the votes, but why not try? Republicans literally trot out legislation that would never pass for that very reason.

    My point is that the authorities are in no way being held to account and that I’m sick of people only putting the blame at the feet of the voters. We can’t even trust candidates to act as Dems, such as Sinema or Cotham. Why is a call for greater candidate accountability at all “idealist” in the face of this stuff?

    • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
      2·
      1 year ago

      I can understand that frustration with voters. How about we demand legislation making the vote mandatory (like australia) or that all votes be made federal holidays?

      So charge the poor because their work doesn’t give them days off on voting day. I mean we can push for things hell the whole covid thing has actually helped quite a bit for pushing mail in voting. I think this has been bloody great since it allows people to research their candidates at length and mail in your ballot once you are done and ready. It should just be an automatic thing but many will fight against it.

      My point is that the authorities are in no way being held to account and that I’m sick of people only putting the blame at the feet of the voters. We can’t even trust candidates to act as Dems, such as Sinema or Cotham. Why is a call for greater candidate accountability at all “idealist” in the face of this stuff?

      So tell me how you plan on holding them to account? Realistically the only thing you can do is vote them out in the next election, which again falls back to the voter to be aware of what they did and make sure it doesn’t happen again. The only thing else would having to be proposing a provision in the law for a recall but beyond that the answer is always going to be a vigilant and active voter base. We live in a world where people can barely give a shit about politics already

      • TinyPizza@kbin.social
        2·
        1 year ago

        To your first point:
        A holiday to highlight both the importance of elections and give people time to vote in the manner they deem fit is a minimal loss of income in return for the guarantee they are not disenfranchised. It’s not only a net gain down the line for increased wages and benefits but also important in the ability to make voting a family affair. Additionally, you framing it as a financial burden or tax upon the poor feels gross and makes me wonder about your intent. If you’re worried about people living paycheck to paycheck, then we figure out a stipend or credit to be determined at tax time and or more immediate emergency financial assistance where needed. We pay people for jury duty, why not credit them for voting?

         Lets do mail ins too, but understand that plenty of states go out of their way to disenfranchise voters and will not approve such a thing. Truly, for it to be a yearly recognized holiday congress must approve it, but singular one offs have happened by EO before, they just need to be cleverly worded. When it comes to voting, presenting every possible option and greatest window of time should always be the bare minimum we strive for, regardless of which party or candidate it benefits.

        To your second point:
        Off the top of my head we develop some sort of actionable pledge of intent or pact that we should get candidates to sign on to as a contract. Again, I don’t like it but the tea party had a similar “contract from America” It should state a candidates outward opinions and beliefs and outline from that baseline a point that they identify that they will not cross. If a candidate voluntarily signs themselves into legal liability that could devastate their current and future financial holdings it should act as a buffer to corruption.

        Have the DNC adopt a base form of this and help to bankroll any litigation that comes from it. Nothing overtly wild in any of that. Just basically saying you are unequivocally center or to the left and what your current set of beliefs are. People sign contracts and NDA's for work as a standard and I see little difference in that mechanism. There's certainly alternatives to that but there's at least one option. I'm sure people can figure out others that would serve the similar purpose of vetting yourself to the public and staying true to some sort of set of core principals.

        People might start to give a shit if they see a meaningful change.

        Edit: formatting change from numbered list to listed points, because the published version looked bunched up. deleted repeat word typo