The Senate has a filibuster. You need 60 votes to get around this. There is .2% possibility the Democrats will reach this:
I am surprised no one here sees Covid-19 as the number one priority. In fact so far no one has mentioned it at all.
Look, I think a lot of your points are well made, and up until 4 years ago, I likely would have agreed with you. But the Era of Trump has shown in the most graphic manner imaginable just how important it is to restore some balance to elective office.
All the people you named served more than 60 years ago. Those were times when both parties strove hard to honor the Constitutional norms upon which we have relied so heavily. It’s a different world now. I despise the partisanship that has invaded the Senate, but let’s be honest with ourselves: It’s one party that has made it so. We can’t let this situation get any worse.
I never imagined I’d be thinking about, let alone advocating for, expanding the Supreme Court, doing away with the filibuster or eliminating the Electoral College. But I can see that we’re not in the days of Eisenhower, Grant, Taft, Hoover and Taylor. Drastic times call for drastic measures.
And I’m not advocating for some 4-year term as a US Senator to qualify for a presidential run. Any public service position for 2 years would be helpful as a vetting tool. Is it really that onerous if you feel you’re the best person in the land to run the country?
I think it’s a given. Biden has run his entire campaign on offering a cohesive and effective plan for fighting COVID.
Why make it worse?
The idea of giving everyone an equal opportunity to vote but only for approved candidates is right out of the fascist playbook.
Because of the last 4 years.
There are already restrictions on who can run, a long road to getting elected, and provisions in the Constitution to remove such person if need be. I see no reason to create an even more elite class of citizens just because we didn’t like one guy.
One benefit of them having had a public office already is that they will have had to have divested themselves or put things into private trusts.
Nearly every public office has a requirement of some kind that prevents potential conflicts of interest. The only rule about that for the president is in the constitution, which is apparently not enforceable.
Unfortunately, any requirements for president would likely need an amendment to take place, and that’s a hard hill to climb.
Yes, mandatory disclosure of income sources & tax returns is possible, and I think it is a good idea.
Ban Voter suppression. That will prevent another trump. The GOP then will need a Moderate vs some extremist Dem. We have had some good Repub prez.
Not if the Dems win the Senate, read the OP.
There aren’t really that tight of restrictions on who can run, and it may be a long road, but you can see for yourself that it is navigable.
Removing them from office if need be is entirely a political thing, and will not happen if even a significant minority of senators side with the president out of partisanship.
It is not because we didn’t like one guy that these are being considered, it is that one guy abused the cracks in the system, and now that we know that they are there and can be abused, need to be filled in.
That’s easier said than done. Malignant actors will always try to find a way of suppressing the vote of their opponents.
I’ve always like the idea that representation should be based on number of votes cast, rather than a straight census count. That way, you actually want as many votes as possible, even for your opponent.
In Californias defense they have done some stuff on climate change and expanding voting rights, which is nice. But their health care is still a brutal mess.
Health care is tough at the state level, since if CA passed free healthcare for all, other states residents could just drive over and take advantage of it. CA is taking steps towards better health care.
So David Duke qualifies but Morris Dees doesn’t?
I also agree with @Joey_P, that holding a lower office for a period of time is likewise mandatory.
Would be Unconstitutional. The qualifications for prez are spelled out. No others can be added without amending the Constitution. Now, yes, you could require financial disclosure for all Federal public offices. But you cant add any qualifications just for for Prez.
Eliminate the Electoral College. Needs amending the Constitution, wont happen.
I do agree that Dems should spend their time focusing on what’s possible and not things that are heavy lifts. I also agree that hardening election protections and guaranteeing voter access will go far to ameliorate the structural problems.
I think one major problem with my argument is that it may not really fix anything. The real problem with Trump isn’t Trump. It is the corrupt Republican senators that permitted these egregious actions by Trump by failing to hold him to account as they are duty-bound to do. And most if not all of these corrupt Republican senators held previous public offices before attaining their current levels of power.
So I’ll concede the point re holding of public office as a threshold for running for president as maybe not a great idea.
All of this is great, except maybe the Federal Holiday part. First, just because it is a Federal Holiday, that doesnt mean companies have to give their employees that day off.
Second, a day off may just mean a vacation trip, instead of voting.
Instead, a mandatory paid four hours to vote.
Yes, but also a vote in person option.
-Eliminate legislative filibuster (maybe make it a talking filibuster, how it used to be)
-Science and medicine based COVID plan, along with economic relief plan – something like everyone gets 3 grand per month or something for X months as the scientists say is necessary for everyone to stay home. Maybe receiving that money can be based on some sort of binding promise to follow mask and social distancing guidelines.
-Statehood for DC and PR as soon as possible (i.e. as soon as the PR referendum is done, and assuming it favors statehood)
-Expand all courts including SCOTUS
-Consider other statehoods if they are interested (Guam, USVI, and possibly others like Marianas Islands and American Samoa)
-More robust voting rights act, including holiday for election day, mandatory access to early/mail in voting, etc.
-Expand the size of the House of Rep if possible, based on smallest state’s population as “standard” size for a seat
-anti-Gerrymandering law
-Higher minimum wage
-Public option and more improvements for ACA
-Carbon tax or other emissions-reducing legislation
-Public broadband for all (may have to work with states for this)
-Massive infrastructure spending, including modernizing power and rail systems
-Lots more progressive priorities that don’t jump to my mind
The Senate has a filibuster. You need 60 votes to get around this.
The Senate filibuster can be voted away by a simple majority. The GOP already did this for SCOTUS Nominations, which is why we have Kavanaugh.
It was done. But it ran out. It can be done again.