I don’t know what it is you’re asking about here. Who are these ten Republicans?
From context, I suspect lum_s_husband is alluding to the fact that ten Republican senators would be needed to cross party lines and get any proposed legislation past the filibuster.
Are the two of us missing something that’s more apparent to you?
Asking for Republican support of our ideas does not seem to be an effective way to further them.
Well said. All the more reason for the Republican Party to stop existing, so the filibuster will no longer be a tool to prevent the furthering of the ideas.
ETA: Factionis Republicanis est delendo.
Okay, I see the issue. I apparently wasn’t clear.
I feel the Democrats should ask the Republicans for their support in enacting voting rights laws. But enacting the voting rights laws would not in any way be conditional on Republican agreement. There should be no negotiating or compromising.
I am certain the Republicans would refuse any such offer. But the offer should be made as part of the process of establishing which side the Republicans are on.
Then the Democrats would go on to make voting rights a top campaign issue as I described. And I am predicting they can win elections if they do so. And after those elections, the Democrats will have enough seats in Congress that they can override any opposition from the remaining Republicans and enact voting rights without any Republican support.
After that, the Republicans will either wither away because they are unable to win fair elections or they will have to change into a party that can win fair elections. Either way is an improvement.
But how do Canadians keep the Elections Canada commission neutral? Is there some mechanism involved that prevents government officials from loading the commission with their partisan supporters? Or is it something government officials just choose not to do because it wouldn’t be polite?
It’s like the Supreme Court here in the United States. It’s supposed to be a politically neutral body. But elected officials decided to politicize it by appointing partisan justices.
There is no future where Democrats have 60 Senate votes for voting rights.
Or 50 votes to end the filibuster.
Help if you can, otherwise get out of the way.
Maybe if you need help loading minorities into the cattle cars so they won’t get in the way of your progress.
This is where the disagreement exists, I think.
I see the Democrats as saying they are protecting voting rights, and the Republicans as saying they are protecting election integrity. Both appeal to their base, and the needle doesn’t really move all that much.
You seem to be indicating that the Republican voters will be shamed into voting for Democrats once the Republican politicians have shown themselves to be against voting rights, but I just can’t agree with that assumption. Half of the Republican voters want “other people” to have their voting rights restricted, and the other half believe the lie about protecting election integrity.
Meanwhile, while the Democrats are off fighting that battle, Republicans continue to chip away at all of the social progress made over the last half century. Marginalized groups feel abandoned, and allies of marginalized groups like myself feel as though we have abandoned them. I can’t see a scenario where I don’t show up to the polls and vote D straight down these days, but I will do so with less enthusiasm as I have in the past, and my lack of enthusiasm equates to a whole lot of people who don’t even bother.
I think that getting all the people who usually don’t bother to vote to be motivated to show up to the polls will make a much bigger difference than the number of voters who are turned away. In fact, for every voter turned away, we can probably motivate several people to show up that otherwise wouldn’t have.
Now, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t work on voter rights, and we are working on voter rights. I just don’t think that we should drop everything else to focus exclusively on voter rights, as I think that loses us a whole lot more votes than it gains us. And it also abandons large groups of marginalized people who really can’t survive being abandoned right now.
Nah, after that, the Republicans gain majorities in the House and Senate, Biden spends the last two years as a lame duck, and we elect Trump or Desantis as President. The Democrats wither away because they really don’t stand for anything or anyone, and we more or less get one party rule for a few generations or the fall of the US as a viable country, whichever happens first.
Sounds like you just volunteered to “help” in that fashion entirely on your own. The scenario seems to be a bit too exciting for you here.
When the Republicans open their LGBTQ camps, will the Democrats and our friends in this thread jeopardize their chances of progress by objecting?
Or will the obvious, moral, thing be to go along with it and secure the victories “we” can get?
This thread points to the later.
I count on nothing from Republican voters. They’ve shown how worthless they are.
But there is a large body of apathetic voters in this country, who are neither Republican or Democrats. These people ignore normal elections but they can be prodded into voting if enough effort is put into convincing them that there’s an important issue being voted on.
That’s what happened two years ago. Donald Trump was such a terrible President that a record number of people showed up on Election Day to vote against him. It is still possible to beat the Republicans.
For now anyway. The Republicans know they are a minority so they are doing all they can to make sure they never have to face another fair election. In as short a period as ten years, it might be too late for us to take back the country by an election.
The Republicans won’t have just a LGBTQ camp. They’ll also have a camp for black people. And a camp for feminists. And a camp for Muslims. And a camp for illegal aliens. And a camp for protestors. And a camp for environmentalists. And a camp for people who want gun control. And a camp for doctors and nurses. And a camp for scientists. And a camp for teachers and librarians.
Some people will be yelling “We have to shut down this camp! This is the biggest emergency! So this is where everyone should be fighting!”
And then they’ll look around and see other people are yelling the same thing - except they are pointing at a different camp. So then they’ll start fighting over which camp is the worst one and wasting energy fighting each other rather than fighting against any camp.
I’m saying we should stop fighting over which camp is the worst one and bring the fight to the people who built all of the camps.
It’s helpful when fascists reveal themselves.
(From Elections Canada site)
Once appointed, the Chief Electoral Officer reports directly to Parliament and is thus completely independent of government and political parties. As of 2014, the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed for a 10-year non-renewable term. He or she can be removed only for cause, by the Governor General, following a joint address of the House of Commons and Senate.
The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible (among other things) for making sure that changing electoral boundries confirms to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This Act is really quite specific in how it would NOT allow political interference for the benefit of a particular political party.
Each commission consists of a chairperson, normally a provincial court judge who is appointed by the chief justice of the province,and two other individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons “from among such persons resident in that province as the Speaker deems suitable”.No sitting member of the Senate or of the House of Commons or of a provincial or territorial legislature can be appointed to a commission.
Even IF the commission could be stacked with partisans,
before writing its report, each commission publishes in the Canada Gazette , as well as in newspapers in the province, a map or drawing showing the proposed electoral boundaries for the province and invites electors and Members of the House of Commons to public meetings held in locations that will encourage the attendance of as many interested people as possible.
In sum, there really is no way to game the system.
I have to admit I’m not seeing it this way. It seems to be like a system that would be very easy to game. All it would take is a political party willing to place its own interests above those of the nation or the law. Which is unfortunately a situation we have here in America.
^ agree. We have one political party that is so intent on winning their minions are out there right now harassing non-political officers of school boards and elections offices, trying to get them to quit, because they are perveived to be on the “wrong” side. They also stacked the courts for four years with judges selected for their political lean.
If any party tried to game the electoral ridings, they would be reduced in the next election to a dozen seats if they were lucky.
eg. the 1993 election, where the Conservatives went from 203 seats and a majority government to 2 seats. We are not a two party system with a guaranteed voting bloc. Perhaps this is the difference; We seem to be OK with jettisoning an entire political party if it pisses us off.
Yes, that’s a big part of our problem. It’s not just the Republican politicians who cheat the system. It’s the Republican voters who see them cheating the system and still support them.
I don’t imagine a Canadian Prime Minister who asked his supporters to overthrow the government so he could stay in power would have gotten the response Trump did.