Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Quote:
What Could the Democrats Do If They Decided to Play Dirty in the Future?

Many Democrats are still smarting from the loss of Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat. What the Republicans did was unconventional, but perfectly legal. Now, political scientist David Faris has written a book describing what the Democrats could do if they win control of Congress and the White House in 2020 and decide to play dirty pool, but strictly legal dirty pool. Here are some of his steps.

+Abolish the filibuster so any bill can pass the Senate with 50 votes and the veep

+Make D.C. a state, which would add two black Democratic senators to the Senate

+Make Puerto Rico a state, which would add two Latino Democrats to the Senate

+Break California into multiple states to add yet more Democrats to the Senate

+Expand the Supreme Court to 11 (or more) justices, and have the president appoint 40-year-olds

All of the above requires nothing more than Congress passing laws. None of them require a constitutional amendment. That done, Democrats could then tackle voting rights. The Constitution unambiguously gives Congress the power to set the rules for federal elections. A new voting rights law could require a 2-week period of early voting from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day, make pre-registration of 17-year-olds legal nationwide, forbid states from passing voter-ID laws or imposing any voting requirements not stated in the Constitution, and make it a federal crime to intimidate a voter. The law could also make Election Day a national holiday for federal employees (the vast majority of whom happen to be Democrats). Federal contracts could also require that the contractor (and its subcontractors) give all employees Election Day off.

Faris also suggests fighting gerrymandering by doubling the size of the House and having multimember districts with proportional representation. If a two-member gerrymandered district had, say, 55% Republicans and 45% Democrats, then the Republicans would get 1.1 seats and the Democrats would get 0.9 seats. Since cutting up people to satisfy competing wishes hasn't been in vogue since the days of King Solomon, each party would get 1 seat, thus defeating the purpose of the gerrymander.


Which of these steps would you support, if any?

I personally would be okay with "all of the above", because what Garland and Trump's nomination and administration has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the GOP cares more about party than values and the rule of law.

Additionally, the Dems platform is clearly more aligned with American values on most topics (based on polls and winning the popular vote in every national election since 1996 except for 2004), but if the they don't start matching the GOP in punching below the belt, the GOP will keep using voter suppression, gerrymandering, and other tactics to maintain their hold on power.

The Dems are far from perfect and would become even worse if they developed a stranglehold on power, but that would eventually lead to a realignment and maybe get the GOP to start practicing what they preach.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I wouldn’t support any of those things except Puerto Rico maybe but I think that is up to them.

Not a huge fan a cheating in general.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you love civil war, by all means make plans to continue with the tit for tat with a little bit of escalation thrown in there each time power changes hands.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
If you love civil war, by all means make plans to continue with the tit for tat with a little bit of escalation thrown in there each time power changes hands.
Not even that worst case, it would backfire on them as every election more democrat voters would be lost to "both parties are the same" sentiments, not to mention the inability to woo independent moderates
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Waleke
United States
Portland
OR
flag msg tools
Except Colt Express!
badge
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Douglas Adams
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The voting rights law would be a tough one as Oregon does all voting by mail, so how would hours even apply? If it would force us to go back to using voting places that would be awful. I have voted in a lot of special elections with only one thing on the ballot because it came it to my residence and was so easy to do.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dkearns wrote:
I wouldn’t support any of those things except Puerto Rico maybe but I think that is up to them.

Not a huge fan a cheating in general.


It's not really cheating if it's legal. The Garland thing wasn't cheating, it was just playing dirty within the legal bounds.

The Supreme Court has changed sized over the years, states have been added, states have been split, voting laws have changed, nothing the article mentioned was unprecedented. And if it means a more representative government, I am all for the changes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If the residents wanted it There is no good reason not to make Puerto Rico a state. As for DC they should probably be either a congressional district or split between other districts. This is just being fair to the residents, nothing to do with “getting even”. Plans centered around that motif have a tendency to backfire.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem that Democrats have is that if they start playing dirty, they'll lose their base.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
If the residents wanted it There is no good reason not to make Puerto Rico a state. As for DC they should probably be either a congressional district or split between other districts. This is just being fair to the residents, nothing to do with “getting even”. Plans centered around that motif have a tendency to backfire.


I probably didn't frame it in the best way. It's not so much "payback" for Garland as it is fighting back again a party with zero moral scruples who will subvert our democracy in any possible way to gain and hold a slim majority. If the GOP are going to legally change rules and laws to advantage themselves but the Dems don't do the same when they have the chance, then that is bad for our democracy because it imbalances representation in favor of the GOP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Carr
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The two that I would have no problem with at all are statehoods for DC and Puerto Rico. By population alone they are compelling arguments. Puerto Rico is a slam dunk, having a higher population than 21 other states. DC has a population that beats out Vermont and Wyoming, and is less than 80K difference to Alaska and North Dakota. Putting aside partisan and ethnic hand wringing, there shouldn't be any controversy within our foundational principle of "no taxation without representation."
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KrazyIrish89 wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
If the residents wanted it There is no good reason not to make Puerto Rico a state. As for DC they should probably be either a congressional district or split between other districts. This is just being fair to the residents, nothing to do with “getting even”. Plans centered around that motif have a tendency to backfire.


I probably didn't frame it in the best way. It's not so much "payback" for Garland as it is fighting back again a party with zero moral scruples who will subvert our democracy in any possible way to gain and hold a slim majority. If the GOP are going to legally change rules and laws to advantage themselves but the Dems don't do the same when they have the chance, then that is bad for our democracy because it imbalances representation in favor of the GOP.


So the answer is for the democrats to subvert our democracy in any way possible?


Is it really subverting it to make it more accurately reflect the will of the people? Isn't that kind of the point of democracy?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar the Woebringer
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mb
I have no problem with them doing the same with a Supreme Court seat. That is too important and a seat has already stolen. Ideally they'd stop at one.

Same goes for the gerrymandering stuff, that was slanting the playing field WAY too far one way and it needs to be reset.

If the Dems resort to blatant lying to win elections, they may lose me...the saving grace for them might be Climate Change. As long as one party refused to even have an honest conversation about it, I'm basically a one-issue voter. That aside, I'm a registered independent and mainly vote (D) because they have the only realistic shot to defeat the GOP, which I consider dangerous and a blight on the political landscape.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KrazyIrish89 wrote:
echoota wrote:
The two that I would have no problem with at all are statehoods for DC and Puerto Rico. By population alone they are compelling arguments. Puerto Rico is a slam dunk, having a higher population than 21 other states. DC has a population that beats out Vermont and Wyoming, and is less than 80K difference to Alaska and North Dakota. Putting aside partisan and ethnic hand wringing, there shouldn't be any controversy within our foundational principle of "no taxation without representation."


The controversy here is literally that it would only happen to benefit the democratic party, in a rather major way. How could that possibly be construed as hand wringing?


Is it really the Democrats fault if the GOP is going out of its way to alienate as many people of color as they can? The GOP can change anytime they want to.

There should be no controversy about Puerto Rico as a state or more representation to the residents of DC as well
10 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bob_santafe wrote:
The problem that Democrats have is that if they start playing dirty, they'll lose their base.


They really won't. They would lose some tiny, insignificant fraction of their base, just like the Republicans have. The rest would make the deal with the devil just like the Republican base has. They would be very upset, and complain, and call the leaders dangerous and irresponsible, just like the Republicans have, and then at the end of the day they would continue voting Democrat.

The idea that the Republican party is full of knuckle dragging mouth breathers that are pure evil and don't believe in the rule of law is only true to the extent that these people exist in equal measure on the Democratic side.

This lens of good vs. evil is the same lens they look through in reverse when they justify doing the bullshit that they do to get what they want. And it's part of the problem, not part of the solution.
8 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
- The filibuster is already effectively abolished, afaik. I would like to make the Dems call their bluff tho'
- DC and PR should be states anyways. It's pretty unconscionable that they're not (and almost entirely partisan that they're not). Admitting them wouldn't be 'playing dirty', but rather basic justice along the lines of 'taxation without representation'. It just happens that justice also favors the Dems :p
- Similarly CA could be afford to split along N/S lines. Given its size and population there are all kinds of problems with the current setup. The most logical split *would* favor the Democrats, but there are plenty of illogical splits floating around that are specifically designed to favor the GOP as well.
- Expanding the Supreme court is just pushing the problem back. Imo it doesn't really fix anything in the long term, and the optics are *terrible*.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KrazyIrish89 wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
KrazyIrish89 wrote:
echoota wrote:
The two that I would have no problem with at all are statehoods for DC and Puerto Rico. By population alone they are compelling arguments. Puerto Rico is a slam dunk, having a higher population than 21 other states. DC has a population that beats out Vermont and Wyoming, and is less than 80K difference to Alaska and North Dakota. Putting aside partisan and ethnic hand wringing, there shouldn't be any controversy within our foundational principle of "no taxation without representation."


The controversy here is literally that it would only happen to benefit the democratic party, in a rather major way. How could that possibly be construed as hand wringing?


Is it really the Democrats fault if the GOP is going out of its way to alienate as many people of color as they can? The GOP can change anytime they want to.

There should be no controversy about Puerto Rico as a state or more representation to the residents of DC as well


For starters, the GOP is a massive party, not some singular organism. Change would take some time. I don't disagree that they should change.

There should be a controversy if the democrats are pushing for statehood for purely partisan reasons (i.e more guaranteed seats in the senate to swing the balance). Let's not sit here and pretend that's not the biggest reason for you and a lot of liberals. Not a good look to be honest.

If Puerto Rico was, by chance, a conservative stronghold that would virtually guarantee additional senate seats to the republicans today, would you be in favor of statehood?


After the disgraceful way it was treated in the aftermath of the hurricane by the government no matter what its leaning it needs more national representation. Wanting representation for people in the national government is actually rather a good look. Not anyone else's fault that the GOP's white nationalist leanings is driving away people of color. And is certainly not a rational excuse not to do the right thing by the Puerto Ricans and the residents of DC
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
- The filibuster is already effectively abolished, afaik. I would like to make the Dems call their bluff tho'
- DC and PR should be states anyways. It's pretty unconscionable that they're not (and almost entirely partisan that they're not). Admitting them wouldn't be 'playing dirty', but rather basic justice along the lines of 'taxation without representation'. It just happens that justice also favors the Dems
- Similarly CA could be afford to split along N/S lines. Given its size and population there are all kinds of problems with the current setup. The most logical split *would* favor the Democrats, but there are plenty of illogical splits floating around that are specifically designed to favor the GOP as well.
- Expanding the Supreme court is just pushing the problem back. Imo it doesn't really fix anything in the long term, and the optics are *terrible*.


Has the reasons that the founders decided explicitly not to make DC a state gone away? I wouldn't think so.

Puerto Rico? Sure. I would love to see them join the union.

I don't really have an opnion on the CA split. If it's the voice of the people, who am I to argue against it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
bob_santafe wrote:
The problem that Democrats have is that if they start playing dirty, they'll lose their base.


They really won't. They would lose some tiny, insignificant fraction of their base, just like the Republicans have. The rest would make the deal with the devil just like the Republican base has. They would be very upset, and complain, and call the leaders dangerous and irresponsible, just like the Republicans have, and then at the end of the day they would continue voting Democrat.

The idea that the Republican party is full of knuckle dragging mouth breathers that are pure evil and don't believe in the rule of law is only true to the extent that these people exist in equal measure on the Democratic side.

This lens of good vs. evil is the same lens they look through in reverse when they justify doing the bullshit that they do to get what they want. And it's part of the problem, not part of the solution.


Difference being one party is pushing a white nationalist/1% agenda, and the other party is not. Trying to draw a moral equivalency between said parties is rather a fools' errand
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Carr
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KrazyIrish89 wrote:
echoota wrote:
The two that I would have no problem with at all are statehoods for DC and Puerto Rico. By population alone they are compelling arguments. Puerto Rico is a slam dunk, having a higher population than 21 other states. DC has a population that beats out Vermont and Wyoming, and is less than 80K difference to Alaska and North Dakota. Putting aside partisan and ethnic hand wringing, there shouldn't be any controversy within our foundational principle of "no taxation without representation."


The controversy here is literally that it would only happen to benefit the democratic party, in a rather major way. How could that possibly be construed as hand wringing?


I guess what I mean is that yeah, on a tactical level, they are benefiting the Democrats in our current contemporary political situation. So the "handwringing" is that image of the immediate balance of power on either side. In the longer strategic view of the Unite States though it is the thing that ought to be done. The major parties aren't the US, they are an overlay of social and power connections. Structurally the US is designed to admit more states, which is seen as a good thing in general as it provides (or at least it ought to) provide for full civic participation and representation. Suppressing that participation and representation weakens the US in the long run as it erodes core values that the country was founded upon.

Who's to say that 100-150 years from now that PR and DC would benefit the same political power group at that time? While there is still some overlap with Slave/No-Slave states in the 19th century, it's not all neatly fitting together today in our political landscape. The political parties have died, flipped and transformed in the intervening years.

So I guess what I'm saying is that statehood for those two areas is the right thing to do, regardless of what our contemporary political situation would allow.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
bob_santafe wrote:
The problem that Democrats have is that if they start playing dirty, they'll lose their base.


They really won't. They would lose some tiny, insignificant fraction of their base, just like the Republicans have. The rest would make the deal with the devil just like the Republican base has. They would be very upset, and complain, and call the leaders dangerous and irresponsible, just like the Republicans have, and then at the end of the day they would continue voting Democrat.

The idea that the Republican party is full of knuckle dragging mouth breathers that are pure evil and don't believe in the rule of law is only true to the extent that these people exist in equal measure on the Democratic side.

This lens of good vs. evil is the same lens they look through in reverse when they justify doing the bullshit that they do to get what they want. And it's part of the problem, not part of the solution.


Again, this isn't just about tit-for-tat, but that's how you keep framing it. They aren't equally evil, what the GOP has been doing has been making our democracy LESS representative, while the proposed changes would make it MORE representative.

Regardless of ideology, we should all be in favor of that if we believe in democracy. The GOP is only against it right now because it wouldn't favor them. Would I be pushing for it if the shoe was on the other foot? I don't know, I hope I would stick by my principles but I can't say for sure. That said, it doesn't really matter at the moment because it's not.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If they only moved to make Puerto Rico a state but not the other territories, then I would see fighting that tooth and nail. But if they move to make sure ALL people under rule of US law were US citizens with the rights that come with it, then I wouldn't see that as dirty pool at all. Of course, dirty pool is the point of the article, so I can see that it isn't about getting people representation and just about securing the base of the Democrat party.

Election day off? I'd be in favor of that.

End the filibuster? Yyyyyeeeee....mmmmmmm..... nnnnnn...... uhhhhhhhhh..... I want to say yes, but I honestly don't know the full history of how it has been used compared to how it's been used recently. I would hope there have been some justifications in the past of its existence.

Dividing districts smaller? Nope. The last thing we need is for there to be even more backs to be scratched, more people leveraging their special interests leading to more money being spent where it need not be spent.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian S.
United States
Miniapples
Minisoda
flag msg tools
01010011 01001000 01000001 01001100 01001100 00100000 01010111 01000101 00100000 01010000 01001100 01000001 01011001 00100000 01000001 00100000 01000111 01000001 01001101 01000101 00111111
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bob_santafe wrote:
The problem that Democrats have is that if they start playing dirty, they'll lose their base.
Start?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KrazyIrish89 wrote:

"It just happens that justice favors the Dems ". How non-partisan!


-PR doesn't have representation at the Federal level, and they certainly should as U.S. citizens.

-See above for D.C.

-Gerrymandering and voter suppression has cost the Dems many seats at all levels of government (and in some deep blue states, the GOP as well).

I could see how you would cast enlarging the SCOTUS as partisan, but these other three changes are simply good for our representative democracy, regardless of party affiliation.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KrazyIrish89 wrote:

Dude, the whole premise of the thread is: Should the democrats go tit-for-tat.


Because that's how the article frames it, but it just so happens that most of those changes would also happen to make our democracy more representative. What is your opposition to that?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian S.
United States
Miniapples
Minisoda
flag msg tools
01010011 01001000 01000001 01001100 01001100 00100000 01010111 01000101 00100000 01010000 01001100 01000001 01011001 00100000 01000001 00100000 01000111 01000001 01001101 01000101 00111111
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
KrazyIrish89 wrote:

Dude, the whole premise of the thread is: Should the democrats go tit-for-tat.


Because that's how the article frames it, but it just so happens that most of those changes would also happen to make our democracy more representative. What is your opposition to that?
They could eliminate senators from being included in the electoral college. But that would not just be a legislative manoeuvre.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [8] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.