So if you want to see a change in redistricting policies away from gerrymandering, cracking, and stuffing--which all go on all the time despite laws against these practices--the only way to do so is to vote the people who engage in such activity out of office. That means your state legislators. Those of us living in urban areas in rural-…
So if you want to see a change in redistricting policies away from gerrymandering, cracking, and stuffing--which all go on all the time despite laws against these practices--the only way to do so is to vote the people who engage in such activity out of office. That means your state legislators. Those of us living in urban areas in rural-focused states also have the added fun of being un-voiced because our Dem representatives are a minority in Rethuglican-dominated legislatures. We are forced to rely on the "kindness of strangers" to change that and it is likely not going to go well because, y'know, that racism thing.
Places like TX, where if the population that doesn't usually vote were to do so, have a chance to make that change. Change always has to happen from the bottom. Then we have to go after the limitations of congressional representation, which skews the Electoral College to those tiny-population states and will always do so unless we get fair representation.
Part three of what should be (IMO) the agenda: once there are enough people committed to democracy at the foundations of our political community, then we have to get statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, and all the other territories that make up our imperial holdings: either they become states or we let them go. The continued domination of small islands throughout the globe for the purposes of tax sheltering and exploitation is a crime. The continued disenfranchisement of people living in Washington, DC is a crime.
We know that the Ghastly Obstructionists and their fascist agenda will resist all of these steps. That is why it has to start at the bottom: on the local level. And that is also why this is a long process, one that cannot be accomplished in a few short years.
Agree with every point of this 3 tier plan. Especially Part 1 coming up in 2022. A focus on state legislatures is crucial. There are many Republicans already considering not voting “red” in 2022. And a few have mentioned to me their desire is not to “switch parties” but vote for strong NPA or Independent party candidates. And then NPA (no party affiliation) voters complain about the primary setup and not having any voting influence on who might end up representing them.
But I think the state legislator contests is where change must begin. It is a long process. But way overdue.
I agree with all your points but also reply that, for better or worse, perhaps mostly worse. we have a political system that heavily favors maintaining only two dominant political parties. There are too many guardrails, rules, and electoral idiosyncrasies in American politics to expand on them here at length. However, the reality of our system is that it is a two-party system quite literally from its founding. So, for all those who are considering NPA or independent candidates, I admire your aspirations but also remind you to WAKE UP. If you want changes in the system, get those candidates to run as Democrats and organize and support them. Yes, I admire much about the few independents who make it to Congress, but in order for them to accomplish anything, they must align themselves (caucus with) one of the major political parties. Hopefully, that will be the Democratic Party. So in the end they are really Democrats who simply chose a more difficult path to get there.
Good Morning Linda, Please don't lump all islands together into one. Although I lived in Missouri, for many years, I have resided on St. Croix, US Virgin Islands since 1997. Please do not get the USVI (think Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett), mixed up with areas which are not under the US flag. https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/magazine/articles/2018/SL_0118-Stats.pdf
I follow Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri's 4th District both because I knew her long before she went into congress and to continue to get an idea of how rural white people are thinking. It is rather appalling to read the comments on her posts much of the time. While Congresswoman Plaskett is a non-voting member of the house, I'm glad to have her working for the USVI and for the USA. You probably don't really want to cut us loose.
But Linda, wouldn't you rather that your congresswoman be able to represent a STATE rather than a territory? Wouldn't you rather that your neighbors actually get a voice? I am not saying that the USVI is not a valuable component in the US. I am saying just the opposite: all territories should have the opportunity to vote to become states, given full citizenship rights, and elect two Senators and have membership in the Electoral College. And if a territory (American Samoa for example) decides it would rather be its own country, they should have the chance to do that--and be financially supported in that transition. It's not about "cutting people loose." It's about fairness.
With a population of 100,000 the USVI cannot hope to become a state. If PR gains statehood, then we might become a "branch" of PR but that would mean loosing most of our identity. Statehood for very small areas will not occur because existing states certainly won't want to see areas like ours with two senators and at least one voting representative. Becoming an independent nation is not economically viable nor do most residents want that. It is very difficult to have a clear idea of what is happening in areas, such as ours, that few statesiders have visited except on vacation or a cruise. That is rather like some of us commenting on what should be happening in Sedalia or Warrensburg.
Linda Mortland: This late response has nothing to do with the content of your post, but rather the odd coincidence of your name. My wife of 49.5 years, Linda Kay Stavig Mortland, passed away on Jan. 14, 2015. So, when I saw your name, my scanning mind halted abruptly and went back to look again. What an unusual coincidence. If you'd like to expand this conversation, perhaps we can find a way to exchange addresses?
I listened to Ezra Klein's most recent podcast today "How Identity Politics Took Over The Republican Party", I realized the only way out is to form an alliance with non-Trump Republicans. I think it would be best if they formed a break-away party so we could play parliamentarian government and break the tyranny of minority rule.
That's what I'm thinking about this weekend when I'm not thinking about the movie Coda. What a beautiful piece of work at the perfect time....but I digress....again.
Absolutely right about the importance of state legislatures. Republicans were very smart about them leading up to the 2010 elections by having a game plan, called RedMap I believe, well executed by then RNC Chair Michael Steele (a smart Republican whom I grudgingly respect), where they quietly flooded state legislator races around the country with immense cash, and won majorities of legislatures in the majority of States. They were then able to create legislative districts that tilted Republican in all those states, and have benefitted since. I really wish Dems could pull off a few plays like that, before we fully succumb to the madness that Republican policies seem based on (climate catastrophe, racial war, armageddon, etc. etc.).
So I agree with you there. But I've got to say, statehood for Washington DC doesn't seem likely. Even though I would love the added Democratic seats in the Senate, turning a single metropolitan area into a state goes against my innate sense of balance. The idea was picking up steam this past Spring though, when Democrats gained control of Congress. But the wind in its sails died down right around the time I saw the Republican response, which was to make the city part of Maryland, with a smaller Federal District just for the places containing the buildings that house the most important functions of national government. That feels like a more common sense way to give DC residents representation, and more likely to win the day if the issue is forced.
Sure, but several cities have more citizens than Wyoming, they don't get to claim statehood. I don't think that argument has legs is all I'm saying. The issue with statehood for DC is framed around representation for its residents in Congress. When I saw the Republican response to incorporate most of the city into the state of Maryland, it made sense to me at a gut level, and I haven't seen a counter-argument to it yet. I have trouble thinking of one myself.
Believe me, I'd much rather have Democratic rule over Republican. Not saying D's are perfect, just preferable.
"A long process, one that cannot be accomplished in a few short years," you write. I don't know the ages of those that make comments on here, but I suspect most of us are retired or otherwise at a point where we will not be around to witness the results of that "long process." Can democracy in America survive that long?
Some people who live in a totalitarian, authoritarian, state ultimately reach a point where they can take it no longer and, as occurred in Europe during WW Two, go "underground" or go into the woods becoming "partisan" fighters. Even in Nazi Germany, there was a "White Rose" movement, most members of which were caught and executed. I hope we do not have to reach that point in preserving democracy here.
So if you want to see a change in redistricting policies away from gerrymandering, cracking, and stuffing--which all go on all the time despite laws against these practices--the only way to do so is to vote the people who engage in such activity out of office. That means your state legislators. Those of us living in urban areas in rural-focused states also have the added fun of being un-voiced because our Dem representatives are a minority in Rethuglican-dominated legislatures. We are forced to rely on the "kindness of strangers" to change that and it is likely not going to go well because, y'know, that racism thing.
Places like TX, where if the population that doesn't usually vote were to do so, have a chance to make that change. Change always has to happen from the bottom. Then we have to go after the limitations of congressional representation, which skews the Electoral College to those tiny-population states and will always do so unless we get fair representation.
Part three of what should be (IMO) the agenda: once there are enough people committed to democracy at the foundations of our political community, then we have to get statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, and all the other territories that make up our imperial holdings: either they become states or we let them go. The continued domination of small islands throughout the globe for the purposes of tax sheltering and exploitation is a crime. The continued disenfranchisement of people living in Washington, DC is a crime.
We know that the Ghastly Obstructionists and their fascist agenda will resist all of these steps. That is why it has to start at the bottom: on the local level. And that is also why this is a long process, one that cannot be accomplished in a few short years.
Agree with every point of this 3 tier plan. Especially Part 1 coming up in 2022. A focus on state legislatures is crucial. There are many Republicans already considering not voting “red” in 2022. And a few have mentioned to me their desire is not to “switch parties” but vote for strong NPA or Independent party candidates. And then NPA (no party affiliation) voters complain about the primary setup and not having any voting influence on who might end up representing them.
But I think the state legislator contests is where change must begin. It is a long process. But way overdue.
I agree with all your points but also reply that, for better or worse, perhaps mostly worse. we have a political system that heavily favors maintaining only two dominant political parties. There are too many guardrails, rules, and electoral idiosyncrasies in American politics to expand on them here at length. However, the reality of our system is that it is a two-party system quite literally from its founding. So, for all those who are considering NPA or independent candidates, I admire your aspirations but also remind you to WAKE UP. If you want changes in the system, get those candidates to run as Democrats and organize and support them. Yes, I admire much about the few independents who make it to Congress, but in order for them to accomplish anything, they must align themselves (caucus with) one of the major political parties. Hopefully, that will be the Democratic Party. So in the end they are really Democrats who simply chose a more difficult path to get there.
Good Morning Linda, Please don't lump all islands together into one. Although I lived in Missouri, for many years, I have resided on St. Croix, US Virgin Islands since 1997. Please do not get the USVI (think Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett), mixed up with areas which are not under the US flag. https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/magazine/articles/2018/SL_0118-Stats.pdf
I follow Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri's 4th District both because I knew her long before she went into congress and to continue to get an idea of how rural white people are thinking. It is rather appalling to read the comments on her posts much of the time. While Congresswoman Plaskett is a non-voting member of the house, I'm glad to have her working for the USVI and for the USA. You probably don't really want to cut us loose.
But Linda, wouldn't you rather that your congresswoman be able to represent a STATE rather than a territory? Wouldn't you rather that your neighbors actually get a voice? I am not saying that the USVI is not a valuable component in the US. I am saying just the opposite: all territories should have the opportunity to vote to become states, given full citizenship rights, and elect two Senators and have membership in the Electoral College. And if a territory (American Samoa for example) decides it would rather be its own country, they should have the chance to do that--and be financially supported in that transition. It's not about "cutting people loose." It's about fairness.
With a population of 100,000 the USVI cannot hope to become a state. If PR gains statehood, then we might become a "branch" of PR but that would mean loosing most of our identity. Statehood for very small areas will not occur because existing states certainly won't want to see areas like ours with two senators and at least one voting representative. Becoming an independent nation is not economically viable nor do most residents want that. It is very difficult to have a clear idea of what is happening in areas, such as ours, that few statesiders have visited except on vacation or a cruise. That is rather like some of us commenting on what should be happening in Sedalia or Warrensburg.
Linda Mortland: This late response has nothing to do with the content of your post, but rather the odd coincidence of your name. My wife of 49.5 years, Linda Kay Stavig Mortland, passed away on Jan. 14, 2015. So, when I saw your name, my scanning mind halted abruptly and went back to look again. What an unusual coincidence. If you'd like to expand this conversation, perhaps we can find a way to exchange addresses?
You are so right Linda. We need to keep focused on the outcome and it will be a long process.
I listened to Ezra Klein's most recent podcast today "How Identity Politics Took Over The Republican Party", I realized the only way out is to form an alliance with non-Trump Republicans. I think it would be best if they formed a break-away party so we could play parliamentarian government and break the tyranny of minority rule.
That's what I'm thinking about this weekend when I'm not thinking about the movie Coda. What a beautiful piece of work at the perfect time....but I digress....again.
Will we amend the Constitution enabling us to switch to a parliamentary form of government before the end of the century?
No, I don't think so. If it happens it will be organically born out of frustration with a system with one political party and one political cult.
Absolutely right about the importance of state legislatures. Republicans were very smart about them leading up to the 2010 elections by having a game plan, called RedMap I believe, well executed by then RNC Chair Michael Steele (a smart Republican whom I grudgingly respect), where they quietly flooded state legislator races around the country with immense cash, and won majorities of legislatures in the majority of States. They were then able to create legislative districts that tilted Republican in all those states, and have benefitted since. I really wish Dems could pull off a few plays like that, before we fully succumb to the madness that Republican policies seem based on (climate catastrophe, racial war, armageddon, etc. etc.).
So I agree with you there. But I've got to say, statehood for Washington DC doesn't seem likely. Even though I would love the added Democratic seats in the Senate, turning a single metropolitan area into a state goes against my innate sense of balance. The idea was picking up steam this past Spring though, when Democrats gained control of Congress. But the wind in its sails died down right around the time I saw the Republican response, which was to make the city part of Maryland, with a smaller Federal District just for the places containing the buildings that house the most important functions of national government. That feels like a more common sense way to give DC residents representation, and more likely to win the day if the issue is forced.
Political considerations aside, making DC a state is quite reasonable based on its population size, which is larger than that of Wyoming.
Sure, but several cities have more citizens than Wyoming, they don't get to claim statehood. I don't think that argument has legs is all I'm saying. The issue with statehood for DC is framed around representation for its residents in Congress. When I saw the Republican response to incorporate most of the city into the state of Maryland, it made sense to me at a gut level, and I haven't seen a counter-argument to it yet. I have trouble thinking of one myself.
Believe me, I'd much rather have Democratic rule over Republican. Not saying D's are perfect, just preferable.
"A long process, one that cannot be accomplished in a few short years," you write. I don't know the ages of those that make comments on here, but I suspect most of us are retired or otherwise at a point where we will not be around to witness the results of that "long process." Can democracy in America survive that long?
Some people who live in a totalitarian, authoritarian, state ultimately reach a point where they can take it no longer and, as occurred in Europe during WW Two, go "underground" or go into the woods becoming "partisan" fighters. Even in Nazi Germany, there was a "White Rose" movement, most members of which were caught and executed. I hope we do not have to reach that point in preserving democracy here.