If the POT was a fact based party interested in strengthening democracy.......

They would support the end of gerrymandering.
They would support efforts to expand voter participation (and stop lying about voter fraud).
They would support enhanced background checks, a national gun database, safety rules for gun storage, or any evidence driven measure shown to reduce gun violence.
They would support reform of the Electoral Count Act.
They would support healthcare reform designed after successful models in other "developed" nations of the world with lower costs, better outcomes, and more insured citizens.
They would support standardizing voting rules/procedures nationally.
They would support policies necessary to stop global warming.
They would support, in recognition of the will of the majority of Americans, a pathway to citizenship for qualified immigrants here illegally.
They would support a change to a national popular vote model, doing away with the EC.
Their support of the Orange Messiah would plummet.
They would support making election day a national holiday.
They would support campaign finance reform.
They would stop equating steps to protect the public's health, and the economy, with tyranny.
They would support Congress' authority to issue subpoenas in their investigatory role as a co-equal branch of government with the executive.

Additions are welcome.

 

How is that one supposed to work? Do they plan on doing a no notice inspection of everyone's home to make sure they do not have any unregistered guns? I am fairly sure that the only ones who will comply are the law abiding.

In other words, make me pay for your healthcare.

That is an oxymoron.

 

I have an addition.... If I was to think all that was a good idea I would probably need to hit myself in the head with a 4 lb sledgehammer several times.

If you want all of that then you just keep voting for the party that you think is best

 

How can you end gerrymandering? Hate to break it to you but there really is no such thing as "non-partisan".

Voting is a choice. If people don't want to vote then they are not going to. I have no problem with encouraging people to vote. But that is all that you can do. Anything else would be subject to suspicion at best.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with strengthening Democracy. Rejected simply on that basis alone.

How and why?

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with strengthening Democracy. Rejected simply on that basis alone.

How? What is your suggestion?

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with strengthening Democracy. Rejected simply on that basis alone.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with strengthening Democracy. Rejected simply on that basis alone.

Rejecting this on the basis that I personally do not want cities alone to determine how this country progresses. 83% of the population lives in urban areas in the US. The vast majority of them have no clue what it takes to live outside of those urban areas. The reason that the EC exists is to give smaller populated States an equal say in how this country progresses. And yes, that means making their votes worth more.

Here you are advocating for strengthening Democracy and yet you demand that people stop supporting someone you hate. Hypocrisy at its finest.

I see no reason for this. Not anymore anyways. I once supported it. However since then most States have adopted measures which allow people to vote 2 weeks in advance at the least. Some a full month. Making it a national holiday is simply not needed anymore. If a person can't find the time to vote in 2-4 weeks worth of voting time then that is their problem.

I support it. But HOW to do it is the question.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with strengthening Democracy. Rejected simply on that basis alone.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with strengthening Democracy. Rejected simply on that basis alone.

Perhaps you should take the time to explain the how's and why's of what you have before asking for more to put on the list. Simply making a list does nothing.

Also, what is a "POT" in the context you're using?

 

POT is Party of Trump
It’s the OPs way of thinking he is cleverly implying trump rules the GOP

 

What a fascinating way to characterize the democratic method of the prez being chosen by a majority of American voters. Gosh, you folks really do hate the idea of giving up minority rule.

 

Because he does.

 

Ah....I see. Just another dig to show that he's not serious. Got it.

 

More like geographical rule
That is not an overall representation of the country and you know it
Sad that you like to pretend

 

The EC is meant to even the balance between minority rule, and mob rule.

 

You got control of the house, senate and presidency.

what’s the hold up?

 

Nice tanTrump. If Democrats cared about your health and finances, California would have a thriving, healthy society. Oops, your party produces poverty and illness.

One thing I don't understand. Why would you push vote by mail and still need a national holiday? Do democrats need an entire day to color in a circle and put the little flag on their mailbox up?

 

It is far more representative of the country than a candidate winning the presidency while getting almost 3M fewer votes. Why should the majority be penalized for wanting to live in urban areas?

 

What do you have against high rates of voter participation? I mean other than high turnout elections tending to favor Dems. Oops, I guess I answered my own question.

 

I’m not gonna play this game with you
If you remove the EC then 2 states decide the election
If you think that’s fair than that is your right
You just reiterate liberal CNN talking points without even understanding what they mean

 

Dead wrong, sorry. They wouldn't support much of that. I'll pick out the ones I would support for you:

They would support efforts to expand voter participation (and stop lying about voter fraud). ....if it did not reduce election security.
They would support making election day a national holiday. .....if all voting occurred on that day
They would support campaign finance reform. ......as long as it reduced the money required and used in political campaigns
They would support Congress' authority to issue subpoenas in their investigatory role as a co-equal branch of government with the executive....they already have this authority.

The rest of the stuff fell off the left edge of the planet.

 

Because low information voters pollute the process. These are the people that make their decision based on a facebook and pop up ads.

How many people research every judge, measure, candidate etc? Those willing to put in that effort have no problem going to the polls. When the level of effort is reduced to coloring in a circle, we know which circle they are likely to color in and that is why your party is working hard to change the rules.

I did my research and ended up voting for Jo.

 

Trump’s own officials say 2020 was America’s most secure election in history

The 2020 US election was the most secure in American history, according to US elections officials.

“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double-checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result,” the coordinating bodies on election infrastructure and security said in a joint statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

The statement directly contradicts President Donald Trump, who has made unfounded allegations of widespread voting irregularities and fraud. The president is using these claims to challenge the vote counts in several key states that delivered President-elect Joe Biden his apparent Electoral College victory.
https://www.vox.com/2020/11/13/21563825/2020-elections-most-secure-dhs-cisa-krebs

The country simultaneously had, by necessity, more absentee and mail-in ballots yet had the most secure election (with only anecdotal examples of fraud) in history.

 

You just said the silent part out loud. You don't like democracy.

 

@Lee Atwater

No response to post #7?

 

Thats not what I said. I said I think we are better off as a society if the uninformed do not pollute elections. How about voters prove they have basic knowledge with a test, like they give when buying a firearm?

 

They would support a test that demonstrates that any person seeking the Office Of the Presidency must possess a minimum degree of knowledge about civics, the three branches of government, the constitution, and the concept of the separation of powers

They would support legislation, or a constitutional amendment that any person seeking the office of the Presidency be required to hold a public office at mayor of a city with at least 500,000 people, or office above this (such as governor of a state with at least 500,000 persons), for 2 years, (or military service at or above O-6) before declaring candidacy as president.

They would support legislation that requires any candidate for the Office of the President reveal past taxes going back at least 5 years.

They would support legislation whereby if their medical records reveal a condition which could impair their ability to discharge their duties of the office, would disqualify them.

They would support legislation that requires anyone seeking the office of the president possess an IQ of at least 115. (Do we want dummies in charge of the nuke football? ).

They would support legislation that would disqualify any person seeking the Office of the President who has, based on past actions, engaged in acts of moral turpitude (serious criminality beyond just occasional lapses in judgement, and since this is a grey area, a bipartisan commission to evaluate it, if it is needed).


But, of course, no republican is going to support any of the above.

 

Real estate does not elect presidents, people do.

 

They would also be behind all of these.........
Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform

https://www.lawfareblog.com/repairing-rule-law-agenda-post-trump-reform

As the U.S. begins to see the light at the end of the Trumpian tunnel, it is time to begin thinking about the issue of repair. One should not assume the result of the election, but it is nonetheless worth asking the question: What should be done in a post-Trump world to restore the rule of law?

Of Trump’s many excesses, his assault on legal norms has to rank high in terms of damage to fundamental values that form the fabric of America. His attacks on the free press, the independent judiciary and the independence of the Department of Justice have all created significant damage. His abuse of executive discretionary authority has made a mockery of the concept of checks and balances. His gaming of the judicial system has revealed weaknesses in our legal process. His attempts to place himself (and his family and his business interests) above the law have called into question foundational national conceptions of equal justice. In short, President Trump has led a wrecking crew (aided and abetted by William Barr and Mitch McConnell) that has severely damaged American legal norms of behavior.

Trump’s attacks on foundational norms and principles leave policymakers with two choices. Lawmakers and voters can accept that damage and admit the inevitability of American decline, or they can fight to restore and strengthen the country’s legal guardrails. This post is an effort to begin that fight—to identify practical steps that the country can take to reinvigorate the rule of law and the concept of checks and balances.

 

A strawman argument. We all pay for things we do not approve of, in any budget

so......

Welcome to the club.