Govt & Election Reform Mega Thread

Archy1221 said:
Post the words please.  Or are you being dishonest with your words? 
Click to expand...
I'm not going to go back and research for you.

But, you have made it very clear that you don't support people like Liz Cheney when she voted for Republican agenda almost every time.  Her only crime was speaking out against Trump.

That's pretty telling.  Trump must be supported over everything else.  Don't DARE speak out against him.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Her only crime was speaking out against Trump.
Click to expand...
You twist things yet b!^@h and moan when you claim others do the same.  Quite hypocritical on your part.  
 

A vote for a sham impeachment is quite different than just speaking out, though maybe you don’t know the difference.  Liz is also quite the war monger, who presents herself to be all high and mighty and virtuous.  If we had it her way, our military would be in perpetual war. 
 

I had no problem with her speaking out over Jan 6th.  I did at the time too.  At some point she needed to move and as part of leadership speak about the agenda, but she just couldn’t pull herself to do it because the Sunday shows were loving her and that’s what she needed to get back in their good graces from all the war mongering past. 

 
Archy1221 said:
No.  Even Democrat constitutional scholars thought the impeachment was a sham.  You know those same scholars who voted against Trump in the election.  You just confirmed your hatred of one particular man clouds your judgement too much from thinking rationally. 
Click to expand...
It was actually your hatred of a Republican who dared to criticize Trump that started this conversation.  A guy who's voting record in Congress had been essentially straight party line.   The only reason you have any contempt for Kinzinger is he wouldn't buy into the cult you're neck deep in.  

 
Scarlet said:
It was actually your hatred of a Republican who dared to criticize Trump that started this conversation.  A guy who's voting record in Congress had been essentially straight party line.   The only reason you have any contempt for Kinzinger is he wouldn't buy into the cult you're neck deep in.  
Click to expand...
This is proven over and over again with him.  It's humorous that he denies it.

Archy1221 said:
You twist things yet b!^@h and moan when you claim others do the same.  Quite hypocritical on your part.  
 

A vote for a sham impeachment is quite different than just speaking out, though maybe you don’t know the difference.  Liz is also quite the war monger, who presents herself to be all high and mighty and virtuous.  If we had it her way, our military would be in perpetual war. 
 

I had no problem with her speaking out over Jan 6th.  I did at the time too.  At some point she needed to move and as part of leadership speak about the agenda, but she just couldn’t pull herself to do it because the Sunday shows were loving her and that’s what she needed to get back in their good graces from all the war mongering past. 
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point.   :clap

 
Scarlet said:
It was actually your hatred of a Republican who dared to criticize Trump that started this conversation.  A guy who's voting record in Congress had been essentially straight party line.   The only reason you have any contempt for Kinzinger is he wouldn't buy into the cult you're neck deep in.  
Click to expand...
Or the reason I actually stated, but continue to be dishonest 

 
BigRedBuster said:
This is proven over and over again with him.  It's humorous that he denies it.

Thanks for proving my point.   :clap
Click to expand...


BigRedBuster said:
This is proven over and over again with him.  It's humorous that he denies it.

Thanks for proving my point.   :clap
Click to expand...
If your point was she voted for a sham impeachment and couldn’t speak about Republican objections then your welcome…I guess :clap

 
Archy1221 said:
Or the reason I actually stated, but continue to be dishonest 
Click to expand...
Your stating over and over that it was a sham impeachment vote doesn't make it so.  They are constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle who would disagree.  

And now your liptist test is honesty?  Lol....in a conversation involving Trump?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to deviate from piling on @Archy1221 much, but I do want to ask this thread: if you could change the process of elections in this country, how would you do it? 

Personally, I would get rid of districts and institute proportional representation based on Ranked Choice Voting. I'd probably also increase the number of house seats every census. I would also favor the Presidency to be won by the national popular vote winner. 

As for the Senate, I'm unsure of what election reforms would make it healthy. 

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
Not to deviate from piling on @Archy1221 much, but I do want to ask this thread: if you could change the process of elections in this country, how would you do it? 

Personally, I would get rid of districts and institute proportional representation based on Ranked Choice Voting. I'd probably also increase the number of house seats every census. I would also favor the Presidency to be won by the national popular vote winner. 

As for the Senate, I'm unsure of what election reforms would make it healthy. 
Click to expand...
I'd enact the "Wyoming Rule", where the population of the smallest state dictates the size of congressional districts. Then the number of House seats would always remain in proportion to the population differences between the states.

I would also enact district boundary rules/algorithm. State legislatures would no longer draw the district boundaries, which would instead be done by a fixed rule or algorithm that applied to every state the same way. Eliminates gerrymandering.

I'd enact ranked choice voting for all levels of elections. Reduces the power of the two dominate political parties.

And elect the President by direct vote of the people, again with ranked choice voting.

If we're talking really big changes, I'd consider replacing the entire House with a direct vote of the American people to make our country more of a democracy and less of a republic.

 
RedDenver said:
I'd enact the "Wyoming Rule", where the population of the smallest state dictates the size of congressional districts. Then the number of House seats would always remain in proportion to the population differences between the states.

I would also enact district boundary rules/algorithm. State legislatures would no longer draw the district boundaries, which would instead be done by a fixed rule or algorithm that applied to every state the same way. Eliminates gerrymandering.

I'd enact ranked choice voting for all levels of elections. Reduces the power of the two dominate political parties.

And elect the President by direct vote of the people, again with ranked choice voting.

If we're talking really big changes, I'd consider replacing the entire House with a direct vote of the American people to make our country more of a democracy and less of a republic.
Click to expand...
I would probably be on board with all of these suggestions. However, I'm unsure how I feel about district lines at all. I think proportional Representation for each state reduces future risk of extreme partisanship taking hold. 

 
Archy1221 said:
No.  Even Democrat constitutional scholars thought the impeachment was a sham. 
Click to expand...


If even Democrats thought it was a sham impeachment, I don't see how it makes someone Democrat-lite to vote for the impeachment.

But even if that's the case, what else in his resume is adjacent to Democrats? Actually see if you can form a full argument to back up your original assertion instead of backpedaling with all sorts of deflections about what you didn't say.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top