Walk me through it. What I've seen suggests that a simple majority is needed in the senate to do this.
Yeah, that's my understanding as well. Perhaps my stance isn't as clear as I thought, and/or perhaps I misread what Imari was getting at when I signaled agreement with him.
What I think the Democrats need to do is stop caring about the idea of compromise. Adding new states, or new SCOTUS seats, can be done with simple majority votes that are, on paper, now available to Democrats.
Problem is, in the past they wouldn't have had the will to see such things through. They still foolishly pursue a least some semblance of compromise. They start waffling whenever the idiots of this country start hollering about "socialism," a word whose meaning seems to have become, essentially, "anything that's a little too progressive for the likes of Jim Bob."
I don't think the Democrats should subvert the rules or laws of this country. I just think they need to show a willingness to wield the power the voters have given them in a way they haven't in a long time.
For any of the things you've said you want to see, the Democrats need to give up any notion of getting them done in a bipartisan manner. That's not going to happen.
So when I say the Democrats need to play the same game as the Republicans, I mean they need to stop tying one hand behind their back by pursuing compromise; the Republicans gave up that notion long ago. But I'm certainly not advocating that they mimic the outright corruption that we've seen the last four years. My apologies that I didn't make all of that clearer. Hopefully my position is more clear now?
The interstate compact is a push at the state level, and not every state. I'm less clear on whether gerrymandering fixes can (or must) happen above the state level.
True. I guess I read you bring that into a conversation about national politics as a call to abolish the Electoral College. But I perhaps assumed too much. As far as gerrymandering, I see no reason why Congress couldn't enact federal guidelines about how states can (or more importantly, can't) draw district lines. Of course, any such bill will be met with frantically hollered accusations of socialism, and we're right back to where I fail to see the Democrats standing their ground.
I don't see that republican tactics are helping the republicans. The only thing I see helping the republicans are a stacked deck.
The deck is stacked
because of their tactics. I'm not sure how you can separate the two.
The things I'm talking about are the political structure of the country, not the political policies of the country. Minimum wage, or healthcare plans, for example, do not affect how the political system functions.
Okay, I see the distinction you were going for now. Fair enough.
Perhaps you should elaborate on what you mean by that. Because at the moment, that means inciting a mob to assassinate congress.
I hope the clarification I provided at the beginning of this post clears this up?
