Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, I'd be interested in RCV as a possible solution.
One thing I also have a strong position on is the filibuster. The way it presently works is bonkers. At the minimum, I think that we should return to a talking filibuster, where if a Senator intends to filibuster they have to put their time and effort into it. None of this phoning it in nonsense. Or else get rid of it altogether.
But what I think we might see, and should see, come out of legislation from the hearings... Is that any of the strategies that the extreme right may have thought they could use to overturn the outcome of the election, such as having the VP invalidate it or refuse to count the votes, or state legislatures throwing out valid results (including some of the more recent state laws that have been passed or attempted) or the whole, "if we just cause enough ruckus and delay it will eventually land in the Supreme Court and they can give it to Trump" stuff... Like NONE of these shenanigans should even be possible, legally, and if we need laws to say, "no you cannot overturn the will of the American voters" then yeah let's do that.
But I just don't see big changes like getting rid of the EC or even going to RCV being realistic. Certainly not if we have the legislative structure, including the filibuster, as it stands. I don't even see the Committee all agreeing to sign off on anything that goes that far.
I take your point on the gun issue. Urban/rural divides are not a uniquely American thing, they're global.
I think/hope the hearings and the discussions in the aftermath, will breath new life into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That, combined with greater adoption of RCV would be meaningful change.
Quote:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not eliminate the Electoral College or affect faithless elector laws; it merely changes how electors are pledged by the participating states.
This is the production by the same crew that concocted the Russia Collusion Hoax. Who ever heard of a committee hearing hiring a TV producer? The Watergate Committe, the Kennedy Assassination committees wouldn't have dreamt of such a thing.
Who ever heard of a committee hearing hiring a TV producer? The Watergate Committe, the Kennedy Assassination committees wouldn't have dreamt of such a thing.
Whenever national televised coverage of public hearings is provided, of course someone has to coordinate the production. That is what a television producer does.
The Watergate hearings that you mention did, indeed, have the assistance of a television producer, and that was the late Al Vecchione.
Moderator's note: Please bear in mind that Great Debates is not the forum for conspiracy theories (please see Great Debates rules pinned at top of this forum).
This topic will be temporarily closed until after the televised hearings. Participants may continue with the discussion after having watched the actual hearings.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 06-09-2022 at 06:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
