13 ms·

Oh, I thought the headline meant remote voting for, you know, voters, not Senators, and was very surprised to see an R next to one of the sponsor's names. The b

Oh, I thought the headline meant remote voting for, you know, voters, not Senators, and was very surprised to see an R next to one of the sponsor's names. The bill's just to let the Senate vote remotely. I'd imagine most of the interesting nuance is about "presence" and quorum-making. This is not about expanding remote/by-mail voting in elections, which Republicans have generally been strongly against, including and especially since the Covid-19 crisis started. [EDIT] correction: it's not a bill, either, it's (as the headline correctly notes) a resolution to change Senate rules.

jkeuhlen 6y ago
The federal government does not have the jurisdiction to change how people vote in elections. That is determined by the states.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  Right, but it could have been an amendment, or (more likely) some incentive-based "we're not making you, you'll just get less money if you don't" thing.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Plenty of precedent for that sort of thing, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law > States had to agree to the limit if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair.
    - winter_blue 6y ago
      On a tangential note, these lawmakers failed to see the real consequence of a 55 mph speed limit: the invisible economic loss of longer commute times probably far outweighed any of the minor 0.5 to 1% savings in gas. Those hours spent on the road are hours that people could be spending with their family, at work, or doing whatever else they like. According to the Census Bureau, 128 million today commute daily in the US. Let's say they spend an average of 30 minutes on the highway at a top speed of 65 mph. If we raised the speed limit by 50% (to 97.5 mph), then the average commute would become: 30 / 1.5 = 20 minutes. Each individual would save 10 minutes a day. With 252 working days a year, that's 2520 minutes saved a year -- which is a total of 42 hours saved per year. That's a lot of time. Across 128 million commuters, we'd save 5.376 billion hours per year. If people earned an average of $20/hour, that would be $107 billion of added economic activity per year. Whereas even 1% of gas savings would not be more than $2 billion saved per year.
      - devdas 6y ago
        People would just live farther away.
      - Tomte 6y ago
        Don't you have construction sites or slower cars? I'm regularly driving 150 kilometers on the fabled Autobahn, with no speed limit for the most part (and some 120 km/h speed limit sections), and the difference between "I feel great, let's drive 180" and "Let's take it slow and drive 100 or 110" is surprisingly small, because that top speed is only attainable for short stretches of time.
        dsfyu404ed 6y ago
        Obviously traffic varies by city, road and time of day but on the nominally 55-mph section of I95 around Boston traffic flows between 65 and 90ish if it's not precipitating with the exception being peak commuting hours when the choke points cause enough of a disruption to make most of the system flow well below that speed. Even if you knock 10mph off those speeds because older cars aren't quite as quiet and smooth at any given speed it still results in traffic speeds well above 55. All the 55mph limit on that particular road does in my mind is give law enforcement a pretext to make fishing stops. I can't recall a time I ever saw traffic go ~55 on a limited access road without the presence of inclement weather or severe traffic congestion. When you consider the kind of traffic conditions that are the norm in rural ares I don't think a national 55mph speed limit makes sense at all. Edit: I'm curious to know how a comment that is simply stating my observations and opinions can be considered so wrong.
    - dsfyu404ed 6y ago
      Yeah, there's precedent. There's precedent for everything that's ever happened already. That doesn't mean we should be doing those things Tons of people on both sides of the isle agree that implementing things like the national speed limit and drinking age of 21 by withholding federal funding from the states that don't goose step in line is a backhanded way of enacting legislation and/or an end run around the constitution. Sure you can do things that way, but you have to ask yourself if it's really worth it in the long run to normalize that kind of legislative behavior in exchange for getting whatever policy point you want a couple years sooner. Edit: To reply to your comment below I guess you could say, "no the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction, but that hasn't stopped them in the past"
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        It's a response to "The federal government does not have the jurisdiction", not "is this a good idea?"
    - bcrosby95 6y ago
      AFAIK Supreme Court has said that funding carrots have to be related to what you're trying to get them to do. Speed limits obviously translate to transit funding, I'm not sure you're going to find funding related to voting that is significant enough to convince states that don't have vote-by-mail. Oh, and it can't be too significant, because the Supreme Court shut down the Medicaid expansion requirement (expand Medicaid or lose all related funding) in the ACA because the funding was too much of states' budgets. It's a fine line to walk.
- elicash 6y ago
  This is true but only half the story. The federal government is able to incentivize vote-by-mail through federal funds. This has been the center of much debate. Speaker Pelosi says she will push for these funds in any next round of stimulus.
  - eanzenberg 6y ago
    So Pelosi is willing to politicize the epidemic, cool.
    - nlfwhulsdhouv 6y ago
      Peepeepoopoo democrats do so much politics peepeepoopoo shut the fuck up.
    - mattkrause 6y ago
      I would maybe not go there on a day where the administration yanked a bat-to-human coronavirus grant because it doesn't "fit with current NIH priorities."
    - SuperFerret 6y ago
      Republicans can't win a fair election. Just like the founding fathers imagined.
    - mauflows 6y ago
      Isnt remote voting a priority because of the epidemic?
    - elicash 6y ago
      This is needlessly dismissive. Even red states like TX will likely be forced to allow more mail voting. KY and others will also be doing the same, expanding who can vote absentee in order to deal with a public health issue. Democrats think giving federal funds to states will help ward off recession and also want to prevent outbreaks in the fall. You can argue Democrats are wrong in those views, but states (including states that would prefer not to implement it!) will have to spend a lot of money on vote-by-mail because of decisions (some at court-level) being made that are the result of coronavirus.
- shwayn 6y ago
  This is not completely correct Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Time,_place,_and_manner_of_holding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat... "Manner of Elections" certainly sounds like it would allow Congress to pass a law mandating the elections must be vote by mail, specifically for Senators and Representatives. This does not apply to the President due to states having the jurisdiction to decide how electoral college electors are chosen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... So Congress has partial authority, the question is if Congress passed a vote by mail law for Senators and Representatives, would states have other ballot measures or positions (Such as the President) that would not be vote by mail in the same election.
  - DrScump 6y ago
    Biennial November elections are a minority of elections overall.
ordinaryradical 6y ago
I used to be wowed by this kind of hypocrisy, but lately I've concluded that these things are happening so frequently because the voters have proved to them sufficiently that they will take no heed provided it "hurts the other team." Everything on the news looks ironic now because the political class has realized there's almost no limit to what they can get away with.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  >Everything on the news looks ironic I was born and grew up in Scotland. I remember the first time I watched Fox News after moving to the states - for almost fifteen minutes I genuinely thought I was watching some (honestly pretty funny) satire.
  - jagged-chisel 6y ago
    You were. Satire marketed as news.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      Satire, by definition, aims at the top of the societal ladder. Fox News, Russian state media, "alternative news" blogs? They aim at the very bottom of the societal ladder (i.e. immigrants, Muslims, poor people) instead. That's not satire, that is inciting hatred.
    - kyleblarson 6y ago
      As if CNN, MSNBC are any different.
      - hithereagain 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
      - triceratops 6y ago
        r/enlightenedcentrism
stevenwliao 6y ago
Imagine a DDoS attempting to prevent quorum or affect vote outcomes! Lots of edge cases to iron out.
- munk-a 6y ago
  I don't think this is really a legitimate issue that needs to be enshrined in law - there are 100 senators so as long as there is a continuation of understanding around physical barriers to present yourself to a vote within the electronic realm it should work itself out. How different would a DDoS be from, for instance, one party hiring a mob of protestors to violently prevent law makers from submitting their votes in the statehouse - I'm not super familiar with the laws around this but I'd be surprised if there were no contingencies in place. Additionally the Senate does recognize vote assignment as legitimate so it'd be reasonable to support pre-registration of voting or the allowance of a voting window.
  - stevenwliao 6y ago
    Mobs are highly visible. A senator's flaky Internet is less so. I agree that new Senate conventions could cover these cases.
- croddin 6y ago
  This could be the new way to filibuster! /s
- basch 6y ago
  Or a nation state kidnaps a senator, and vpn their vote back through the senators primary residence. They create a fake room that looks identical to the senators house. Any bad guy that's seen Mission Impossible one too many times would be inspired.
blululu 6y ago
Interestingly enough, a significant majority of Republican Voters (~65%) actually do support mail in ballots. The opposition largely stems from the RNC and senior party leadership. In any case I am glad that the US senate is taking public health seriously, and I hope that they will take similar precautions in protecting their constituents by passing the Klobuchar-Wyden bill to allow mail in voting: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/natural-disaster-and-emergency-ballot-act-of-2020-one-pager https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/natural-disaster-and-e...
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  The right supports mail-in ballots with voter-id, and voter-id in general. The left doesn't support that, why?
  - tcoff91 6y ago
    The left doesn't support that because it disproportionately disenfranchises minority voters. Which is the same reason why the right DOES support it.
    - Grakel 6y ago
      It's pretty racist to say some groups can't figure out how to get a driver's license.
      - alistairSH 6y ago
        Nobody made that claim.
      - DonHopkins 6y ago
        You are the only one making such a racist claim. Don't put words into other people's mouths, when it's actually just the first thing that popped into YOUR head, and you apparently don't know the true history of racism and voter suppression and Jim Crow laws and poll taxes and the Southern Strategy and dog whistle politics in America. It's pretty racist to deny that history, and pretty ignorant not to know it. It's pretty racist that Republicans pass laws and close DMVs in areas that make it harder for certain groups to get a driver's license. It's also pretty racist of Republicans that they desperately don't want blacks to vote and do everything they can to prevent it, any way they can. That kind of Republican racism is why blacks are predominantly Democratic. Not because blacks foolishly let themselves get "tricked" into voting for Democrats, as the racist right-wing narrative goes. And it's pretty racist for Republicans to try to explain away the reason that most blacks vote Democrat as the result of Democrats trying to "keep them on the plantation", when blacks are perfectly capable of deciding who to vote for all by themselves, and are not "mentally enslaved" children lacking agency who can't be trusted to decide for themselves who has their best interests in mind (and run for office themselves), otherwise they'd be tricked by those sneaky Democrats who want them to vote. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/08/how-democratic-plantation-became-one-conservatives-favorite-slurs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/08/how-democr... >How the ‘Democratic plantation’ became one of conservatives’ favorite slurs >Since the 1960s, the right has explained away black Democrats by denying them agency. >In 2017, Candace Owens, then known as the YouTuber Red Pill Black, posted a short video called “How to Escape the Democrat Plantation (an easy guide).” In it, she compared African Americans who were physically enslaved before 1865 to their present-day descendants who, she argued, are mentally enslaved by the Democratic Party. She slammed the unquestionable loyalty that black people hold toward the party, which she argued functions as a plantation, in which people of African descent do the ground level work and receive nothing (or perhaps, just enough) in return. Her efforts eventually spawned the “Blexit” movement, a portmanteau that encouraged black Americans to exit the Democratic Party. [...] >A closer look at the phrase “Democrat plantation” and the divisions that accompany it, however, make clear much of this rhetoric is shallow and ahistorical. It distorts the current state of the relationship between Democrats and African American voters, and deprives the latter of agency, in part because of a failure to adequately understand the historical comparison that this rhetoric purports to make.
burtonator 6y ago
We need a new law - call it the Unequal Protection act. Senators/Representatives can't have benefits that exceed that of the general population for certain categories like voting rights, healthcare, etc. Can't even have private healthcare. Must use the same systems that the general population has access to.
- munk-a 6y ago
  While I think the thought is nice this would just lead to those with excessive financial independence being the only ones able to take the hit of being a law maker. Someone like AOC would never be able to afford to maintain a residence in D.C. while folks like Pelosi and Feinstein would be able to trivially afford it. The same issue arises whenever folks get antsy about Senatorial pay rates - sure paying them little feels nice but, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in developing nations, lower direct payment leads to more indirect payment through corruption.
  - karatestomp 6y ago
    See also: reducing congressional staff budgets, and congressional term limits, both of which, whatever their merits, tend to empower lobbyists.
- mcv 6y ago
  That would solve a lot of problems. Senators enjoy socialized health care while preaching its dangers to the electorate. They receive all sorts of benefits that they deny to the general public.
downerending 6y ago
> especially since the Covid-19 crisis started I think you're underestimating how against this the GOP was before COVID-19. If you're hearing more about it, it's likely just because the idea is gaining traction.

jkeuhlen 6y ago

The federal government does not have the jurisdiction to change how people vote in elections. That is determined by the states.

karatestomp 6y ago
Right, but it could have been an amendment, or (more likely) some incentive-based "we're not making you, you'll just get less money if you don't" thing.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Plenty of precedent for that sort of thing, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law > States had to agree to the limit if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair.
  - winter_blue 6y ago
    On a tangential note, these lawmakers failed to see the real consequence of a 55 mph speed limit: the invisible economic loss of longer commute times probably far outweighed any of the minor 0.5 to 1% savings in gas. Those hours spent on the road are hours that people could be spending with their family, at work, or doing whatever else they like. According to the Census Bureau, 128 million today commute daily in the US. Let's say they spend an average of 30 minutes on the highway at a top speed of 65 mph. If we raised the speed limit by 50% (to 97.5 mph), then the average commute would become: 30 / 1.5 = 20 minutes. Each individual would save 10 minutes a day. With 252 working days a year, that's 2520 minutes saved a year -- which is a total of 42 hours saved per year. That's a lot of time. Across 128 million commuters, we'd save 5.376 billion hours per year. If people earned an average of $20/hour, that would be $107 billion of added economic activity per year. Whereas even 1% of gas savings would not be more than $2 billion saved per year.
    - devdas 6y ago
      People would just live farther away.
    - Tomte 6y ago
      Don't you have construction sites or slower cars? I'm regularly driving 150 kilometers on the fabled Autobahn, with no speed limit for the most part (and some 120 km/h speed limit sections), and the difference between "I feel great, let's drive 180" and "Let's take it slow and drive 100 or 110" is surprisingly small, because that top speed is only attainable for short stretches of time.
      - dsfyu404ed 6y ago
        Obviously traffic varies by city, road and time of day but on the nominally 55-mph section of I95 around Boston traffic flows between 65 and 90ish if it's not precipitating with the exception being peak commuting hours when the choke points cause enough of a disruption to make most of the system flow well below that speed. Even if you knock 10mph off those speeds because older cars aren't quite as quiet and smooth at any given speed it still results in traffic speeds well above 55. All the 55mph limit on that particular road does in my mind is give law enforcement a pretext to make fishing stops. I can't recall a time I ever saw traffic go ~55 on a limited access road without the presence of inclement weather or severe traffic congestion. When you consider the kind of traffic conditions that are the norm in rural ares I don't think a national 55mph speed limit makes sense at all. Edit: I'm curious to know how a comment that is simply stating my observations and opinions can be considered so wrong.
  - dsfyu404ed 6y ago
    Yeah, there's precedent. There's precedent for everything that's ever happened already. That doesn't mean we should be doing those things Tons of people on both sides of the isle agree that implementing things like the national speed limit and drinking age of 21 by withholding federal funding from the states that don't goose step in line is a backhanded way of enacting legislation and/or an end run around the constitution. Sure you can do things that way, but you have to ask yourself if it's really worth it in the long run to normalize that kind of legislative behavior in exchange for getting whatever policy point you want a couple years sooner. Edit: To reply to your comment below I guess you could say, "no the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction, but that hasn't stopped them in the past"
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      It's a response to "The federal government does not have the jurisdiction", not "is this a good idea?"
  - bcrosby95 6y ago
    AFAIK Supreme Court has said that funding carrots have to be related to what you're trying to get them to do. Speed limits obviously translate to transit funding, I'm not sure you're going to find funding related to voting that is significant enough to convince states that don't have vote-by-mail. Oh, and it can't be too significant, because the Supreme Court shut down the Medicaid expansion requirement (expand Medicaid or lose all related funding) in the ACA because the funding was too much of states' budgets. It's a fine line to walk.
elicash 6y ago
This is true but only half the story. The federal government is able to incentivize vote-by-mail through federal funds. This has been the center of much debate. Speaker Pelosi says she will push for these funds in any next round of stimulus.
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  So Pelosi is willing to politicize the epidemic, cool.
  - nlfwhulsdhouv 6y ago
    Peepeepoopoo democrats do so much politics peepeepoopoo shut the fuck up.
  - mattkrause 6y ago
    I would maybe not go there on a day where the administration yanked a bat-to-human coronavirus grant because it doesn't "fit with current NIH priorities."
  - SuperFerret 6y ago
    Republicans can't win a fair election. Just like the founding fathers imagined.
  - mauflows 6y ago
    Isnt remote voting a priority because of the epidemic?
  - elicash 6y ago
    This is needlessly dismissive. Even red states like TX will likely be forced to allow more mail voting. KY and others will also be doing the same, expanding who can vote absentee in order to deal with a public health issue. Democrats think giving federal funds to states will help ward off recession and also want to prevent outbreaks in the fall. You can argue Democrats are wrong in those views, but states (including states that would prefer not to implement it!) will have to spend a lot of money on vote-by-mail because of decisions (some at court-level) being made that are the result of coronavirus.
shwayn 6y ago
This is not completely correct Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Time,_place,_and_manner_of_holding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat... "Manner of Elections" certainly sounds like it would allow Congress to pass a law mandating the elections must be vote by mail, specifically for Senators and Representatives. This does not apply to the President due to states having the jurisdiction to decide how electoral college electors are chosen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... So Congress has partial authority, the question is if Congress passed a vote by mail law for Senators and Representatives, would states have other ballot measures or positions (Such as the President) that would not be vote by mail in the same election.
- DrScump 6y ago
  Biennial November elections are a minority of elections overall.

ordinaryradical 6y ago

I used to be wowed by this kind of hypocrisy, but lately I've concluded that these things are happening so frequently because the voters have proved to them sufficiently that they will take no heed provided it "hurts the other team." Everything on the news looks ironic now because the political class has realized there's almost no limit to what they can get away with.

alasdair_ 6y ago
>Everything on the news looks ironic I was born and grew up in Scotland. I remember the first time I watched Fox News after moving to the states - for almost fifteen minutes I genuinely thought I was watching some (honestly pretty funny) satire.
- jagged-chisel 6y ago
  You were. Satire marketed as news.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    Satire, by definition, aims at the top of the societal ladder. Fox News, Russian state media, "alternative news" blogs? They aim at the very bottom of the societal ladder (i.e. immigrants, Muslims, poor people) instead. That's not satire, that is inciting hatred.
  - kyleblarson 6y ago
    As if CNN, MSNBC are any different.
    - hithereagain 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    - triceratops 6y ago
      r/enlightenedcentrism

stevenwliao 6y ago

Imagine a DDoS attempting to prevent quorum or affect vote outcomes! Lots of edge cases to iron out.

munk-a 6y ago
I don't think this is really a legitimate issue that needs to be enshrined in law - there are 100 senators so as long as there is a continuation of understanding around physical barriers to present yourself to a vote within the electronic realm it should work itself out. How different would a DDoS be from, for instance, one party hiring a mob of protestors to violently prevent law makers from submitting their votes in the statehouse - I'm not super familiar with the laws around this but I'd be surprised if there were no contingencies in place. Additionally the Senate does recognize vote assignment as legitimate so it'd be reasonable to support pre-registration of voting or the allowance of a voting window.
- stevenwliao 6y ago
  Mobs are highly visible. A senator's flaky Internet is less so. I agree that new Senate conventions could cover these cases.
croddin 6y ago
This could be the new way to filibuster! /s
basch 6y ago
Or a nation state kidnaps a senator, and vpn their vote back through the senators primary residence. They create a fake room that looks identical to the senators house. Any bad guy that's seen Mission Impossible one too many times would be inspired.

blululu 6y ago

Interestingly enough, a significant majority of Republican Voters (~65%) actually do support mail in ballots. The opposition largely stems from the RNC and senior party leadership. In any case I am glad that the US senate is taking public health seriously, and I hope that they will take similar precautions in protecting their constituents by passing the Klobuchar-Wyden bill to allow mail in voting: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/natural-disaster-and-emergency-ballot-act-of-2020-one-pager https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/natural-disaster-and-e...

eanzenberg 6y ago
The right supports mail-in ballots with voter-id, and voter-id in general. The left doesn't support that, why?
- tcoff91 6y ago
  The left doesn't support that because it disproportionately disenfranchises minority voters. Which is the same reason why the right DOES support it.
  - Grakel 6y ago
    It's pretty racist to say some groups can't figure out how to get a driver's license.
    - alistairSH 6y ago
      Nobody made that claim.
    - DonHopkins 6y ago
      You are the only one making such a racist claim. Don't put words into other people's mouths, when it's actually just the first thing that popped into YOUR head, and you apparently don't know the true history of racism and voter suppression and Jim Crow laws and poll taxes and the Southern Strategy and dog whistle politics in America. It's pretty racist to deny that history, and pretty ignorant not to know it. It's pretty racist that Republicans pass laws and close DMVs in areas that make it harder for certain groups to get a driver's license. It's also pretty racist of Republicans that they desperately don't want blacks to vote and do everything they can to prevent it, any way they can. That kind of Republican racism is why blacks are predominantly Democratic. Not because blacks foolishly let themselves get "tricked" into voting for Democrats, as the racist right-wing narrative goes. And it's pretty racist for Republicans to try to explain away the reason that most blacks vote Democrat as the result of Democrats trying to "keep them on the plantation", when blacks are perfectly capable of deciding who to vote for all by themselves, and are not "mentally enslaved" children lacking agency who can't be trusted to decide for themselves who has their best interests in mind (and run for office themselves), otherwise they'd be tricked by those sneaky Democrats who want them to vote. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/08/how-democratic-plantation-became-one-conservatives-favorite-slurs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/08/how-democr... >How the ‘Democratic plantation’ became one of conservatives’ favorite slurs >Since the 1960s, the right has explained away black Democrats by denying them agency. >In 2017, Candace Owens, then known as the YouTuber Red Pill Black, posted a short video called “How to Escape the Democrat Plantation (an easy guide).” In it, she compared African Americans who were physically enslaved before 1865 to their present-day descendants who, she argued, are mentally enslaved by the Democratic Party. She slammed the unquestionable loyalty that black people hold toward the party, which she argued functions as a plantation, in which people of African descent do the ground level work and receive nothing (or perhaps, just enough) in return. Her efforts eventually spawned the “Blexit” movement, a portmanteau that encouraged black Americans to exit the Democratic Party. [...] >A closer look at the phrase “Democrat plantation” and the divisions that accompany it, however, make clear much of this rhetoric is shallow and ahistorical. It distorts the current state of the relationship between Democrats and African American voters, and deprives the latter of agency, in part because of a failure to adequately understand the historical comparison that this rhetoric purports to make.

burtonator 6y ago

We need a new law - call it the Unequal Protection act. Senators/Representatives can't have benefits that exceed that of the general population for certain categories like voting rights, healthcare, etc. Can't even have private healthcare. Must use the same systems that the general population has access to.

munk-a 6y ago
While I think the thought is nice this would just lead to those with excessive financial independence being the only ones able to take the hit of being a law maker. Someone like AOC would never be able to afford to maintain a residence in D.C. while folks like Pelosi and Feinstein would be able to trivially afford it. The same issue arises whenever folks get antsy about Senatorial pay rates - sure paying them little feels nice but, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in developing nations, lower direct payment leads to more indirect payment through corruption.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  See also: reducing congressional staff budgets, and congressional term limits, both of which, whatever their merits, tend to empower lobbyists.
mcv 6y ago
That would solve a lot of problems. Senators enjoy socialized health care while preaching its dangers to the electorate. They receive all sorts of benefits that they deny to the general public.

downerending 6y ago

> especially since the Covid-19 crisis started I think you're underestimating how against this the GOP was before COVID-19. If you're hearing more about it, it's likely just because the idea is gaining traction.