On October 18, the Pennsylvania House amended SB 224 so that it moves the 2024 primaries from April 23 to April 16. The House then passed the bill by 104-99. However, leaders of the Senate say they don’t support the amended bill. If nothing passes, the April 23 date will remain, even though it conflicts with Passover.
Pennsylvania is just re-arranging the deck chairs, while the iceberg looms ahead.
What they need to prioritize is changing the method of selecting Presidential electors.
First, they need to switch to choosing electors by Congressional district. Otherwise, the chance that their large number of electors could be entirely decided by a handful of votes, fraudulent or otherwise, would be very high.
Second, they need to authorize run-offs in those districts that might be decided by less than 50%.
G MATH EC IN G MATH G USA REP DISTS EVEN MINORITY RULE WORSE
1/2 X 1/2 = 1/4
ABOLISH ALL MINORITY RULE RIGGED GERRYMANDER SYSTEMS
—
P-A-T
Closely divided states need to consider choosing electors by district. It has the effect of dampening any criticism that the outcome was “fixed” somehow, because a narrow spread of votes decided the outcome of all the electors.
Maine switched to choosing electors by district even before it switched to ranked choice voting. No one has challenged the result of the Presidential vote in Maine ever since.
I don’t agree with the idea of letting each US House district choose its own presidential elector. Already gerrymandering is a huge problem, and the idea of letting each US House district choose its own presidential elector would make the gerrymandering problem even worse. Far more sensible to have a popular vote to choose the president, with either ranked choice voting, or a run-off only two weeks later, as all the other countries that have their president elected by the voters (as opposed to the parliamentary system in which there is no presidential vote). That is what the US does for Governor in every state (except usually there is no run-off); why can’t we do it for president?
Legislators should elect the electors. Property owning White men over the age of 21 (or 40, to keep up with where in the life cycle 21 was back then) should elect the legislators. Anyone in the US illegally or only as a result of the 1965 immigration law changes should be rounded up and deported, and laws passed since 1965 nullified to help fix the damage that most pernicious of all laws caused.
The importance of States should never be minimized.
Article VII
Sec. 1. (1) Elections of the United States shall only be held on [date] of each year.
(2) Each Elector shall be a Citizen of the United States and 18 or more years old on an election day and be registered to vote in his/her election precinct by [28] days before an election day and have the right to vote with a secret ballot in all elections in such precinct of the United States, a State or a non-State part of the United States.
(3) Each such Citizen not having a residence in the United States shall be registered in the District of Columbia.
(4) Registrations shall be updated monthly.
(5) All election laws shall be general and exist by [210] days before the election day.
(6) All petitions signed by Electors shall be secret.
(7) All elections shall only use mail paper ballots with pre-paid costs to and from the Electors.
(8) Ballots shall be mailed out by [21] days before the election day.
———-
Sec. 6. (1) Each Elector may vote for 1 or more candidates for each executive or judicial office (including 1 write-in vote for each position).
(2) The candidate(s) getting the most votes shall be elected (for the longest terms respectively).
What I have observed in the swing states is that nearly all of them have a very pronounced metro-rural divide. This means that contested elections across the entire state are super partisan because a handful of votes can swing ALL of the electors. And that partisanship is almost always along metro-rural lines.
Ideally, that could be resolved by proportional ranked choice voting. But, that seems to be too novel today for most voters. So, IMO, this solution must be approached by degrees, as it has been in Maine, and not all at once.
I have already recommended ways to reduce gerrymandering. One idea that I have proposed is minimum Congressional district size. If Congressional districts each had to be a minimum of 1,000 square, about the size of Rhode Island, then most metro districts would be multi-member, and most rural districts would continue to be single member. And, IMO, this is an appropriate solution because rural districts tend to be demographically homogeneous, whereas metro districts would be the most demographically diverse.
If my minimum district size were in place, then Presidential electors in metro areas could be chosen in groups, and in rural areas singly.
“Operation Bite-Size” for electoral reform, as Marshall Fritz used to say.
LIMIT USA PREZ TO ONLY EXEC ACTION —
NOOO LEGIS VETOES
NOOO LEGIS TREATIES
NOOO JUDIC PARDONS
BE CIC AND CUT WHITE HOUSE LAWN
USA PREZ — OF A-L-L THE USA
NOW DEFACTO CHOSEN BY ABOUT 23 PCT OF VOTERS IN STATES/DC HAVING 270 OF 538 EC VOTES.
WILL BE LESS PCT IN 2024 WITH ADDED 3RD/INDEE CANDS
No taxation without representation. Anyone who pays taxes, white, yellow, red, brown, or black, immigrant or native, is entitled to vote.
Foreigners and foreign corporations pay taxes. Child actors and other working children pay taxes. Tourists who buy anything on their trip pay sales taxes, lodging taxes, etc. I don’t think your categorical statement is realistic.
ALLEGIANCE TO USA CONST VIA BEING A USA CITIZEN
HOW MANY FORN INVADERS INTO THE USA SINCE 4 JULY 1776 ??? – ESP SINCE 2009 GREAT DEPRESSION II OBAMA REGIME
WILL THEY ALL BE PARDONED BY COMMIE JOE B ???
Does Walter Ziobro believe anyone who does not pay taxes should NOT be entitled to vote? If paying taxes is the sole basis on which voting were determined, shouldn’t each voting entity have voting power proportional to amount of tax paid? If not, why not?
Richard Winger and AZ’s ideas are fucking retarded
I like White Men Can Trump’s ideas much better.
“Foreigners and foreign corporations pay taxes. Child actors and other working children pay taxes. Tourists who buy anything on their trip pay sales taxes, lodging taxes, etc. I don’t think your categorical statement is realistic.”
While, we cannot give corporations actual votes, I support Citizens United because it at least gives them a political voice. And, I would even allow direct political contributions from corporations. Even foreign ones, if they pay US taxes.
Working children generally only have to pay income tax. Since I would favor abolishing personal income taxes, that pretty much solves that.
Tourists, who are transients, would probably not stay long enough to be affected by government policy. If they establish residency or buy property, and actually pay taxes to a community, then they should have votes in that community.
“Does Walter Ziobro believe anyone who does not pay taxes should NOT be entitled to vote? If paying taxes is the sole basis on which voting were determined, shouldn’t each voting entity have voting power proportional to amount of tax paid? If not, why not?”
If non-tax-paying residents are affected by laws passed by a legislature, they should be able to vote. Being subject to the law should make them parties to it.
And as for proportional taxes, I have given this matter some thought. IMO, if someone owns multiple properties, or pays multiple taxes, in more than one community or state, they should be entitled to vote in all those places.
We can’t give corporations actual votes? Why not? What are the parameters of what you can and can’t do in your fantasy political game of rewriting the rules?
As far as I know, working children pay all the same taxes as working adults.
I see that you’re in favor of foreigners who buy property voting. What about foreigners who continue to live in their own countries but conduct business in the US which involves paying US taxes? Should people or companies which do business in all the states be able to vote in all of them?
You have not considered proportional taxes deeply enough. Leaving aside voting in multiple places, why would or wouldn’t a person or entity paying a million times as much in taxes as another get a million times as much voting power, say along the corporate shareholder voting model?
I disagree with the idea tourists are not affected by policy … public safety, for example. Tourists can be repeat/frequent.
@RW,
After the 1800 election, Alexander Hamilton favored a constitutional amendment that would provide for popular election by electoral district with the districts drawn by Congress.
Hamilton was generally wrong on every significant question of his time.
HAMILTON — AMONG OTHER THINGS —
LIABLE FOR $1OO JUNK USA BILLS OF CREDIT IN 1775-1781 === $ 1 SILVER COIN IN USA 1790 DEBT ACT.
1775-1790 LOWER/MIDDLE CLASSES ECON WIPED OUT – IN ADDITION TO DEATH/INJURY OF RELATIVES IN AM REV WAR.
ORIGINAL $ 20 IN 7 AMDT WAS BIIIG CASH IN 1789.
SLOW DE-FLATION IN 1790-1860 — REAL SAVINGS — REAL INVESTMENTS- TELEGRAPHS / STEAM ENGINES — RAILROADS — SHIPS / IRON FACTORIES >>> UNION VICTORY IN 1861-1865.
NOW USA BANKRUPTCY — 31 PLUS TRILLION / NEAR HYPER-INFLATION.
—-
P-A-T
I’m with Save America on that.
BIZ RAISE PRICES TO PAY FOR BIZ TAXES – ECON 00001 — OR GO BANKRUPT
SEE 2009-2012 GREAT DEPRESSION II
Anyone have a clue what AZ apparent nonsequitur has to do with anything? It’s almost as bad as listening to a Biden speech. I had to flip the channel.
“Does Walter Ziobro believe anyone who does not pay taxes should NOT be entitled to vote? If paying taxes is the sole basis on which voting were determined, shouldn’t each voting entity have voting power proportional to amount of tax paid? If not, why not?”
That is a good point. Any citizen that doesn’t work and pay taxes isn’t worth shi*.
“As far as I know, working children pay all the same taxes as working adults”
I would repeal personal income taxes for everyone.
“Should people or companies which do business in all the states be able to vote in all of them”
“We can’t give corporations actual votes? Why not?”
People who pay taxes in multiple states should be able to vote in each of them, or be exempt from taxation. Companies don’t need actual votes, just a political voice, which would include political contributions. We are actually moving in that direction with Citizens United.
“You have not considered proportional taxes deeply enough” I have considered the idea that people who pay graduated income tax should get additional votes for each bracket they pay. But, given that I would prefer to repeal the personal income tax entirely, that’s an academic question for me.
In England in the Middle Ages, towns would get charters from the Crown exempting them from taxes laid by Parliament if they surrendered their right to send members to the House of Commons. This was the basis of the principle of “No taxation without representation.” It was this principle that the American colonists appealed to when Parliament began leveling taxes on them, as they had no voting representatives in Parliament.
So, it seems to me that if anyone is deprived of the right to vote, or in some way prohibited from participating in any election thru political endorsement or contributions, they should as well be exempt from taxation.
It’s also interesting to note that, up until the last century, university corporations were actually represented in Parliament:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_constituency
each university had one vote.
There was a time in American history when paying taxes was voluntarily AND whatever a person could afford.
When?
Walter Ziobro, what taxes would you have for which levels of government?
Walter Ziobro , I don’t believe you addressed the point about foreigners living abroad who pay US taxes in one form or another. Temporary guest workers also pay taxes, even though they don’t establish residency. What about frequent visitors? What would be frequent enough? And why not have companies vote, in addition to making contributions?
Walter Ziobro, whether it’s property taxes or sales taxes or income taxes, some people and entities pay a lot more than just the bracket difference vis a vis others.
How would you account for hidden taxes such as inflation and debt?
Are you predicting adopting your preferred tax scheme and your preferred voting qualifications or weighing scheme on each other, or are they independent variables?
We live in a global supply chain world. The decisions of foreign governments have impacts on everyone everywhere – the prices they pay, the availability of goods, who is driven to immigrate or emigrate where, wars, terrorism, debt, etc, etc. The idea that foreigners are not impacted by policies of governments where they don’t live is archaic and quaint.
Big, if I work but don’t pay the mob protection money, am I also not worth shit? How are taxes different?
At 4:15 predicting should be predicating.
ALL TAXES ARE PAID FOR BY FINAL CONSUMERS IN HIGHER PRICES, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BY PRODUCERS
— ESP. REGRESSIVE SALES TAXES AND PROPERTY TAXES AND IMPORT TAXES.
IN GDP MATH–
GOVT OFFICERS/EMPLOYEES ARE DEEMED ONE PERSON BIZS
– GOVT PAY TO THEM IS MOVED IMMEDIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL INCOMES
——-
6,000 PLUS YEARS ECON W-A-R —
N-E-T GOVT $$$ GETTERS VS N-E-T $$$ TAX PAYING SLAVES–
USA NOW HAS ABOUT 40-45 PCT NET $$$ GETTERS VS 60 – 55 PCT TAX SLAVES.
—-
COMMIE DONKEYS TRYING FOR IMMEDIATE 60-80 PCT TAX RATES ON ALL NEW PRODUCTION AND 80-100 PCT TAX RATES ON INHERITED ASSETS.
Thanks, AZ, but I wasn’t asking you. I’m asking Walter and Big for their followups.
I don’t think a calculation of who is a net tax plus or minus is straight forward or even possible. Taxes and the direct and indirect effects of government policies are too complicated, complex, contradictory and entangled. This is by design, so we are all tax slaves in one form or fashion and all complicit in the tax racket extortion.
I wish it was as easy as blaming one of the two major parties, but unfortunately that’s not realistic. The tax racket is not merely a partisan enterprise. It continues to metastasize regardless of election results, with bipartisan and nonpartisan support. Their squabbles are over minor details, not the racket as a whole. No one with any serious shot at winning anything big seriously even questions it.