H.R. 1

It would, among other things, eliminate partisan gerrymandering by creating non-partisan panels to handle redistricting, create new national requirements weakening restrictive state voter ID laws, impose new transparency on dark money used to finance campaigns, tighten government ethics standards, create a public financing option for congressional campaigns.

Who is against drawing fair congressional district boundaries, making legal voting easier, trying to end the corrupting influence of dark money, ethics rules, and making campaign fund raising less burdensome..............Repubs of course. Their's is a completely different agenda.

In Statehouses, Stolen-Election Myth Fuels a G.O.P. Drive to Rewrite Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/27/us/republican-voter-suppression.html

It's almost as though Repubs think the fairer and less corrupt elections are the greater their chances of losing. And for once they're right.

 

https://georgiastarnews.com/2021/03...es-fulton-county-one-of-35-scofflaw-counties/

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding the evidence that could prove that David Perdue actually won over 50% of the vote on November 3rd and should be a sitting US Senator from Georgia?

 

We don't know if they're hiding something or just incompetent. Either way, it doesn't prove massive fraud, for either candidate.

 

I'm not going to chase you down the rabbit hole. Get back to me when you have credible evidence of wrongdoing, not suggestions of such.

 

even Perdue knows this is not true which is why it took him less than a week to decide not to run in 2022.

 

They admitted in front of the SCOTUS yesterday that having more people vote puts them at a "competitive disadvantage".

 

It would, among other things, eliminate partisan gerrymandering by creating non-partisan panels to handle redistricting, create new national requirements weakening restrictive state voter ID laws, impose new transparency on dark money used to finance campaigns, tighten government ethics standards, create a public financing option for congressional campaigns.

Exactly what is it that Repubs object to?

 

I don't know if Democrats in office really want to pass this H.R. 1 bill or not. Currently, they are milking it for donations. Just like during the second impeachment of Trump. They milked it for donations but didn't win impeachment.

 

Why wouldn't they want to..........eliminate partisan gerrymandering by creating non-partisan panels to handle redistricting, create new national requirements weakening restrictive state voter ID laws, impose new transparency on dark money used to finance campaigns, tighten government ethics standards, create a public financing option for congressional campaigns?

Are you sure you aren't making your unsubstantiated allegation because...........

https://www.newsweek.com/donor-sues-pro-trump-group-2-5-million-failing-prove-voter-fraud-1550457

 

Yes, they want it to pass, and of course they're milking it for donations. Politicians do anything for money.

 

I think Democrats, as well as Republicans, benefit from dark money. The only reason that Democratic politicians would favor its removal would be that they expect to win more elections with it repealed. It's all a game, unless the Dems really do care about fixing election corruption, and providing economic aid to poor Democrat candidates giving them a chance to run, unlike Republican politicians.

 

I can be realistic without being cynical. Not saying you are, but I think the Democrats are operating in good faith. They're also aware of political advantage and are of course going to act on that when they're in the majority. Rules change all the time, especially when parties swap power, so this isn't extraordinary. As long as the rules are fair to both sides, implementing a campaign strategy is the responsibility of the respective parties/candidates.

The only way the GOP survives is to expand its base. The party knows this, hence the voter suppression strategy. That only postpones the inevitable. Demographics are rapidly changing, voting will eventually become easier, and the Republican Party needs something to draw the black and Hispanic vote from the Democrats. I have hope.

 

Dems are pragmatic enough to know, given the current day importance of campaign spending, they can't afford not to take dark money contributions. The point is only one side wants to do away with its corrupting influence. Only one side wants more access to voting for legal, registered voters. Only one side is proposing legislation to end partisan gerrymandering.

 

Not unlike Trump using the lies about the election fraud to milk people for donations that were never used to contest the election.

 

Suggestions is where such investigations often start.

 

Trump has ginned up much of that money with alarmist fundraising pitches multiple times a day, pleading for help. “We MUST defend the Election from the Left!” one text signed by Trump and sent on Wednesday read. “I've activated a 1000% offer for 1 HOUR to put America FIRST. Step up & act NOW.”

But the majority of that money is likely not going to any sort of legal account. Trump’s fundraising operation is instead sending it to a new political organization created by the president: a leadership PAC called Save America PAC, a type of vehicle popular with both parties on Capitol Hill but long derided by watchdogs as essentially a type of slush fund, with few restrictions on how the money they raise can be spent.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/trump-pac-fundraising-442775

 

Attempts to instill permanent autocratic totalitarian political power is always put in high sounding people supporting terms.

 

Rod, that was over the top even for you and the opposite of the truth. How is taking partisanship out of drawing congressional districts "permanent autocratic totalitarian political power." Geeeesh.

 

That might be one little piece of the bill that has some non-hypocritical objectivity.

 

The only reason to be against the bill is if you are in favor of partisanship in every aspect of the voting process. Making your comments one of those up is down moments.

 

Where would one find a non partisan?

The constitution gives the power and responsibility of operating elections squarely on the states, not the federal government. It is none of federal government's business.

In order to make it even darker.

Oh good. An oxymoron.

Excellent let's make people pay for other peoples' representatives. No more room in America for people who do not want to fund political campaigns.

I'm not a republican but you can add me to the list.

 

They object to likely democrats voting, especially if they are black.

 

Perhaps the better way to say it is the board making up district boundaries would do so in a bipartisan way to reach a non-partisan result. I can't help asking if you are nitpicking the bill because you think Repubs should be allowed to continue trying to rig elections in their favor?

 

No, I don't care about elections. I don't participate in them. My point is that a bipartisan panel is a partisan panel. Bipartisan boundaries are partisan boundaries. People involved with elections are partisans.

 

Oh brother, or rather, oh 'big' brother.

Really?

Actually, you are the one using Orwellian techniques, and that you projecting, is proof of that fact.

Of course, you were unable to refute any of the items mentioned and their purpose for being in the bill.

No, you just wrote essentially that the bill equals an attempt to acquire authoritarian power, which is rich considering Donald Trump tried to steal an election by accusing his opponents of stealing an election and then inspired his flock to commit insurrection resulting in deaths.

In your bizarro world, black is white, up is down, right is left, hot is cold, and real efforts to help people is 'authoritarian'.