Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Then they need a constitutional amendment ASAP. You shouldn't need a majority of people to show up to work for the business of government to proceed without the no-shows. Nor should the ability of no-shows to control the business of government be the sole alternative to the ability of a bunch of murderers who could co-ordinate murders of representatives being able to control it instead.

The federal government cannot amendment state constitutions.

They'd appoint people who agree with them so whats the point of your proposal?

I was referring to the claim that if it weren't for needing a majority of representatives present, then a minority of them could rule the government if a majority of them died.

I was pointing out that if each representative could appoint a replacement who agreed with them, then they would be replaced with a majority of people who agree with them and there would be no need for a majority of representatives present.

Let's set it up such that the business of government can go on without them. This tactic was used for good this time, but it could be misused in the future. Let's set up a structure of government less able to be as severely misused.

[San Lumen]

The federal government cannot amendment state constitutions.

They'd appoint people who agree with them so whats the point of your proposal?

I was referring to the claim that if it weren't for needing a majority of representatives present, then a minority of them could rule the government if a majority of them died.

I was pointing out that if each representative could appoint a replacement who agreed with them, then they would be replaced with a majority of people who agree with them and there would be no need for a majority of representatives present.

Let's set it up such that the business of government can go on without them. This tactic was used for good this time, but it could be misused in the future. Let's set up a structure of government less able to be as severely misused.

What's the point of an election then if you can just appoint someone to feel your shoes when you pull this tactic. The bills they are trying to prevent would then pass as there was quorum. The reason there are doing this is prevent passage.

[Vassenor]

Ok, so as I'm reading this thread I'm seeing a consistent but blatantly horrible trend. A lot of you left-leaning folks are of the opinion that Republicans can not ever win a fair election, ever. Therefore, there is active voter suppression and Republicans never win fairly.
This is potentially one of the most dangerous rhetorics I have ever heard from you guys here on NS. That is blatantly stupid and utterly false by every available point of data. It is simply mind-boggling that you can claim something like that when every other president is a Democrat, and the Democrats currently hold a majority in the House and Senate. THERE IS NO VOTER SUPPRESSION. PERIOD. None of these bills promote voter suppression anyway. Last year, when covid was still a much bigger issue than it is now, many states created special provisions for people to vote, which included mail-in balloting and an election that lasted forever. In case you guys haven't noticed, covid cases are down (for the moment), and we no longer need those special provisions. It is absolutely not racist for a state to decide how to run its elections, so long as that law is applied equally. Not only this, but African Americans more often than not outvote their percentage of the population, and more of them voted for Trump in 2020 than did in 2016. Is this voter suppression? I have a damn good feeling that African Americans will continue outvoting their percentage because nobody except for maybe 5 stupid KKK members are trying to keep them from voting. This is the kind of terrible rhetoric that will end up splitting the nation.
"can never win fairly" my a##.

So it's just a coincidence that this law will disproportionately impact ethnic minority communities.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I was referring to the claim that if it weren't for needing a majority of representatives present, then a minority of them could rule the government if a majority of them died.

I was pointing out that if each representative could appoint a replacement who agreed with them, then they would be replaced with a majority of people who agree with them and there would be no need for a majority of representatives present.

Let's set it up such that the business of government can go on without them. This tactic was used for good this time, but it could be misused in the future. Let's set up a structure of government less able to be as severely misused.

What's the point of an election then if you can just appoint someone to feel your shoes when you pull this tactic. The bills they are trying to prevent would then pass as there was quorum. The reason there are doing this is prevent passage.

You're missing the point.

I was saying there shouldn't need to be a majority of representatives present in the first place.

If they don't show up, move on without them.

If they don't show up because they're dead, they should've appointed someone to take their place between their death and the next election, or if the system wouldn't let them, then the system should've let them.

But we shouldn't incentivize people to try to block a vote by not showing up at all.

[Vassenor]

What's the point of an election then if you can just appoint someone to feel your shoes when you pull this tactic. The bills they are trying to prevent would then pass as there was quorum. The reason there are doing this is prevent passage.

You're missing the point.

I was saying there shouldn't need to be a majority of representatives present in the first place.

If they don't show up, move on without them.

If they don't show up because they're dead, they should've appointed someone to take their place between their death and the next election, or if the system wouldn't let them, then the system should've let them.

But we shouldn't incentivize people to try to block a vote by not showing up at all.

And thus the GOP gets to force through voter suppression and invasive genital exams for school kids.

[San Lumen]

What's the point of an election then if you can just appoint someone to feel your shoes when you pull this tactic. The bills they are trying to prevent would then pass as there was quorum. The reason there are doing this is prevent passage.

You're missing the point.

I was saying there shouldn't need to be a majority of representatives present in the first place.

If they don't show up, move on without them.

If they don't show up because they're dead, they should've appointed someone to take their place between their death and the next election, or if the system wouldn't let them, then the system should've let them.

But we shouldn't incentivize people to try to block a vote by not showing up at all.

And then the bill passes. They are trying to prevent it.

Your completely missing the point.

If a representative dies or resign then most states hold a special election to replace them. Some have appointments via list provided by the party of the former rep.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

You're missing the point.

I was saying there shouldn't need to be a majority of representatives present in the first place.

If they don't show up, move on without them.

If they don't show up because they're dead, they should've appointed someone to take their place between their death and the next election, or if the system wouldn't let them, then the system should've let them.

But we shouldn't incentivize people to try to block a vote by not showing up at all.

And thus the GOP gets to force through voter suppression and invasive genital exams for school kids.

And if the public claims to oppose that, it's on them to prove it by actually showing up to the polls, regardless of the obstacles the GOP puts in their way.

If not, so be it. That is the price of democracy.

[Peatiktist]

I dislike the kind of bill that Texas is trying to introduce.
But what I like even less is undermining any sort of vote, good or bad.
This is near hypocrisy for the Democrats. When the Republicans did this type of thing in Oregon, they sent the police after them. Why is it somehow different now that they're doing it?

Politicians are the only people who can be paid to actively avoid doing their job.

[Fahran]

Based. Definitely a better reason to break quorum than any time the GOP has done so in recent memory.

Axing bad firearm regulations is always a good reason to quorum-bust.

[Fahran]

I think if America had automatic voter registration and sent a mail ballot to every adult citizen, the Republicans would have fewer than 25 Senate seats and Presidential elections would be a foregone conclusion.

That's probably a bit more optimistic than you have any right to be.

[Fahran]

I dislike the kind of bill that Texas is trying to introduce.
But what I like even less is undermining any sort of vote, good or bad.
This is near hypocrisy for the Democrats. When the Republicans did this type of thing in Oregon, they sent the police after them. Why is it somehow different now that they're doing it?

Politicians are the only people who can be paid to actively avoid doing their job.

In both cases, the elected officials were representing their constituents to the best of their ability.

[Ifreann]

What's the point of an election then if you can just appoint someone to feel your shoes when you pull this tactic. The bills they are trying to prevent would then pass as there was quorum. The reason there are doing this is prevent passage.

You're missing the point.

I was saying there shouldn't need to be a majority of representatives present in the first place.

If they don't show up, move on without them.

If they don't show up because they're dead, they should've appointed someone to take their place between their death and the next election, or if the system wouldn't let them, then the system should've let them.

But we shouldn't incentivize people to try to block a vote by not showing up at all.

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and you would know that it doesn't exist if you paid any serious attention to the world around you.

[Peatiktist]

I dislike the kind of bill that Texas is trying to introduce.
But what I like even less is undermining any sort of vote, good or bad.
This is near hypocrisy for the Democrats. When the Republicans did this type of thing in Oregon, they sent the police after them. Why is it somehow different now that they're doing it?

Politicians are the only people who can be paid to actively avoid doing their job.

In both cases, the elected officials were representing their constituents to the best of their ability.

If they were representing their constituents, they would be there to vote against in the democratic process that exists for lawmaking.

Instead, they're subverting the democratic system by preventing it from happening.
They may think this is the best way to represent their constituents, but in reality they're representing nothing but their own opinion.

[Galloism]

I think if America had automatic voter registration and sent a mail ballot to every adult citizen, the Republicans would have fewer than 25 Senate seats and Presidential elections would be a foregone conclusion.

That's probably a bit more optimistic than you have any right to be.

I think we'd see a major shifts all across the board.

Because of the way districts work, there's a lot of people on the "wrong" side of a certain district that just don't go through the effort to show up because they feel it's a pointless waste of time - a conservative in new york city, a liberal in bumfuck, Texas.

But if you made it really simple to vote, like you could do it in 5 minutes or 10 minutes from home, then the investment drops dramatically and they might all vote just to prove a point.

It could actually make things a lot more interesting.

[Vassenor]

In both cases, the elected officials were representing their constituents to the best of their ability.

If they were representing their constituents, they would be there to vote against in the democratic process that exists for lawmaking.

Instead, they're subverting the democratic system by preventing it from happening.
They may think this is the best way to represent their constituents, but in reality they're representing nothing but their own opinion.

So they should yield to the will of a party that only holds a legislative majority though voter suppression and gerrymandering.

[Galloism]

I believe Texas state law requires that they round them up while on horseback, wearing a cowboy hat, using a lasso.

[Fahran]

If they were representing their constituents, they would be there to vote against in the democratic process that exists for lawmaking.

Instead, they're subverting the democratic system by preventing it from happening.
They may think this is the best way to represent their constituents, but in reality they're representing nothing but their own opinion.

So they should yield to the will of a party that only holds a legislative majority though voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Two things, one for each of y'all.

1. Quorum-busting is built into the legislative process in Texas and Oregon. Employing legislative loopholes surrounding quorum requirements is hardly a subversion of democracy. It's about on par with the filibuster in that respect.

2. Texas doesn't have a GOP majority solely due to voter suppression and gerrymandering. The state is purple, but it leans red. We can see that when we look at counties, local elections, and state-wide elections. In this case, voter suppression and gerrymandering simply exaggerate the existing GOP advantage outside of large urban areas, El Paso, and the Valley.

[Fahran]

I believe Texas state law requires that they round them up while on horseback, wearing a cowboy hat, using a lasso.

That would probably be extremely dangerous to their health.

[Exxosia]

If they were serious about anything, they would not have spent a massive amount of money to flee out of state to a party stronghold. They would have stayed in Texas, protested, refused to comply, and got arrested. They would have made at least an attempt at a mockery. They could not lower themselves to even make a show. They are cowards and should be held in contempt by their constituents.

[Galloism]

If they were serious about anything, they would not have spent a massive amount of money to flee out of state to a party stronghold. They would have stayed in Texas, protested, refused to comply, and got arrested. They would have made at least an attempt at a mockery. They could not lower themselves to even make a show. They are cowards and should be held in contempt by their constituents.

That wouldn’t actually work to block quorum though. They’d just get carried into the chamber in handcuffs and counted as present.

[Peatiktist]

If they were representing their constituents, they would be there to vote against in the democratic process that exists for lawmaking.

Instead, they're subverting the democratic system by preventing it from happening.
They may think this is the best way to represent their constituents, but in reality they're representing nothing but their own opinion.

So they should yield to the will of a party that only holds a legislative majority though voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Absolutely not.
I'm saying they should go their and make their voice heard, instead of running away to avoid something that will end up happening regardless, good or not.

And the way you said gerrymandering implies that it's a Republican only sort of thing, even if that sort of message wasn't intentional.
Gerrymandering is a universal thing. Both sides have party members elected on the sole merit of drawing voting wards to their benefit.

[San Lumen]

If they were serious about anything, they would not have spent a massive amount of money to flee out of state to a party stronghold. They would have stayed in Texas, protested, refused to comply, and got arrested. They would have made at least an attempt at a mockery. They could not lower themselves to even make a show. They are cowards and should be held in contempt by their constituents.

That wouldn’t actually work to block quorum though. They’d just get carried into the chamber in handcuffs and counted as present.

Totally acceptable in a democracy.

[Fahran]

Totally acceptable in a democracy.

Well, yes.

I don't think most reasonable people would describe Texas as undemocratic. Maybe a bit flawed, but it's hardly a dictatorship or one-party state.

[The Alma Mater]

If they were serious about anything, they would not have spent a massive amount of money to flee out of state to a party stronghold. They would have stayed in Texas, protested, refused to comply, and got arrested. They would have made at least an attempt at a mockery. They could not lower themselves to even make a show. They are cowards and should be held in contempt by their constituents.

Why stop there ? Every time a republican steps up just say "you are not the elected representative you pathetic cheater. PLease make room for (some democrat here)". If Trump supporters can pretend Trump is still president, Dems can pretend Texas is blue

[Necroghastia]

I dislike the kind of bill that Texas is trying to introduce.
But what I like even less is undermining any sort of vote, good or bad.

What about undermining the vote on a thing that will undermine votes?