How is This Democracy?

[stormchaser]

Before I dig into this post, I want to stress that I don't intend it to be "political" or a debate about "who's right or wrong". The point of my post is to discuss how it seems lawmakers will push through (or push out) things regardless of the legality or what the people clearly want and how IMO it hurts us as a state.

To help better explain, here are 2 relatively recent examples.

- A few years ago (2019 maybe?), way more than enough signatures were collected to put marijuana usage on the ballot and allow people to vote for it in the upcoming election. Clearly something a large % of Nebraskans are in favor of. However, one single judge decided they didn't want it on the ballot and consequently had it removed for the entire state (I don't recall the specifics of how or their excuse as to "why") but how is this democracy??.

- Another example is the recent passage of the "gender affirming care" and abortion ban at 12 weeks. Again, I know these topics are controversial and I'm not trying to start a post to argue for or against them. I'm just stating I find it ridiculous that lawmakers basically forced these 2 things through together when clearly they are 2 separate issues (despite the claim they are "healthcare" and consequently 1 single issue - get real). Such a sleazy way of handling it IMO and is a disservice to the people of this state. I'm not suggesting these wouldn't have passed anyway as separate issues (we don't know) but again, how is this democracy??

I bring these issues up because personally I believe at the very least these things hurt us as a state. It's sad to make it clear people don't have a voice when it comes to certain topics but also things like these may deter people from relocating to this state (assuming people from outside of Nebraska pay attention to this - maybe it's a stretch and most don't, but still). Regardless, it makes it seem like Nebraska is simply stuck in the past IMO and is definitely not how the democratic process should work.

[Garrett]

Ironically I think the judge stopped the Marijuana vote because it wasn’t considered a single issue vote.

[stormchaser]

Ironically I think the judge stopped the Marijuana vote because it wasn’t considered a single issue vote.

That is pretty ironic but somehow I’m not surprised

[almighty_tuna]

Ironically I think the judge stopped the Marijuana vote because it wasn’t considered a single issue vote.

That is pretty ironic but somehow I’m not surprised

So the NE Supreme Court issued the ruling 5-2. And IIRC, the Lancaster Co Sheriff was the one to "challenge" it. HOWEVER, I say "challenge" b/c IIRC Wagner didn't initiate the challenge, it was a law firm that was suddenly privately funded with the $$ to challenge at the NE Supreme Court level and reached out to Wagner to testify. It was widely rumored at the time that the funding was a significant private donation by someone in the Ricketts family because they didn't like the initiative had reached the ballot. I'll have to do some digging to find the article, it's been a few years.

But again, another example to your theme of lawmakers' actions being incongruent with a democratic process.

[stormchaser]

Ironically I think the judge stopped the Marijuana vote because it wasn’t considered a single issue vote.

That is pretty ironic but somehow I’m not surprised

So the NE Supreme Court issued the ruling 5-2. And IIRC, the Lancaster Co Sheriff was the one to "challenge" it. HOWEVER, I say "challenge" b/c IIRC Wagner didn't initiate the challenge, it was a law firm that was suddenly privately funded with the $$ to challenge at the NE Supreme Court level and reached out to Wagner to testify. It was widely rumored at the time that the funding was a significant private donation by someone in the Ricketts family because they didn't like the initiative had reached the ballot. I'll have to do some digging to find the article, it's been a few years.

But again, another example to your theme of lawmakers' actions being incongruent with a democratic process.

Yeah, pretty sad but unfortunately not at all surprising either.

[almighty_tuna]

What I find equally as frustrating is the general media coverage. Sure, most local TV and print coverage will report that the NE Supreme Court nixed the weed ballot initiative or that LB754 passed w/the aforementioned amendment, but never more than a passing interest before we head straight for the weekend forecast. Nobody actually asks tough questions and follows up unless it's Mike McKnight sleuthing down who scammed an old lady on her kitchen remodel. There are skeevy contractors in Omaha that are held to greater account than most of our NE officials (who, btw, are attempting to remove even more oversight).

[Garrett]

What I find equally as frustrating is the general media coverage. Sure, most local TV and print coverage will report that the NE Supreme Court nixed the weed ballot initiative or that LB754 passed w/the aforementioned amendment, but never more than a passing interest before we head straight for the weekend forecast. Nobody actually asks tough questions and follows up unless it's Mike McKnight sleuthing down who scammed an old lady on her kitchen remodel. There are skeevy contractors in Omaha that are held to greater account than most of our NE officials (who, btw, are attempting to remove even more oversight).

Between the severely weakened state of local press and the hyper partisanship that has turned our politicians not into representatives but teams to cheer for at all costs, even with blatant corruption being evident, we're kinda |expletive| right now.

[Renovator2559]

We shouldn't forget that we are a Republic not a Democracy.

As for the Marijuana issue, there doesn't appear to be much conclusive evidence of whether marijuana increases legitimate crime. However it does increase incarcerations that may be unnecessary. Honestly as a follower of natural medicine, I understand that marijuana can be used as a much safer alternative for healing, compared to the numerous side effects of pharmaceuticals. Alcohol is much more harmful than marijuana use; yet its legal. I think the main problem with both substances is when they are both abused and the effects of impairment.

I guess one of the hesitations for marijuana adoption, is how places like Oregon legalized Marijuana in 2014 and now Oregon has moved the goal posts to legalize heroin and other street drugs and now Oregon has a drug addiction problem, despite funding rehabs. All and all, this gives pause to Nebraska because Nebraska tends to favor stability and watch how positively or negatively other states are affected by any policies other states adopt.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/us/orego ... index.html

Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, Finland's leading expert on pediatric gender medicine and chief psychiatrist at its largest gender clinic (Tampere University), gave an interview to the country's leading newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat.

"While it is "important to accept the child as they are," Kaltiala said, it's also necessary to recognize that "four out of five" children with cross-gender ID grow out of it during puberty and come to terms with their body/sex."


There are plenty of transgender people that are advocating to not change the gender of minors at a young age.

'Hundreds' of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex


Also, the medical system will always support transitioning because transitioning is a very profitable enterprise, despite the suffering and repeat medical procedures that an individual has to go through to transition and maintain their gender, which leads to a lifelong dependency of the medical system. Also, adults in Nebraska can change their gender if they wish, since a grown adult is more apt to understand the side effects of taking a lifechanging but costly procedure and the state also is increasing funding of mental support in the same bill for if individuals need some mental support.

[almighty_tuna]

Let's get this back on track right away. This isn't a debate over the pros/cons of marijuana nor transgender healthcare. The scope of the thread, as stormchaser stated right at the beginning, is:

The point of my post is to discuss how it seems lawmakers will push through (or push out) things regardless of the legality or what the people clearly want and how IMO it hurts us as a state.

[Renovator2559]

Let's get this back on track right away. This isn't a debate over the pros/cons of marijuana nor transgender healthcare. The scope of the thread, as stormchaser stated right at the beginning, is:

Again, as I mentioned we are a republic not a democracy. A republic is meant to prevent mob rule (majority) from violating the rights of the minority. If Nebraska was like the state of Oregon, then we would face polarization; in which the eastern side of Oregon (12 counties) want to break away from Oregon and become part of Idaho because they are not represented and are outvoted.

[Garrett]

Land continues to not be able to vote. Legalizing marijuana usage is hardly tyranny.

[Bob from Omaha]

As was stated the U.S. is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic, or if you'd prefer, a representative republic. Very few issues are decided by a direct vote of the people. We elect representatives who decide on issues. If we don't like that we can change the constitution or vote current representatives out. Like it or not that's how it is.

[Garrett]

As was stated the U.S. is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic, or if you'd prefer, a representative republic. Very few issues are decided by a direct vote of the people. We elect representatives who decide on issues. If we don't like that we can change the constitution or vote current representatives out. Like it or not that's how it is.

That would be lovely if we held true to fair elections to representatives though. A lot of states make sure they their boundaries are such that election results are inevitable. Even in Nebraska, Saunders county was added to NE-2 for the sole purpose of shoring up Don Bacon’s chances, and he won in 2022 because of this gerrymandering.

[Big E]

Just stopping by to call bull sh!t on the "the US is a republic" nonsense...

Both issues the OP brought up are state issues. Nebraska has a unicameral, which is supposed to be "the people's chamber" or whatever. If you were born and grew up here like I was, you were reminded of this constantly in whatever social studies class you took each year. It's basically the only other thing Nebraska does right politically (split electoral votes being the other) and should brag about.

It's on the state quarter, FFS.

All these two things are are yet more examples of Republican hypocrisy: everything is a "state's rights" issue until the states don't do what they want, then you get some billionaire pecker in a hat to buy off a couple of judges to overturn an otherwise fair process.

#fyeaamerica

[ricko]

As was stated the U.S. is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic, or if you'd prefer, a representative republic. Very few issues are decided by a direct vote of the people. We elect representatives who decide on issues. If we don't like that we can change the constitution or vote current representatives out. Like it or not that's how it is.

That would be lovely if we held true to fair elections to representatives though. A lot of states make sure they their boundaries are such that election results are inevitable. Even in Nebraska, Saunders county was added to NE-2 for the sole purpose of shoring up Don Bacon’s chances, and he won in 2022 because of this gerrymandering.

And the gerrymandering was so blatantly/laughably apparent I’m surprised the opposition didn’t raise hel1 and seek a legal remedy like the Alabama case.

[Dusty]

All these two things are are yet more examples of Republican hypocrisy: everything is a "state's rights" issue until the states don't do what they want, then you get some billionaire pecker in a hat to buy off a couple of judges to overturn an otherwise fair process.

I remember a few years ago the death penalty was up for vote. 80% of the votes said to abolish the death penalty. Pete Ricketts blew a gasket and said something like "the results do not reflect my personal views." So he threw a huge temper tantrum to have a re-vote done. Hmmm.... funny how the re-vote was mostly rural voters.

What happened to representing the views of the community....and not just your own?

[Athomsfere]

Just stopping by to call bull sh!t on the "the US is a republic" nonsense...

All these two things are are yet more examples of Republican hypocrisy: everything is a "state's rights" issue until the states don't do what they want, then you get some billionaire pecker in a hat to buy off a couple of judges to overturn an otherwise fair process.

#fyeaamerica

Anytime someone starts with "We are a republic, not a democracy" you know that argument is going to be flawed. It's either a red herring, redefining the terms (as a fallacy), or a fundamental misunderstanding of what both terms truly mean.

Also: States rights has absolutely come to mean: Rich representatives opinions over peoples rights or federal decisions that have given people more rights.

[Big E]

Well actually….

[Linkin5]

Just stopping by to call bull sh!t on the "the US is a republic" nonsense...

All these two things are are yet more examples of Republican hypocrisy: everything is a "state's rights" issue until the states don't do what they want, then you get some billionaire pecker in a hat to buy off a couple of judges to overturn an otherwise fair process.

#fyeaamerica

Anytime someone starts with "We are a republic, not a democracy" you know that argument is going to be flawed. It's either a red herring, redefining the terms (as a fallacy), or a fundamental misunderstanding of what both terms truly mean.

Basically this.

[Big E]

I remember a few years ago the death penalty was up for vote. 80% of the votes said to abolish the death penalty. Pete Ricketts blew a gasket and said something like "the results do not reflect my personal views." So he threw a huge temper tantrum to have a re-vote done. Hmmm.... funny how the re-vote was mostly rural voters.

Forgot about that one. At least - and this is conceding a LOT here - that one went through the process, such as is it.

The current state of the GOP's platform may be hypocritical extremist dumbshittery, but I do give them credit for being infinitely better organized about it than the Dems are.

[stormchaser]

For what it’s worth I never said the United States is a “democracy”. But voting for or against things and voting for or against electing the people who are supposed to represent us certainly IS a democratic process. Hence asking the question, "how is this democracy". Regardless, arguing such a point is irrelevant to the topic of this post.

[Athomsfere]

For what it’s worth I never said the United States is a “democracy”. But voting for or against things and voting for or against electing the people who are supposed to represent us certainly IS a democratic process. Hence asking the question, "how is this democracy". Regardless, arguing such a point is irrelevant to the topic of this post.

I got your meaning. And we are a form of democracy. One, that on paper at least, is supposed to elect officials that represent all walks of life.

The fact that at the state level especially right now, we have accepted a system that enforces our laws with a double standard as you called out, is a huge problem for what our modern idea of our government is supposed to be.

[nativeomahan]

Cuba and Nebraska don’t have much in common.
Not weather.
Not cuisine.
Not ethnic makeup.
Not language.
But they do have one big thing in common.
They are both one party states. And being thus, the political slant of each locale will be very slow to change, and those that are in power are very likely to remain in power for a long time to come, and the policies the majority party chooses to advocate will likely remain the law for everyone else.
At least in Nebraska, you can pick up and move without climbing into a boat.
Nebraska: it isn’t for everyone.

[stormchaser]

Cuba and Nebraska don’t have much in common.
Not weather.
Not cuisine.
Not ethnic makeup.
Not language.
But they do have one big thing in common.
They are both one party states. And being thus, the political slant of each locale will be very slow to change, and those that are in power are very likely to remain in power for a long time to come, and the policies the majority party chooses to advocate will likely remain the law for everyone else.
At least in Nebraska, you can pick up and move without climbing into a boat.
Nebraska: it isn’t for everyone.

This has nothing to do with political slants, this has to do corruption and in essence the removal of the democratic process. Nobody should be okay with things like this, no matter what side of the aisle you choose to agree with. Just because the results align with your beliefs (I’m assuming based on your responses) doesn’t somehow make it okay and suggesting people move who don’t like it is completely ridiculous tbh.

[Globochem]

Cuba and Nebraska don’t have much in common.
Not weather.
Not cuisine.
Not ethnic makeup.
Not language.
But they do have one big thing in common.
They are both one party states. And being thus, the political slant of each locale will be very slow to change, and those that are in power are very likely to remain in power for a long time to come, and the policies the majority party chooses to advocate will likely remain the law for everyone else.
At least in Nebraska, you can pick up and move without climbing into a boat.
Nebraska: it isn’t for everyone.

This is perhaps the most ignorant gasp of self importance this site has ever produced. Time to take a few trips, buddy.

[nativeomahan]

Cuba and Nebraska don’t have much in common.
Not weather.
Not cuisine.
Not ethnic makeup.
Not language.
But they do have one big thing in common.
They are both one party states. And being thus, the political slant of each locale will be very slow to change, and those that are in power are very likely to remain in power for a long time to come, and the policies the majority party chooses to advocate will likely remain the law for everyone else.
At least in Nebraska, you can pick up and move without climbing into a boat.
Nebraska: it isn’t for everyone.

This has nothing to do with political slants, this has to do corruption and in essence the removal of the democratic process. Nobody should be okay with things like this, no matter what side of the aisle you choose to agree with. Just because the results align with your beliefs (I’m assuming based on your responses) doesn’t somehow make it okay and suggesting people move who don’t like it is completely ridiculous tbh.

I’m sorry but you have completely missed my point. I’m not advocating for the status quo. Quite the contrary. Back in the 1970s and 1980s Nebraska had a healthy 2 party system, where one party didn’t always win statewide election. Each party was a check on the other, and if one party went too far off the rails the other one would likely win the following election. The same was true in the Unicameral. There was a balance of power. Speaking of power, the old saying still rings true. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That I fear is where we are today, not only in Nebraska but in many states. There is no balance. No give and take. And it follows that the will of the people, and the rights of minorities in particular, are all to often ignored. Money is the biggest corruptor of our politics, as it often is in life. Politicians are bought and paid for. Not all of them, of course, but enough are that the people (some of them) have come to realize that their voice no longer really matters. The negative tone of more and more of our elections, with insulting TV ads saturating our public airwaves, only serves to scare off the electorate, which in fact might be the goal of such advertising.
I lament the status quo. We got where we are today gradually, much like termites gradually destroy a house. Bite by bite. I’m just not optimistic that the status quo can be changed.

[nativeomahan]

As was stated the U.S. is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic, or if you'd prefer, a representative republic. Very few issues are decided by a direct vote of the people. We elect representatives who decide on issues. If we don't like that we can change the constitution or vote current representatives out. Like it or not that's how it is.

That would be lovely if we held true to fair elections to representatives though. A lot of states make sure they their boundaries are such that election results are inevitable. Even in Nebraska, Saunders county was added to NE-2 for the sole purpose of shoring up Don Bacon’s chances, and he won in 2022 because of this gerrymandering.

And the gerrymandering was so blatantly/laughably apparent I’m surprised the opposition didn’t raise hel1 and seek a legal remedy like the Alabama case.

Of course it was gerrymandering. That’s virtually inevitable when one party controls the legislature, and the state legislature in Nebraska (unlike some of our sister states) controls the redistricting process for federal elections. The difference between Nebraska and states such as Georgia and Alabama is that in those southern states racial minorities make up 30% or more of the population — enough to require some districts to be redrawn so as to include one or more majority minority congressional districts. Alabama’s state legislature refused to adequately do this (twice), and that is what the federal courts stepped in to halt. However here in Nebraska we don’t have any way of creating a majority minority congressional district because there simply are not enough racial minorities residing inside the state. What the Unicameral was able to do is to carve most of eastern Sarpy County, where voters lean Democrat, out of the Omaha based Second Congressional District, and move it into the Lincoln based First District, which leans Republican. Thus those Democrat votes get diluted while heavily Republican Saunders County was moved in to the Second District so as to dilute the Democrat vote here in Omaha. It was an exercise in raw political power, the public be damned. But the courts have refused to block such tactics because they aren’t directly tied to race. No lawsuit to block the new district lines would have succeeded under present day legal precedent. Sad but true.

[stormchaser]

I’m sorry but you have completely missed my point. I’m not advocating for the status quo. Quite the contrary. Back in the 1970s and 1980s Nebraska had a healthy 2 party system, where one party didn’t always win statewide election. Each party was a check on the other, and if one party went too far off the rails the other one would likely win the following election. The same was true in the Unicameral. There was a balance of power. Speaking of power, the old saying still rings true. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That I fear is where we are today, not only in Nebraska but in many states. There is no balance. No give and take. And it follows that the will of the people, and the rights of minorities in particular, are all to often ignored. Money is the biggest corruptor of our politics, as it often is in life. Politicians are bought and paid for. Not all of them, of course, but enough are that the people (some of them) have come to realize that their voice no longer really matters. The negative tone of more and more of our elections, with insulting TV ads saturating our public airwaves, only serves to scare off the electorate, which in fact might be the goal of such advertising.
I lament the status quo. We got where we are today gradually, much like termites gradually destroy a house. Bite by bite. I’m just not optimistic that the status quo can be changed.

Not really sure how I was supposed to get this from that comment but, regardless - at least we can both agree the whole thing is corrupt (on both sides). I'm convinced the real people in charge (big business IMO) intentionally tries to ensure the least intelligent/capable and most controversial Presidential candidates are the ones elected in this Country. Why? Because it causes a distraction for people to argue about instead of paying attention to what really is happening to this Country. How else could a Country as powerful as the United States end up with a frail, seemingly dementia riddled President that will yet again probably be running up against a BLATANT con-artist/narcissist who more than likely has gotten away with some extremely sketchy stuff for a VERY long time (well before he became President). And based on the Presidential ads already running on TV, the stupidity/insanity is only going to get worse. I never seen so many ads where it's just complete and utter nonsense - "China is buying land in the United States and we have to stop them" (insinuating if China buys the land here, that somehow makes that property no longer part of the United States and is instead now China) or "we need to stop all trade agreements with China until they stop killing our citizens with fentanyl" or "lets gun down ANYONE illegally crossing the US/Mexico borders" (because that's a great idea - lets gun down entire families including women and children ). It's pure stupidity and whacky nonsense but as we've seen, that pure stupidity resonates apparently (which is sad tbh). Gradually that corruption at the top has trickled down into the states - including Nebraska, and here we are losing our voice because of it.

[Athomsfere]

I read nativeomahan as he intended... But alas the WOTs are getting hard to read.

What we aren't seeing enough discussion on IMO is our general election process. This first past the post needs to end.

I was so elated when Andrew Yang I think it was mentioned moving towards ranked choice or instant run off. That really should be everyone's number one goal, to get there soon.

I've never been a single issue voter, but that would sway me to vote for almost anyone.

[Garrett]

I read nativeomahan as he intended... But alas the WOTs are getting hard to read.

What we aren't seeing enough discussion on IMO is our general election process. This first past the post needs to end.

I was so elated when Andrew Yang I think it was mentioned moving towards ranked choice or instant run off. That really should be everyone's number one goal, to get there soon.

I've never been a single issue voter, but that would sway me to vote for almost anyone.

The New York Times had a couple different election reform editorials a couple years ago that are great reads.

The first was about expanding the house to 593 members, or the cube root law

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -size.html

The second was then about making multi member districts, which I think would also be a great reform

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ember.html

[Athomsfere]

I read nativeomahan as he intended... But alas the WOTs are getting hard to read.

What we aren't seeing enough discussion on IMO is our general election process. This first past the post needs to end.

I was so elated when Andrew Yang I think it was mentioned moving towards ranked choice or instant run off. That really should be everyone's number one goal, to get there soon.

I've never been a single issue voter, but that would sway me to vote for almost anyone.

The New York Times had a couple different election reform editorials a couple years ago that are great reads.

The first was about expanding the house to 593 members, or the cube root law

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -size.html

The second was then about making multi member districts, which I think would also be a great reform

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ember.html

While I think both of those are OK mini-steps, it still misses what I think is the primary problem: First past the post can only result in two parties of polar opposition.

[Garrett]

I read nativeomahan as he intended... But alas the WOTs are getting hard to read.

What we aren't seeing enough discussion on IMO is our general election process. This first past the post needs to end.

I was so elated when Andrew Yang I think it was mentioned moving towards ranked choice or instant run off. That really should be everyone's number one goal, to get there soon.

I've never been a single issue voter, but that would sway me to vote for almost anyone.

The New York Times had a couple different election reform editorials a couple years ago that are great reads.

The first was about expanding the house to 593 members, or the cube root law

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -size.html

The second was then about making multi member districts, which I think would also be a great reform

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ember.html

While I think both of those are OK mini-steps, it still misses what I think is the primary problem: First past the post can only result in two parties of polar opposition.

Specifically the second part calls for ranked choice multi member districts.

What would really help would be full proportional, list style voting like happens in Germany, Australia, etc. but that’s a huge reform

[TransitOriented]

[DELETED]

[Dusty]

I know this would never happen, but....

I say get rid of all political parties. Everyone is non-partisan. Abolish the electoral college system. This forces us to listen to the topics and possible solutions. No more us vs them. I believe we are all a shade of gray, not the two extremes of black/white. Top 3 candidates on the debate stage. No donations allowed from corporations or special interest groups.

[Athomsfere]

I know this would never happen, but....

I say get rid of all political parties. Everyone is non-partisan. Abolish the electoral college system. This forces us to listen to the topics and possible solutions. No more us vs them. I believe we are all a shade of gray, not the two extremes of black/white. Top 3 candidates on the debate stage. No donations allowed from corporations or special interest groups.

I think that's an extremely naive position. We'd have the exact same problem just without the formal names.

[Athomsfere]

I read nativeomahan as he intended... But alas the WOTs are getting hard to read.

What we aren't seeing enough discussion on IMO is our general election process. This first past the post needs to end.

I was so elated when Andrew Yang I think it was mentioned moving towards ranked choice or instant run off. That really should be everyone's number one goal, to get there soon.

I've never been a single issue voter, but that would sway me to vote for almost anyone.

The New York Times had a couple different election reform editorials a couple years ago that are great reads.

The first was about expanding the house to 593 members, or the cube root law

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -size.html

The second was then about making multi member districts, which I think would also be a great reform

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ember.html

While I think both of those are OK mini-steps, it still misses what I think is the primary problem: First past the post can only result in two parties of polar opposition.

Specifically the second part calls for ranked choice multi member districts.

What would really help would be full proportional, list style voting like happens in Germany, Australia, etc. but that’s a huge reform

I got paywalled, and didn't feel like sneaking around it. From the titles I assumed I knew the topic.

But Germany's appears to be a mix of PR and FPTP. Which is a step up. But I'd prefer a more RC style personally.

[Dusty]

I know this would never happen, but....

I say get rid of all political parties. Everyone is non-partisan. Abolish the electoral college system. This forces us to listen to the topics and possible solutions. No more us vs them. I believe we are all a shade of gray, not the two extremes of black/white. Top 3 candidates on the debate stage. No donations allowed from corporations or special interest groups.

I think that's an extremely naive position. We'd have the exact same problem just without the formal names.

Our Nebraska Legislature works on a non-partisan basis (Unicameral). I believe we are the only state that works that way.
This is proof we don't need labels or party names. The problem with corruption lies in endorsements and donations. Both main parties have lost their integrity and founding principles by letting big money sway the narrative. You can blame media as well. They rake in tons of money to air political slam ads from special interest groups.

I'm saying to cut all donations and endorsements from businesses and special interests. Only individual donations would be allowed and that would be capped. Let's say $1000 per person. Now the super rich can't push candidates to the top by flooding their bank account.

Sidenote: For entertainment purposes...there is a website called "I side with" that ask you 50+ questions over political topics. Then it tells you what candidate or party you match with the most and ranks them. You do get more accurate results if you are specific with your answers vs. only answering yes or no.

https://www.isidewith.com/

[Garrett]

I know this would never happen, but....

I say get rid of all political parties. Everyone is non-partisan. Abolish the electoral college system. This forces us to listen to the topics and possible solutions. No more us vs them. I believe we are all a shade of gray, not the two extremes of black/white. Top 3 candidates on the debate stage. No donations allowed from corporations or special interest groups.

I think that's an extremely naive position. We'd have the exact same problem just without the formal names.

Our Nebraska Legislature works on a non-partisan basis (Unicameral). I believe we are the only state that works that way.
This is proof we don't need labels or party names. The problem with corruption lies in endorsements and donations. Both main parties have lost their integrity and founding principles by letting big money sway the narrative. You can blame media as well. They rake in tons of money to air political slam ads from special interest groups.

I'm saying to cut all donations and endorsements from businesses and special interests. Only individual donations would be allowed and that would be capped. Let's say $1000 per person. Now the super rich can't push candidates to the top by flooding their bank account.

Sidenote: For entertainment purposes...there is a website called "I side with" that ask you 50+ questions over political topics. Then it tells you what candidate or party you match with the most and ranks them. You do get more accurate results if you are specific with your answers vs. only answering yes or no.

https://www.isidewith.com/

Well, part of the problem is that the Ricketts invested millions of dollars in pushing out any Republican that didn’t vote along their beliefs. Yeah the legislature may be non partisan, but extremely partisan forces have invested in making it into a partisan institution that makes all of that BS.

[Athomsfere]

I know this would never happen, but....

I say get rid of all political parties. Everyone is non-partisan. Abolish the electoral college system. This forces us to listen to the topics and possible solutions. No more us vs them. I believe we are all a shade of gray, not the two extremes of black/white. Top 3 candidates on the debate stage. No donations allowed from corporations or special interest groups.

I think that's an extremely naive position. We'd have the exact same problem just without the formal names.

Our Nebraska Legislature works on a non-partisan basis (Unicameral). I believe we are the only state that works that way.
This is proof we don't need labels or party names. The problem with corruption lies in endorsements and donations. Both main parties have lost their integrity and founding principles by letting big money sway the narrative. You can blame media as well. They rake in tons of money to air political slam ads from special interest groups.

I'm saying to cut all donations and endorsements from businesses and special interests. Only individual donations would be allowed and that would be capped. Let's say $1000 per person. Now the super rich can't push candidates to the top by flooding their bank account.

Sidenote: For entertainment purposes...there is a website called "I side with" that ask you 50+ questions over political topics. Then it tells you what candidate or party you match with the most and ranks them. You do get more accurate results if you are specific with your answers vs. only answering yes or no.

https://www.isidewith.com/

The unicameral has nothing to do with parties. It means there is only one house.

Instead it sounds like you want to do is change donations and / or PACs. But I see issues with that too.

Let's say we wanted a new tax structure that more heavily taxed high earners. Only the higher tiers would have the ability to make those $1000 donations, and would likely mostly donate in their interests. Not all, but disproportionately I'd imagine.

[bigredmed1]

The unicam was made nonpartisan to get the political support of Sen George Norris who was a brilliant political leader in the 1920s and 30s. He insisted on this to limit the party control over the voting members.

Elimination of the Electoral College instantly turns 35 of the states into second class citizens as NY, FL, TX, and CA can easily outvote entire states.