Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Huin

(92 posts)
Thu Feb 21, 2019, 04:27 PM Feb 2019

A great way to have the majority of both houses.

Can we assume that the population in the United States can be represented by a bell-shaped normal curve (in their political beliefs)? Maybe or maybe not. But let's not argue that point and assume that it is that way. Let's even assume that it's shaped a little toward the democratic side, and that's good.

What we want to talk about in this thread is: How can we capture votes to have the majority in both houses? It takes some thought. We did great during the last election in the House. How can we do something like that in the Senate? We have to know the voters, and make a plan to convince them to vote in our favor. Great Idea - but how can we do that in reality? That's what we want to talk about.

First a comment about the normal curve. It has the shape of a bell. You may have seen it in a commercial that shows a phone with the prices people have paid for cars in your neighborhood. Anyway, statisticians use normal curves because natural distributions are that way. "Mother Nature knows best!"

So, if voter's political association generally follow this normal distribution, there will always be a good number of people voting democratic. But there will also be right-wingers voting republican. Let's not forget that. The normal distribution says that about 10% of the population are die-hard right wing extremists (they call themselves "Conservatives&quot , and 10% on the other side are die-hard left wing extremists. (Don't shout at me, that's what the normal distribution curve says.) And that is good to have fresh input from a party members from all walks of life. We need professors, we need plumbers, we need doctors and garbage collectors.

Don't anybody pooh the work of a garbage collector. It is a rough job, almost like a steel worker or a miner. I am old enough to remember a strike of garbage collectors somewhere in a petropolitan area (I forgot where, maybe New York?). It was summer and people needed to get rid of their garbage somehow. I read that some gift-wrapped their garbage and left it in the car; parked it in the street with the window left open.

Coming back to the normal curve, there are about 80 percent of people in the United States, maybe they favor the right side for whatever reason, maybe they favor our left side for good reasons or because they have become afraid of the right wirng extremism we have been exposed to over the past two years. In any case, to become well situated not only in our Federal Government, but also in State legislatures, as a party we must address the needs of most of these 80% of our population and douse their fears of our government.

I believe these 80%, whether they call themselves republicans, independents, conservatives, liberals or others, they really want something that was said in a quote by a writer and historian who lived into the middle of the last century, James Truslow Adams. He apparently said“The freedom now desired by many is not freedom to do and dare but freedom from care and worry.” (I believe, I belong to that 80% group, now that I think about it.)

So lets discuss, contructively, what we need to do. We must avoid extremism, or something that could be construed as being unrealistic and therefor considered extrem or burdensome.

The government needs to make changes and must be able to operate without ever-increasing deficits. Taxes must exist to support operations but must not make the people slaves to the government. The most recent tax law needs to be changed and we need two-thirds of both Houses to override a veto by the executive branch.

We must expose the attrocities that may have been committed against the constitution in the more recent past and convince the 80% that we will fight to stop that.

What if there is a Democratic Platform, not with general principles but with detailed descriptions of programs that might bring order to our country, and each democratic candidate commits to this platform in writing. If it is printed on a single sheet and handed to people, that could be an election with a favorable outcome.

You might say, what if the people don't like what's on that sheet? If we are fair in assessing what we need, and realistic, and we believe in our political principles, then we should have the guts to shout them out in no uncertain terms. Now I am waiting for replies and then we can see where the discussion thread will lead us.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A great way to have the majority of both houses. (Original Post) Huin Feb 2019 OP
They aren't distributed by a bell curve zipplewrath Feb 2019 #1
Do we need to pay special attention to those states? Huin Feb 2019 #2
Amendments are hard to pass, I agree. Huin Feb 2019 #3
The Senate zipplewrath Feb 2019 #4
John Dingell was right that we ought to get rid of the US Senate. Won't happen anytime soon, but... Garrett78 Feb 2019 #5
The Senate is each State's representation in the U.S. Government Huin Feb 2019 #6

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
1. They aren't distributed by a bell curve
Thu Feb 21, 2019, 04:51 PM
Feb 2019

the overall population might be able to be characterized as a normal distribution, but their distribution across the geographic country is assuredly not. As such, those who trend towards smaller, less populated states are going to have an outsized influence.

by 2040 it is projected that 70% of the population will live in just 15 states.

Huin

(92 posts)
2. Do we need to pay special attention to those states?
Thu Feb 21, 2019, 06:32 PM
Feb 2019

People seem to be influenced by their upbringing. But political orientations can be changed. What is hurting the democratic party is the funding that the republicans can muster. Contrary to what the Supreme Court held, I believe contributions to the elections should be limited in amounts, given directly or indirectly, let's say, just to throw out a number, 2000 dollars. AND the right to contribute should be limited to registered voters only. This would take a constitutional amendment after the Supreme Court's decision. Also, that amendment might also give the people the right by a 2/3rd majority in a following election, to overrule a Supreme Court's split decision, in which both the majority and the dissenting opinions are well reasoned. Then we could also throw into such an amendment that the outvoted majority of the court is retired. Of course, such an amendment may cause either political party harm, but in any outcome the will of the people is given a voice.

I believe that corporations are allowed to contribute to the election process has nothing to do with free speech. Our jury system is sacred in that no outsider may talk to a juror until after the verdict is in and the jury is released. Outsiders could unduly influence a juror. But a jury trial is much less important than the outcome of an election. The future of our Nation can be affected as we are now seeing.

Should we not sequester and protect our voters from undue influences? Ads should not be allowed by others than the candidates and approved by them and a code of ethics should prevent nasty innuendos and a general smear campaign. I live in a State where a good man lost to one of the nastiest smear campaigns I ever witnessed.

Huin

(92 posts)
3. Amendments are hard to pass, I agree.
Thu Feb 21, 2019, 06:45 PM
Feb 2019

Re-reading your comment, I understand what you are driving at. There is a problem in enacting or bringing to fruition an amendment. But we may get enough representatives into legislatures if we actively and precisely present our goals to the people. In this day a 2/3 majority in a good elections system should allow the people to decide on amendments.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
4. The Senate
Thu Feb 21, 2019, 09:42 PM
Feb 2019

One of the big problems is that such demographics make it difficult for the democratic party to get control of the senate. Even harder for progressive democrats.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
5. John Dingell was right that we ought to get rid of the US Senate. Won't happen anytime soon, but...
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:06 AM
Feb 2019

...the more we talk about it, the more we plant seeds in the public consciousness.

The US Senate, like the electoral college, is terribly anti-democratic. It always has been, but it's gotten to the point of absurdity. Before long, 1/3rd of the country will be represented by 2/3rds of the US Senate.

I've seen posts about us getting to 60 seats in the Senate after the next election. Just getting to 50-50 will be a tall order.

Huin

(92 posts)
6. The Senate is each State's representation in the U.S. Government
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:56 PM
Feb 2019

I see what you are saying about the Senate not representing the majority of the people. I remember learning that the Senate was to give each of the states an equal representation, while the House is to represent the people.

The political orientation of the Senate, of course, depends on the political orientation in each of the respective states' governments. Though, in a minority from a population standpoint, the political orientation of smaller or less populated states must be addressed by the party as strongly as in the larger states.

Since the Senate was viewed as a long-term policy maker at the time the constitution was adopted, and even now, the terms of the senators is longer. Therefore it also takes longer to bring about a change in the political makeup of the Senate.

But I am not saying anything you already know.

Thanks for your input.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A great way to have the m...