There's a new letter from 100 political scientists on the threat to democracy, and the need for federal election standards
It may be too oblique to reshape the debate, but it does nudge the conversation toward the most salient issues
newamerica.org/political-refo…
It may be too oblique to reshape the debate, but it does nudge the conversation toward the most salient issues
newamerica.org/political-refo…
The letter recognizes the preeminent threat of election subversion, advocates a comprehensive federal response, and notes that the current proposals are insufficient.
But it doesn't quite state the legislative implication: a totally different proposal is probably needed
But it doesn't quite state the legislative implication: a totally different proposal is probably needed
Embedded in the letter, however, is the key framework that might help Congress craft a law that's both more efficacious and has a better chance of passing: minimum standards to protect what's necessary for democracy
I doubt anything can get 60 votes right now.
But if there's any chance to get Manchin off the filibuster, it would be far, far, far likelier to happen with something that's narrowly tailored to protect democracy than a bill like HR1
But if there's any chance to get Manchin off the filibuster, it would be far, far, far likelier to happen with something that's narrowly tailored to protect democracy than a bill like HR1
https://twitter.com/we_are_toast/status/1399740519098376193?s=20
And part of the problem here is that HR1 doesn't include a lot of what you'd want for protecting democracy, and so you can't just trim the fat off of HR1 and end at a workable product. They kind of need to start over if they want something effective and viable
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
