Comment on President Trump reacts to President Biden’s cancer diagnosis: "I don't feel sorry for him"
ChaosSpectre@lemmy.zip 2 days agoNot that I think he had much in the way of empathy prior to this, but he lacks a filter of any kind which is a symptom I had to repeatedly apologize for when my grandfather’s dementia got worse.
The dude has full on dementia, no one is doing anything and he will continue to degrade both himself and the reputation of anything associated with him as this keeps going.
Funnily enough, dipshit donny might be the best publically perceivable evidence of the need for reform we will ever get.
I’d like to believe but do you really see a future where old (white) dudes in power will vote in favor of a reform where old dudes arent allowed to be in power because they are “supposedly” unfit for it?
Yeah that wont be happening any time soon in my opinion.
They could vote for the legislation, maybe push for an amendment, that doesn’t kick in for about 10 years.
e.g. starting 1 January 2036, no person can be a member of Congress who has been in office for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively. This does not apply to any person who was a Congressperson at the time that this amendment was ratified; and years served before 1 January 2030 will not count.
and/or,
e.g. notwithstanding the aforementioned, starting 1 January 2060, no person can be a member of Congress who has been a member of Congress for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively.
“they’ll only vote for policies that benefit the country if it doesn’t affect them” tells you everything about the people currently in power.
Agreed, it does;
nonetheless, my example indicates that positive change is still possible, not soon but neither too long, even by such incumbents.
If they did this 20 years ago, and my suggested dates were 20 years earlier, wp:Chip Roy couldn’t run in 2030, wp:Matt Gaetz couldn’t run in 2028, and wp:Mike Johnson could not run this November.
mtpender@piefed.social 1 day ago
Reforms that are needed:
I’m sure there are more, but this is just off the top of my head.
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I’d go with term limits as well. Too many people in what are essentially life terms
huppakee@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Plenty of countries have laws that fine or otherwise punish people that do not vote, afaik this doesn’t tend to lead to better functioning democracies. I think this is a thing where the carrot works better than the stick.
DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world 1 day ago
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
The standard method of ranked choice voting: E gets eliminated as they have the last, everyone who voted for them goes to their next ranked choice. Repeat until one person has over 50%.
DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we’d know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
If so, and if such could be done, what if of those who voted for E on their first choice, in their second preference, half of them (i.e. half of 10% being 5%) voted for C, a third of them voted for B, and a sixth of them voted for A;
meanwhile two-thirds of those who voted in their first preference for A, half of those who voted in their first preference for B, and a third of those who voted in their first preference for C, voted for D in their 2nd preference? —i.e. (⅔ x 26%) + (½ x 25%) + (⅓ x 24%) = 16⅔% + 12½% + 8% = 36⅚%.