Adding seats to the court needs to happen, as well as reapportioning representatives, and giving electoral votes to DC and the territories. We need to find politicians that aren't afraid to do it.
That's an important issue, but if Democrats ever see power again, it'll be important to focus on re-enfranchisement (RCV, instant runoff, or anything fairer than FPTP; NPVIC; national mail voting; mandatory voting), on judicial reform to undo the corruption and incompetence that has been packed there. Without those, keeping any gains will be impossible.
Then, triaging existential threats is critical, which will mean fighting climate change, investing in public transport (trains), and breaking up trusts will have to be pursued simultaneously. Stopping any support for genocide needs to happen as soon as possible.
There will be plenty more structural changes to fix beyond that: Protecting whistleblowers and protesters, improving FOIA, replacing norms with laws (Emoluments Clause enforcement, financial records disclosure, no insider trading for Congressmembers, &c), and all manner of civil rights protections and police reform.
After all that, it'll be time for the stuff I've been hoping for: nationalizing healthcare and Internet access, and copyright reform.
Should I not be calling it "trans"?
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/37394/why-do-some-words-have-x-as-a-substitute
If voters bear no responsibility, do you really believe in democracy, or are you thinking about this as an issue to be solved by authority?
The self-righteousness of this discussion is a problem. Politics requires some humility, which we seem to be short of.
Interesting. That's an angle I'll have to consider. It seems like democracy with fixed terms and term limits has a similar problem to capitalism: myopia.
I don't believe I am talking about two different numbers when I'm talking about the same voting bloc for both.
The "we" I used was probably misplaced, since I think you are making a distinction between your position and "leftists", who are the people I've seen on Lemmy advocating for destroying the system.
I'm not sure I follow your point about political engagement, I don't think I mentioned anything about that. I was commenting on the size of the group of third-party and non- voters. If that group wasn't big enough to change the outcome, I just don't see how they could be relevant at all.
I think we must be in agreement, though, since you suggest that Democrats need to better engage with the working class. Maybe we need a dedicated labor party, though without a more parliamentary system, the parties can't really be single-issue in the US.
I don't understand the "we were to small to matter" argument I've been seeing. If that's true, why on Earth would you expect to matter enough to move the Democratic platform, or to shape society after leftists "burn it all down" (whatever that means)?
I don't understand the "we were to small to matter" argument I've been seeing. If that's true, why on Earth would you expect to matter enough to move the Democratic platform, or to shape society after leftists "burn it all down" (whatever that means)?
you blame the voters but you do not want to put an ounce of blame on the party that would rather lose an election than offer meaningful change
Uh…
the DNC is out of touch with voters.
What is this, if not shared blame?
It's the same argument I've heard about the "complexity" of Mastodon: too many choices, which is I guess why people largely stopped going to websites outside the major social networks. Monopoly over competition, it's like everyone is pining for a monarchy.
How are you dealing with those people? Converting them is incredibly time consuming, and has to be done individually.