this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
66 points (100.0% liked)

politics

28474 readers
2044 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 20 minutes ago

Holy shit, people keep lecturing about how we shouldn't blame voters, but an awful lot of them still support him on various issues, FFS.

I mean....34% approve of his tariffs? What in the actual fuck.

And he still polls higher than Biden on mental ability? Jesus, I would have taken Biden in a coma over this shit.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 41 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Of course not. We have only two choices of party:

  1. The Fascist party.

  2. The party that tells you to vote for them lest the Fascists win, but when elected, does nothing to fight the Fascists, reverse their worst atrocities, or prevent them from coming back to power.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

when elected, does nothing to fight the Fascists, reverse their worst atrocities, or prevent them from coming back to power

Yep. If Democrats ever gain power again, watch them keep ICE pretty much the same way it is now, keep most of Trump's tariffs, not restore SNAP or USAID funding to previous levels, etc, etc, etc.

We just have to be grateful that the lesser evil party didn't add too many new atrocities before they calmly and politely cede power to the fascists again.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

Exactly. Could one of the blue MAGA folks let me know when Newsom publicly announces he supports completely dismantling DHS and rolling back the post-9/11 surveillance state? You cannot seriously pretend to want to fight fascism if dismantling the tools of the fascists isn't the first thing you intend to do when in power.

It has some serious Lord of the Rings vibes. The surveillance state and the unconstitutional powers created after 9/11 are this immensely powerful tool created for evil ends. But after the evil is defeated, the nominally good guys choose to not to dismantle the evil tools, but to keep them, telling themselves that they will be used for good. Except they cannot be used for good, as they are fundamentally evil. Meanwhile I'm over here shouting, "cast it into the fire!" But they decide to keep it every time.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

It's like you have absolutely no understanding of how the system actually works, and have chosen to ignore history.

The GOP is never going to cede one inch to the Dems on anything, ever. Obama picked the ACA plan because it was based on a GOP idea and they fought him tooth and nail until the final vote. Then they turned around and demanded the Supreme Court abolish it.

The only way you'll get any change under the current system is to elect a Dem super majority in every election for the next fifty years.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Obama picked the ACA plan because it was based on a GOP idea and they fought him tooth and nail until the final vote. Then they turned around and demanded the Supreme Court abolish it.

The only way you’ll get any change under the current system is to elect a Dem super majority in every election for the next fifty years.

They had a Dem supermajority during that time. And what did they do with it? They bent over backwards trying to 'reach across the aisle' and giving the GOP every single thing they asked for.

Expect the same thing if they come into power again.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

And what is your alternative?

What should we do in the 2026 elections?

Please provide a detailed plan.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 8 minutes ago

As I said in my other post, elections will never fix it. Our power lies in General Strike.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 11 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

YOU have chosen to ignore history. And how typically in authoritarian takeovers, the first step to fighting the takeover is to abandon the captured opposition party and to start fresh with something new. A popular front is usually needed to defeat them. Authoritarians often let toothless opposition parties continue to operate. And there are always blind fools like yourself who insist that they must be supported, though they are just another tool of the autocrat.

The only way you’ll get any change under the current system is to elect a Dem super majority in every election for the next fifty years.

This shows you are not a serious person. If that is your solution, then I can only conclude that you actually support Trump and the Fascist party.

Democrats are not a real opposition party. They are the potemkin opposition, fully captured by the Fascists.

[–] HeadfullofSoup@kbin.earth 6 points 2 hours ago

Dems right now are Fascist light not as crazy but fucking useless and on the same payroll as fascist full fat

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 0 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

So, what exactly is your plan for the 2026 election?

How exactly are you going to counter Trump?

Be specific and provide as many details as possible.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Fuck elections. General strike until our demands are met.

Hold their precious 'economy' hostage while we still can -- before they replace us all with robots.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

Nice idea.

Now provide the details of how you do it.

It's easy to say things, not that easy to make them happen.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 7 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

You guys should do like the French, really. Revolt. Anything short of that won’t achieve shit.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

How brave of you to volunteer other people to attack the barricades.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Your people are threatening to invade my neighbouring country. Americans made this mess. Americans get to fix it.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Don't worry.

Trump

Always

Chickens

Out

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 5 points 1 hour ago

Trump isn’t the problem. Lop his head off and you’ll have achieved catharsis but it won’t be a solution to any problems. A lot more heads need to roll before anything is solved.

You can’t vote your way out of it because the system is built for those with money. You need to change the entire system and no one who is currently benefiting from that system will aid you in that.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Nah, you're arguing in bad faith.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 3 points 1 hour ago

Satisfy my curiosity.

Exactly which words demonstrated by 'bad faith?'

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago

Pot meet kettle. A Dem supermajority means nothing when they do nothing but play controlled opposition.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

This is why we need a new party in America that’s actually left of center.

National ranked choice voting, get rid of electoral college, outlaw gerrymandering, restructure the Supreme Court, overturn citizens united, restore the fairness doctrine, and we will finally have some viable options. It will probably take an Article V constitutional convention to get there.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago

That's a nice wishlist, but I don't see a new party doing anything.

They'd have to do that under the Democratic Party. That's the only way it's happening.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 10 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Wash away the political class, kill Citizens United, and start the slate clean. Anyone eith "connections" is isolated and not allowed back in. All freshies. All new parties. (Until we can abolish the State that is)

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 3 points 26 minutes ago (2 children)

Wash away the political class, kill Citizens United, and start the slate clean. Anyone eith “connections” is isolated and not allowed back in. All freshies. All new parties.

Election by lottery. Every eligible citizen is entered into the lottery to serve in the Senate. Each year on December 1st, 100 citizens are randomly selected to serve a 10-year term, to report to their duty by January 1st. The Senate will consist of 1000 of these people, with 10% of them replaced every year. (If a Senator dies, retires, or otherwise becomes unfit for office during their term, they are not replaced until their term ends, and the Senate will be slightly smaller than 1000.) The first year and the last year of your service in the Senate are special. During your fist year, you will be mentored by a more experienced Senator; you will have full voting rights, but you will be "Silenced" -- not able to propose new bills/votes or address the Senate -- until your second year. During your last year, you must choose at least one new Senator to mentor.

If selected, service in the Senate is considered mandatory, like being selected for a military draft. Individual Senators can be excused from service or allowed to retire before the end of their 10-year term, but only with approval from a 66% supermajority vote of the Senate. (This is important to help avoid selection bias in the Senate. Otherwise, certain demographics may be underrepresented if that demographic is more likely to refuse service or retire early. It's also important because the people who don't want to be in government are exactly who we need in government. If citizens are allowed to refuse service in the Senate, that would bias selection toward the type of people who want power, which may defeat the entire purpose.) Being a Senator should still be a prestigious, respected, and well-paid position, of course -- that will only further encourage people to accept their selection if chosen.

If, at any time or for any reason, the Senate has less than 500 Senators, a special selection will be performed immediately, and enough random citizens will be selected to bring the total number of Senators back up to 1000. (This includes the very first selection, since you'd be starting with 0 Senators, which is less than 500.) Since 100 new Senators must be placed every year, replacing the longest-serving ones, some of these Senators chosen in 'special selections' may end up serving terms of less than 10 years. (For example, in the very first year of the Senate, 10% of the Senators chosen will only serve for one year.)

The Senate can vote to "Silence" individual Senators -- to prevent them from proposing new bills/votes and prevent them from speaking to address the Senate, with a 66% supermajority vote. This can be a temporary punishment or a permanent injunction for the remainder of that Senator's term, at the Senate's discretion. Must have an individual vote for each individual Senator to be Silenced -- you can't Silence entire voting blocs with a single vote. Silenced senators, though, will still be in the Senate and will still vote just like any other Senator.

The Senate may (optionally) appoint a Chief Officer, who serves as the head of the Executive Branch, at the Senate's pleasure. The Chief Officer (and indeed any official in the government outside of the Senate and Judicial Branch) can be removed and replaced at the Senate's discretion at any time, with a simple majority vote. This Chief Officer can be a Senator, but doesn't have to be. Doesn't even have to be a citizen. It can be literally anyone the Senate agrees on (except for any previous Judge or Commander in Chief). Or, if the Senate chooses, they can have no Chief Officer at all, and instead have the heads of each individual department of the government report directly to the Senate. In the event of an exactly tied vote in the Senate (which will probably be very rare), the Chief Officer (if one exists) may cast the tie-breaking vote.

The Senate may (optionally) appoint a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, only if the Senate has declared war on another country. They may choose to appoint any General or Admiral who is currently serving or has previously served in the military to this role. The Senate will delegate control of the country's military to the Commander in Chief, who may make sweeping and rapid decisions about the military without consulting the Senate, on the presumption that their experience and ability to respond quickly will enable them to achieve better military results than the Senate or Chief Officer could. The Commander in Chief may only serve during times of declared war, and must step down from their position at the end of the war, ceding control of the military back to the Senate (optionally through the Chief Officer). Like the Chief Officer, the Commander in Chief can be removed and/or replaced at any time with a simple majority vote from the Senate, even if the war is still ongoing. No single person can serve as both Chief Officer and Commander in Chief -- not concurrently nor successively.

The Senate will also vote to appoint judges to the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, with a 57% vote required for successful appointment. They may only nominate well-qualified and experienced judges who are well versed in the law and the (new) constitution. These judges will serve for 20-year terms, after which they must retire and may never again serve in government in any other capacity. They can only be removed and replaced with a 75% supermajority vote from the Senate. (To prevent a constitutionally misguided Senate from quickly and easily replacing any judge that rules their new law to be unconstitutional.) And their most important job (as is supposedly the case already) is to rule on whether or not laws passed by the Senate and actions taken by the Executive Branch are allowable and enforceable according to the (new) constitution.

This ensures:

  • The Senate always consists (mostly) of regular people with no political background, and people who are not particularly associated with or beholden to the ultra-wealthy.

  • Some institutional knowledge and experience is built up and retained -- at any point, ~10% of the Senate will have 9+ years of experience in government.

  • There will be reduced motivation for 'lobbying' and bribery. Since nobody is running for reelection and election campaigns as a whole are a thing of the past, Senators have no need to seek out donations and campaign contributions. They will not be concerned about their voting record having impacts on future campaign contributions. (And if any of them are greedy, well, the Senate is in full control of Senator's salaries. If they want more money, they can just vote to give themselves more money. No need to seek out bribes.) There's also no need for the society as a whole to go through the effort and expense of election campaigns anymore -- now they can put this effort and money into more useful causes.

  • Nobody can have a lifetime career as a Senator. Every Senator will come from a non-political background and will probably be expecting to return to a non-political life after their 10-year term. They will (generally) understand the struggles and perspectives of common people, and (unless they're very old when selected) they will expect to have to live as a common person under the laws they passed once their term ends -- if they vote to pass a terrible law, they'll have to experience the consequences of that terrible law later.

  • As the saying goes, "Those who want power the most are the ones you least want to have power." In this system, the Senate will be full of people who never wanted or asked for power, and the people who want and seek power won't be able to get it by running for the Senate, at least, because there's no way to try to be a Senator -- it's all just random luck. (Though they could still seek out positions in the Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch, or private industry. In the first two cases, it would be up to the Senate's judgement to prevent them from gaining that power.)

  • The Senate will always be (approximately, statistically) representative of the people. Generally, all demographics and ideologies of the citizenry will be proportionally represented. (If the country is 50% female, you can expect ~500 Senators to be female. If the country is 7.2% gay, you can expect ~72 Senators to be gay. If 12% of the country is black, you can expect ~120 Senators to be black. If 20% of the population is atheist, you can expect ~200 Senators to be atheists. Etc.)

  • No powerful "President" or "Prime Minister" or anything will exist. The Chief Officer (if present at all) is only there to be a manager on behalf of the Senate, to handle the day-to-day mundanities of running government services and/or respond to urgent situations that are developing too quickly to organize a vote in the Senate. The Chief Officer's power is inherently fragile and limited, because they can be replaced quickly and easily at any time if they displease a majority of the Senate.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 1 points 12 minutes ago

Random selection isn't great. There's a much greater chance of seating someone with zero life experience or insane ideas or maybe just illiterate. Unless you start excluding people for various reasons, then you're basically back where we already are.

Even if a selection is statistically average, you still get the tyranny of the majority.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 minutes ago

Sounds better than the current solution; I have a feeling it would only take a generation for the same integrity lacking folks to figure out how to game the system though.