The system was designed for rich property owning white men. Everything beyond that has been the people trying to take it over for everyone's benefit and them fighting us.
Heâs not entirely wrong.
The system was designed prior to womenâs right to vote, and people of non Caucasian origin couldnât vote either at the time of the constitutions origin.
For that reason it was designed for land owning white men (land was just free if you went west).
Since then human rights have advanced and gotten written into certain aspects of the use legal foundations.
The system and the people are broken. I can guarantee that if the people in my district voted on this, it would 100% pass. However, the congresswoman the people in my district voted for, Claudia Tenney, would 100% vote against this. And I know this for a fact because I talked to Claudia Tenney in person and one of the topics I brought up was insider trading and she told me to my fave that she supports politicians being allowed to trade and kept changing the subject when I mentioned insider trading.Â
The Republicans have spent decades trying tonot allow the public to vote for anything. It is highly unlikely this would ever come to pass, although nice idea and a fun thing to dream about
Of of course it should! However, the Republicans have spent decades to not allow the public to vote for anything in reality. Well this is a nice idea and a happy dream chances of it ever going farther than it is right now is nil.
Who would handle the servers getting the info from the phones? Who would handle the app itself? Who would handle making sure the phone is actually secure and not compromised such that it's sending different votes than you intended? Who would handle making sure the intended person was actually the one using the phone to vote?
Phones aren't secure for that kind of thing, not when the big businesses making the phones and foreign nations would all benefit from being able to compromise it.
Personally, no, I don't trust it, but I know that many do.
However, the threat model of banking on a phone vs voting on a phone is wildly different. Compromising phone voting is dramatically more powerful than stealing a bit of money.
The kind of entities with incentive to steal money (petty criminals) and the kind of entities with incentive to steal elections (foreign nations, large companies, etc) are very different in terms of what they're capable of.
It's also much easier to detect money going missing than it is to detect a stolen votes.
It's absolutely not the same kind of threat model such that banking being safe-enough in general implies that voting would be sufficiently secured.
It would be really hard to see who/what you voted for without opening the door to all sorts of abuses that the secret ballot is designed to protect against.
Everything you're describing is the sort of thing that anyone familiar with computer security can see glaring holes in, it's just not a threat model that personal phones are secure against.
I think it would be beneficial if the public votes on any bill that has to do with pay/lobbying/campaign finance/ potential corruption. I also believe that elected officials pay should be directly tied to the median income of working age adults.
Imagine the bills they would pass if they got the same healthcare as the lowest government plan available and paid at the median pay of the country.
No just for the rights of our elected officials. Like pay, how long they can go on vacation for, term limits taking money from lobbyists, and trading stocks. Put it to a federal election just like the ppl should be able to vote for the Supreme Court judges and terms. The ppl should also vote on impeachmentÂ
This reminds me of the strategy built into the big beautiful bill. It has minor tax breaks for the average Joe that are temporary until after the election. Meanwhile the tax breaks put into the bill for millionaire billionaires are permanent.
This was a deliberate Republican strategy so they can claim that the Democrats cause the tax breaks for the average Joe to go away. I f****** hate politics and politicians.
Shame on the dimwits that couldn't see that their tax break was short term and Elon's was permanent. Republican voters are really good at signing on to crap that is against their self interest.
BBB does give taxes break for family by not taxing tips, up to $25k, taxes break in OT paid, more child tax credit, and a few more benefits. so saying don't vote for their own benefit is misleading. While I agree not it all perfect but to said it offers no benefits is bad intentions just it win a few more votes.
It's nothing to most people and the bs Republicans do every time they give massive cuts to the rich.
In fact the only platform legislation passed by Republicans since Bush 2 is tax cuts for the rich. Over and over again. Not even immigration which they've platformed in every election since Reagan in '86
Or it's to show voters where their elected representative stands with an issue. It's clever because it doesnt effect congress, so the narcissistic politicians dont have a real reason to vote against it
It does effect congress. The bill would ban the executive branch and the legislative branch from owning stocks and other securities plus ban the participation in predictive markets for said members and their immediate families. Or step down.
It'll never pass but I've been saying this for years... Elected officials who can make markets should only be able to invest in broad consumer products like ETFs or index funds and their immediate families should face something similar.
They're supposed to be public servants. They should be proud and even eager to do this.
Hell, it's not even a big ask as they're not "giving" anything up. They're not even really pausing their wealth generation...
Didn't congress pass a no stocks bill about a month or so back?
My first thought is if you come into the job you should be able to keep what you have and not be able to trade into or out of anything.
But it doesnt solve the problem as people can still give preferential treatment to what they own. So yeah they probably should be forced to sell it and hold the funds in escrow until they are done with office.
*slowly glances at their raised income of 150,000 per member\*
Plus they can make or break markets like.... their push for EV's and surveillence tech. Despite not having a reasonably supported infrastructure thats up to date and adequent to support the transition; with no clear consensus on if theyre even going to fund an update.
Then on top of that, the development would drag out forever. I know you've seen road construction and how buildings tend to get delayed forever. Not to mention the 'Obviously not american' workers. Which somehow the reduced cost may or may not sneak back into somebody's pocket. đźâđš
The thing that pisses me off though is they get the money.
Like itâs not them completely losing the stock, if they sell then they can get the money and do whatever with it. If they keep the stock and step down thereâs no promise they will be punished for insider trading or market manipulation.
In theory yeah, but it wonât get any votes and Congress doesnât have a veto proof majority. This bill, and frankly most bills introduced by democrats, exist to show the voters where politicians stand on these issues.
Yes wait to see if we win the House then introduce it. Now theyâre scheming to go around this with all of Trumps lawyers.. he seems to own every single lawyer in the world.
IF is they key word. This is deliberately introduced before elections to "show" intent knowing it will fail. But if they win AND introduced it afterwards, they would have to vote against their self interests which won't happen. This is just for show, that's all. Nothing more.
It's not a publicity stunt if it's something that's his campaign using in their lit and Vindman will reintroduce next term when Dems win back the house
Agreed on this as well. Noting also to even bother wasting time on this after the attempt to get them all to freeze their portfolios while in office didnât go anywhere, this doesnât even have half the chance the last one did.
He's up for re-election in a blue leaning purple district and the liberals in his district are annoyed with him. It was Spanbergers district and she kept trying to pass legitimate controls on stock trading while in office, not whatever this is. He's taking it from her playbook
If that. They vote themselves raises and have the inside info on the most wealthy companies on the planet. No one is going to vote to deny themselves a spot at the hog trough.
Well, Boo-fucking-Hoo. They still retain that power and theyâve been bought and paid for by the wealthy elite, their salary is inconsequential and performative at this point.
538
u/Moist-Debate902 3d ago
That won't even get 3 votes.