Umm, none of them? (Except gun ownership, I think the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted and I would support its repeal). Anyway, I said I didn't like the decision. I just don't think it spells the death of the two-party system.

And it's not nearly as bad for popular representation as the travesties of the Electoral College and the Senate that we already have.

The GOP's path to the presidency was by losing the popular vote by 3 million and winning a few states (whose state governments are controlled by R's) by tens of thousands of votes. Their path to holding the House of Representatives is by losing the nationwide vote by 8% but holding the house through gerrymandering done by R controlled state governments. They hold onto the Senate because the whole design of the senate is ****ing ******ed.

Democrat victories rely on turnout to overcome all of this. The purge is designed to cut into the ability of democrats to turnout infrequent voters. It may have a small direct effect, but with that set up, the ultimate results will be magnified.

also, the republicans control the voter rolls. they arent gonna purge republican voters.

It’s not the literal death of the two-party system. The Republicans almost certainly don’t want that to happen. The existence of a second party gives them the pretense of legitimacy. They just want the Democratic Party neutered unable to wield any meaningful political power.

chillrob is correct. GOP war on voting is an abomination, but we are nowhere close to the death of the two-party system.

What makes you think we are nowhere close? I'd like to be optimistic on this, but I see real reason to be worried. We're one SCOTUS decision away from it being essentially impossible for democrats to control the house or lots of state governments.

De facto one party rule has happened in other democracies. Recently even. And it can happen quickly. See Hungary. Hand waving it away as a possibility seems really dangerous to me.

I do think it's less likely to happen to the executive or judicial branches here, but certainly not impossible if we elect a younger more sinister version of Trump in the future.

That functions as a satellite state of Russia.

If the dems go for anything other that compulsory registration at age 18 the next time they get a chance, they deserve whatever happens.

I just posted this on my 26-year-old cousin's timeline after she complained about KS new anti-same-sex adoption law:

Everyone needs to start hammering this home with anyone you know under 40 who ever complains about the current administration. There are things we can do. We're not entirely helpless here.

Don't young men still have to register for the draft at age 18? If so, it wouldn't be too much more work to have them register to vote at the same time. It was always unfair that women didn't have to register for the draft anyway, so they should just make both registrations universal for both sexes at 18.

That makes so much sense that Republicans would literally compare it to Nazi Germany 24-7 on all right-wing channels.

its pretty much automated now i believe. plus it even is hooked into dmv's, the department of education, and the department of labor to keep track of males from 18-25.

but doing that for voting would certainly be too hard if you ask republicans.

Not too hard - TOO NAZI! What's next - tattoos? One-world currency? Who's behind this REALLY?

Republicans fought the "Motor Voter" law tooth and nail. The entire game is predicated on having as few people as humanly possible cast ballots.

The Trump administration is not wasting any time

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ting-any-time/

like, they are clearly going to pick and choose which names to remove based on the citizens registration. we all know that right?

They'll use some method to make sure they're removing minorities and poor people, and it'll be unconstitutional and it'll be so extreme that even a conservative SCOTUS will make them stop... just not before the next election, and there will be no repercussions for it.

They just keep coming up with new ways to disenfranchise people every election, that haven't yet been shot down by the courts.

They won't disenfranchise poor republicans.

Which is exactly what the South did for 100 years before the Voting Rights Act. Which SCOTUS kindly reached out and gutted when no one was even asking - just like Citizens United.

The no repercussions part is what kills me. They have absolutely zero incentive to stop trying every tactic they can dream up.

Finally, somewhat of a win.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ote/ar-AAyPn1g

Until SCOTUS plucks the case out of thin air and reverses it.

Kobach looking to defy a court order



https://twitter.com/jessicahuseman/s...05848417308672

Michigan initiative to move redistricting from legislature to independent commission will be on November ballot

This seems huge

God I hope Kobach get locked up for contempt over this.

SCOTUS upholds the Texas gerrymander 5-4. Evil (i.e. Mitch McConnell) triumphs again.