cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/49686846
The Democratic Socialists of America has released an updated platform that calls for a sweeping remake of the political system, including eliminating the U.S. Senate and abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which the organization has publicly advocated since 2018.
The revised “Workers Deserve More” platform says the country’s political institutions must be rebuilt from the ground up, said Michaela Brangan, a North New Jersey DSA member who helped write the platform.
The platform’s language calls for replacing the president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress. The socialists argue that these changes would curb concentrated power in Washington and create a more democratic system.
…
DSA leaders say they are trying to convert that momentum into a broader influence on national debates and that any candidate the group endorses must support the platform.
The updated platform opens with warnings about war zones across the Middle East, the spread of detention camps and data centers, rising temperatures and soaring costs of basic goods. It argues that a “billionaire class” is dividing workers and fueling desperation.
It describes a world in which “the bosses” are carrying out a plan visible in images of conflict abroad, in the construction of detention facilities at home and in the rising cost of living.
The party says workers are being pitted against one another and displaced by artificial intelligence, leaving people “desperate and miserable” as capitalism turns toward right‑wing authoritarianism. It says both major parties serve “the same criminal class of billionaires and war profiteers.”
…
DSA’s vision includes a significant expansion of the House once the Senate is eliminated.
Ms. Brangan told members on a Tuesday conference call that the Senate is “more loyal to itself and their donors than their own constituents.” She argued that enlarging the House would move the country closer to what she described as a more representative democracy.
“The Senate is an anachronism, and it’s completely idiosyncratic to the United States,” Ms. Brangan said. “This has been around for over 200 years, and it’s not working.”
She said a House expansion would be a step toward “a true democracy.”
…
Beyond institutional overhauls, the platform lays out a broad set of policy goals: imposing wealth taxes on the richest Americans and corporations, canceling student debt, establishing a 32-hour workweek, granting blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, enacting “Medicare for All,” providing universal childcare and a pledge to position the organization at the forefront of the fight for transgender rights.
On foreign policy, the platform calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and an end to U.S. military and economic aid to Israel.
The platform also includes a “feminism for all” plank that calls for queer liberation, an end to gender‑based violence and bans on sex discrimination. It opposes restrictions on abortion, childbirth, gender expression and gender transition.
The document casts the DSA mission as building a working‑class political force capable of drafting a new constitution and creating what it describes as a democratic socialist republic.
It says some demands may be achievable under the current system, but “complete victory” will require building a new society from the ground up.
Washington Times is a questionable source in the same bucket as Fox News, OANN, Breitbart, The New York Post, and so on.
Please try again.
I’m not so sure about abolishing the Senate: a unicameral legislature would have one less check/balance than a bicameral one.
I understand that the Senate as it currently stands rigs the system in favour of red states (of which there are more, with two Dakotas and DC not being a state), though perhaps a better solution would be some kind of weighting of states by population (as is done with the Australian Senate, which is also a state-based house of review), or else replacing it with a new upper house (though wholesale replacements are a greater change than adjustments).
In my opinion, the US electoral system could be greatly improved by establishing a nonpartisan professional body to administer it, including running elections, redrawing district boundaries by impartial criteria and maintaining electoral rolls, with strict taboos (as in other democracies) against any sort of partisan meddling. Though the idea that the party that controls the state legislature/supreme court is entitled to put its thumb on the scale seems too deeply entrenched to be easily changed.
I agree with you in the short term.
But if all of their other ideas come through, it would just get in the way. A key part of the whole thing is making sure everyone actually has a voice and it is as powerful as anyone else’s. That is combined with what should be far less corruption. If that were true, checks and balances would be less necessary because the house would truly represent the will of the people.
That was a lot of words to say, you make a great point in a cynical but realistic view of the world. The manifesto is very idealistic (though I could use a little of that again).
Copying my comment from the other thread:
-
This is from a right-wing rag, the Washington Times.
-
Their full platform has many more items; the Washington Times has chosen one they think will enrage their base and one that they think their base will laugh at. You can read the full platform here.
-
Since the title focuses partially on Congress, their Congressional reforms are [in order]: Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.
-
Since the title also focuses on ICE, their abolish ICE proposals include: End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents’ brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.
-
Some of their other goals:
-
Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents and restore the right to vote for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions. Establish statehood for Washington D.C. and recognize the right to self-determination for all U.S. territories and colonies. Expand and protect voting rights and end voter suppression.
-
get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United, and publicly finance all elections. Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.
-
Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.
I don’t agree with all of their goals, and I don’t see a path to get others accomplished, but I like the fact that they’re trying to actually fix the system instead of just trying to get along within it.
-
Both things that need to happen. But I still wonder how many of the average people are ready to accept that. More than ever I would assume. But I still think plenty would reflexively recoil at abolishing the senate. Even knowing how much damage it causes. Just because it’s been there for as long as the country has.
I think that it might be fairly popular to instead propose replacing the congressional system with a parliamentary system. Most people generally agree that both parties are bad and that we all just choose our less bad preference because 3rd parties are incapable of winning in nearly all races. For whatever reason, people aren’t unanimously on board with ranked choice voting, so I don’t see a path to nuanced representation in Congress as it exists today.
Of course, there would probably be a lot of people bitching that the UK uses parliament so why did we fight a war to be independent just to end up using their system. Well, we ended up with a king, so this system didn’t do what it was supposed to do.
This is a right-wing propaganda outlet trying to do a hit piece by mentioning these policies. It’s pleasing to see it backfire on Lemmy as people just say “sounds great!”
That’s most news, lmao.
“Prominent rightwing figure shot in the head!”
Shitternet:
oh no! His wife and kids!
Lemmy:
OH YES!
Abolishing ICE is just basic common sense.
The senate though? Yes, it gives way more power to less populous states and that’s a real problem.
But a country where populous regions can completely run roughshod over everywhere else is not a stable arrangement, and not a just arrangement. Over-representing minorities prevents harsh majoritarian rule.
Based and based
Abolishing the Senate is a good start, but they need to overhaul how the house works to make it actually better. For one, the number of representatives needs to be decoupled from the number of people in the house. States should send elected delegates and those delegates should have votes appropriate to the state population. This way a large state with a very diverse population could send a mix of delegates that best represents their population and those delegates together would have a number of votes proportionate to the population.
This balances the need for better representation withb the impracticality of having a proportionate house with 10,000 members.
The Senate actually can’t be Constitutionally abolished. One of the few provisions in the Constitution that is explicitly unalterable by an amendment is the provision that all states must have equal representation in the Senate. That would imply that you cannot completely abolish the Senate as well. You cannot have equal representation in a body that doesn’t exist.
However, the body could still be effectively abolished, if not truly abolished. You could pass an amendment stripping the Senate of all its powers. Every state would then have perfectly equal representation to a purely ceremonial body.
TIL - and that is the only thing that can’t be amended.
One of the few provisions in the Constitution that is explicitly unalterable by an amendment
1: Pass an amendment that revokes this clause about it being unalterable.
2: Pass another amendment to abolish the Senate.
