 Without question, Democrats need to prioritize getting aid and survival checks to Americans because this pandemic has absolutely taken an economic toll on folks. Get people what they need, that in the short term is going to help them. But what I've also long maintained is that Democrats have to fix democracy. Like we have to assume that by 2022, they're going to lose power. And there's going to be a turnover at least in one branch of Congress. So they have to do what they can to fix all of the flaws inherent with our democracy. And it's going to be tough to do like really comprehensive reforms. I don't expect them to abolish the electoral college, even though they should be trying to build momentum for that ultimate goal. But they do need to do a lot to at least make our democracy more equitable and franchise as many people as possible. And it seems as if they are still committed to doing one thing that could help. It's not going to be the end all be all. It's not a panacea. Nonetheless, one bill called for the People Act can do wonders if they actually pass it. Now, as John Schwartz of the Intercept reports, since the 117th Congress was convened on January 3rd, over 2000 bills have been introduced in the House and Senate. But the very first legislation proposed by the Democratic Party majorities in both chambers, making it both HR1 and S1, is the For the People Act of 2021. This is appropriate because the For the People Act is plausibly the most important legislation considered by Congress in decades. It would change the basic structure of US politics, making it far more small-D Democratic. The bill makes illegal essentially all of the anti-enfranchisement tactics perfected by the right over the past decades. It then creates a new infrastructure to permanently bolster the influence of regular people. The bill's provisions largely fall into three categories. First, it makes it far easier to vote by eliminating barriers and enhancing basic outreach to citizens. Second, it makes everyone's vote count more equally, especially by reducing gerrymandering. Third, it hugely amplifies the power of small political donors, allowing them to match and possibly swamp the power of big money. Now, we'll talk about the specifics. I will say that I think the author kind of oversells it. It is really, really, really important, but it's not going to basically save democracy. There's still more work to be done. Having said that, though, he's not wrong to suggest that this is a really, really important piece of legislation that Democrats have to pass. And it's a good sign that it was introduced first. They need to absolutely, without question, get this through within the next two years. Otherwise, I don't think they realize how difficult it's going to be for them to ever get power again, because we talked about just a couple of weeks ago how after Joe Biden won, Republicans in state legislatures across this country are going out of their way to crack down on voting rights to make sure that this victory that they saw isn't going to happen again. We're talking about voter ID laws being imposed, more voter purges, more barriers to voting. If they enact more obstacles to voting, then they suppress voter turnout, which is always better for Republicans. So if Democrats don't do something to combat that, they're not going to win again. It's going to be a lot more difficult. Like it's going to take another substantial thing like a bush or a Trump that makes power turn over again. But we can't wait for that when we have things like climate change to look out for and Republicans don't even care. Don't even think it's real. So we have to make sure that democracy is fair if we want a fighting chance. And Democrats have got to enact this. So what does this actually entail? Why is it so important? Well, I'm not going to read the article for you, but I would recommend the article if you want further context as to why all of these things are important. Nonetheless, here's what it contains. So it would basically subvert the draconian voter ID laws in all of these states. So that way, if Republicans choose to enact them, they're still legal. However, voters can subvert these voter ID laws if they sign a sworn statement where they attest that they are who they say they are. And so that way, if they're lying, they can be held legally accountable. This is really important because these voter ID laws have been proven to disenfranchise people of color disproportionately. This is essential. It's crucial. Also, this would stop illegal voter role purges. This is the way that Brian Kemp won in Georgia in the 2018 gubernatorial campaign against Stacey Abrams. He did a lot of purges of newly registered voters, most of which were black, most of which were Democrat, who would have more likely voted for Stacey Abrams. And that may have been what led to his victory. Like he literally rigged that election in his favor as Secretary of State. And now he is the governor as a result of said rigging. If we stopped these illegal voter role purges, that could change the country. This giving people a voice could have a substantial impact. Additionally, it would reenfranchise felons, but only if they serve their time. This I would want progressives to push back on felons should be able to vote even while they are in prison. Because if we're going to have a true democracy in this country that requires universal suffrage, that means you can't exclude people for arbitrary reasons. Committing a crime being a felon doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to exercise your rights of vote. That's one thing that must change in this bill. Having said that, though, as it is, that would still be a substantial improvement. Also, this would make voter registration near automatic. I don't necessarily know what that means. The author of this article doesn't really describe that. And on the Senate version of this bill, it's a little bit vague. But to have automatic voter registration, that would be really crucial. Now, in Oregon, we basically have automatic voter registration. So that way, when you get a driver's license, you are automatically registered to vote. That is basically near automatic. So if that's what this means, that's great. But this is a step in the right direction. It would also require states to allow early voting by at least two weeks. Really, really crucial. Because if you can't make it into vote, if you have to work on election day, you have to be able to cash your vote ahead of time. That's just basic. Also, it would mandate that all elections be conducted using paper ballots, not machines. And when it comes to gerrymandering, it would require states to create independent commissions for redistricting. To me, this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't be the case that the party who controls the most state legislatures gets to rig the rules in their favor. Redraw district lines to favor them. Like, that's not why we redraw district lines. We redraw district lines to accommodate changes in demographics, accommodate changes in development, in cities, urbanization, and whatnot. So this is just, this is obvious. This is something that should have been addressed a while ago. And I'll say the opposite. If Democrats were in control, I wouldn't want them to be able to redraw district lines to favor them. This should be a democratic process that is nonpartisan, impartial. So this is obviously really important. It would also reform the FEC to give it teeth so that way in the event politicians actually do violate campaign finance laws, they get prosecuted. Because currently, you could basically get away scot-free even if you brazenly violate campaign finance laws. You can coordinate with your super PAC and what's going to happen. Nothing. The FEC isn't going to crack down on you because it is either deadlocked or it doesn't have the teeth needed to go after you. That would change with this legislation. Also, it would impose additional measures to prevent the illegal coordination between candidates and super PACs. On top of that, it would impose, or excuse me, it would incentivize small dollar donations by matching funds, get this, by a six to one ratio of up to $200. This, I don't want to call it a game changer because it's not going to completely eliminate the influence of big money in politics. Having said that, though, to incentivize small dollar donations would make politicians less reliance on those corporate donors, on the billionaire class. Because if you're matching funds by a six to one ratio, what does that mean in practice? If you submit a $10 donation to a politician, that gets matched. So the total donation will actually be $70. That's huge. That is really important. If we had publicly financed elections, the difference that would make would be incredible. It really would democratize our democratic process for lack of a better word. And this includes primary campaigns as well. And the reason why that's important is because a lot of these incumbents have an advantage over insurgent campaigns. So when we're talking about progressives, for example, I bring progressives on my channel who are running for Congress all the time. And the number one thing that they cite that makes their campaigns very difficult to win is a lack of resources. They're going up against political behemoths who outspend them 10 to one. This would actually level the playing field a little bit. If these people who are running for Congress build these mini grassroots coalitions and we're matching those funds by a six to one ratio, you potentially have it so they can out raise incumbents if those incumbents don't have people power behind them. That's huge. Additionally, I'd have to learn more about this, but it sounds good. It would create a code of ethics for the Supreme Court. So needless to say, all of these things, I think objectively speaking for small D Democrats is positive. If you support democracy, this would strengthen our democracy. It would allow us to further consolidate democracy, bring more people into the process. This is this would be great. Now it's not perfect, right? It's not a panacea. It wouldn't solve all of our problems. Because as we've learned over the years, capitalism is like a virus and it attacks any progress that leads to, you know, them not making as much profit. So if one law stops large multinational corporations from being profitable, they're going to get that overturned. So this isn't like going to end all of the issues that we have with democracy. Having said that though, it's really important, but there's other things that I wish were included. First of all, I wish that there was a provision in this to make voting compulsory. Now I don't care if that is by stick or carrot approach, I would prefer the carrot approach. But if you make voting compulsory, that increases turnout. Australia has compulsory voting. And guess what? It works. Now you don't have to punish people, right? You don't have to impose a penalty or a fine on them if they don't vote. But you can incentivize voting, use the carrot approach so that way if they do vote, and they show proof of voting when it's time to file their taxes, they get maybe a $50 credit, something simple. But doing that will go a long way. So people think, oh, well, I need to vote so I can get my $50 tax credit at the end of the year. It's something as simple as that, that really could make a difference, that could encourage people to participate in the process. Because part of the issue is people don't vote because they don't often see like a big enough difference between Democrats and Republicans to warrant the payoff of coming out to vote, waiting in line for hours. But if you incentivize that even a little bit, that can make a huge difference. Also, I think that voting needs to be a national holiday. The two-week early voting period is important, but it should be a national holiday. Additionally, there should be a tax on super PAC donations. So that way those are disincentivized and politicians don't rely on them since they're taxed and they don't get as much money. On top of that, I think this is another no-brainer, rank choice voting that would drastically change this country and wouldn't be like right away. But this would get rid of the spoiler effect that Democrats complain about. You're worried that, you know, lefties voting for the Green Party is going to spoil the election and lead to a Republican winning? Well, rank choice voting is going to solve that problem. Now, the issue is that Democrats don't want to do this because then they're potentially ceding some of their power to a third party or a fourth party. And both Democrats and Republicans want to preserve the status quo. They want to preserve the amount of power that they get. And if you institute rank choice voting that could open the door to more parties actually winning seats in Congress and they don't want that. But anyone who's against this, they're not serious if they claim to care about the spoiler effect. Just keep that in mind. So overall, though, really, really encouraging to see Democrats still floating this idea. Back in 2018, when they first took power, I actually praised them for this because they floated the For the People Act. And I wasn't sure that they were serious about doing this because they have an incentive to rely on these big dollar donors because that's how you get elected. So there's going to be a lot of lobbying. There's going to be conservative Democrats who want to water this down. But this is where we really need members of the squad and progressive Democrats and principled Democrats to come in and fight. Because if this were to pass, this would be phenomenal. Now, there's more things that need to be done. You have to fight for statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. Get rid of the electoral college. It's an antiquated system that doesn't make sense. It suppresses democracy. But having said that, though, in the event this were to pass and Joe Biden were to sign it into law, would it make a substantial difference? Without a doubt, this would make a substantial difference. But if something like this were to pass, it would be attacked immediately by capitalist forces, by lobbyists. So it would be a fight to protect it. That's what we need to do. We can't not pass legislation because we fear that it's going to be watered down or attacked. You know, everything that we do in a capitalist system is going to be attacked. If we ever get Medicare for all immediately once that's codified into law and enacted, it's going to be attacked by private insurance companies and lobbyists. That doesn't mean we don't fight. That doesn't mean that we be discouraged. It's a constant process. It's a constant fight. And something like this would make a difference. And I'm honestly pleasantly surprised that Democrats are still pushing this. So credit where it's due. If they can get this passed, then they get a lot of credit. If they fail to pass this, then they should be absolutely laughed out of the room. This is like the bare minimum that they do if they ever want to win power again. And this isn't like them rigging the process. This is them like democratizing elections in the United States, which is kind of important if you believe in democracy. But having said that, though, we'll leave that there. If you believe in this fight for it, put pressure on them to pass this. They reintroduced it, and that's a really good sign. But I don't think that standing idly by and crossing our fingers that they passed this is a smart political strategy. If you want this fight for it, there's got to be grassroots energy that applies pressure. Otherwise, Democrats aren't going to feel the need to pass this right away when they absolutely have two years. That's it. You don't pass this within that window. They are fucked and Republicans will continue to hold at least some power for a very, very long time, enough power to stop something like this from getting passed, enough power to continue enacting draconian voter ID laws and suppressing the vote. So this is great.