"RepresentUS" & the American Anti-Corruption Act -

[Null]

I stumbled upon this site at random and was surprised I had never heard of it before.

End Corruption, Defend the Republic.

We bring together conservatives, progressives, and everyone in between to pass powerful laws that fix our broken elections and stop political bribery

represent.us

Watch these two videos at 2x if nothing else.

Here's their talking points.

These are the policies that will end political corruption

Let's pass Ranked Choice Voting, anti-gerrymanding reform, campaign finance reform, and more.

represent.us

Okay, now you're caught up. I'm curious what people think about it. Here's my concerns.


1. Part of their agenda is making voting by mail even easier.
This is very pro-corruption. No other country in the world except the United States has voting without ID. It does not make sense.


2. The independent ethics commission.
In 2018, a public referendum to amend the constitution of South Dakota failed. There was, ironically, heavy pac advertising against it from a coalition of unions. In particular: 'David Owen, president of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the ethics commission would have a "scope of power that's kind of unbelievable." Owen said, "We're wandering into territory that's completely unheard of. I think they're going to whoop up a false impression that South Dakota is massively corrupt."'

These commissions are a concern and I think most people would raise an eyebrow to it. They're state appointed to begin with. There's a letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures describing ethics commissions. From the letter, it seems like ethics commissions are already in place in some form in most states and it's an established convention, but I'm not sure how much the government can be trusted to regulate itself or otherwise how this is supposed to be effective in general.


3. Corruption might be the only thing keeping the country from being deader and gayer than it already is.
There's a part of me that is genuinely concerned that the only stopgap from keeping the US from being ran by mob rule like a dead, gay European country is big companies. I feel that big evil companies coincidentally, unintentionally create pockets of freedom from the government by constantly advocating for a weak and incompetent federal power. The scariest parts of the government are the ones that don't intersect with interests of multinational corporations and don't receive the same scrutiny.


4. Diversity statement.

https://act.represent.us/sign/diversity-dei-statement/

“Democracy is the greatest threat to white supremacy.” - Darren Walker, CEO, Ford Foundation

If Democracy is the greatest threat to whitey, then I guess whitey is the greatest threat to Democracy. Why bother supporting this if I'm the bad guy?


Discuss.

 

[Frank D'arbo]

No seriously What the fuck is 'Diversity is Our Strength' supposed to mean?

 

[Pixy]

No seriously What the fuck is 'Diversity is Our Strength' supposed to mean?

Obviously not ideological diversity.

 

[Wowcoolusername]

I like Null. Null is a dog. I like dogs. Good dog, Null.

 

[Lone MacReady]

Well, if the "Patriot Act" wasn't Patriotic, and if the "Cares Act" doesn't care for the little man. I have to question if the "anti-corruption act" is really to remove the corrupt. PedoJoe calcifying Mail-in ballots is how the fraud game continues ad infinitum.

 

[FEETLOAF]

I think the libtardarian in the video is retarded and a libtard and also probably gay. I think the graph he presents, where niggercattle get no say and an elite of wealthy landowners have direct impact on policy in a Republican legislature in a federation of states is what the founders (pbuh) intended. The only problem is that instead of the elite wealthy landowners being me and mine its some gay jew who is gay and also jewish (I love Israel.)

 

[Null]

Well, if the "Patriot Act" wasn't Patriotic, and if the "Cares Act" doesn't care for the little man. I have to question if the "anti-corruption act" is really to remove the corrupt. PedoJoe calcifying Mail-in ballots is how the fraud game continues ad infinitum.

Did you read anything in the act or did you just write this after reading the name

 

[Nathan Higgers]

Well, if the "Patriot Act" wasn't Patriotic, and if the "Cares Act" doesn't care for the little man. I have to question if the "anti-corruption act" is really to remove the corrupt. PedoJoe calcifying Mail-in ballots is how the fraud game continues ad infinitum.

If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of 'progress'? congress!

 

[Aquinas]

I like Null. Null is a dog. I like dogs. Good dog, Null.

This is what im feelin right now

 

[Omnium Ultimatus]

Yeah, this seems pretty concerning or confusing.

I like Null. Null is a dog. I like dogs. Good dog, Null.

Could I get a red warning too?

 

[Piss!]

As far as I can tell, attempts to regulate a huge unaccountable entity's power without dismantling that power largely tend to fall victim to the same flaw: "we will appoint a panel of people to tell you whether we did the right thing". Any time you hear the word "ethics" nowadays you should be on high alert for this. You have "bioethics" (we need doctors and pharma to be watched over... by some guy who went to Harvard with them). You have "corporate ethics officers" (i.e. whatever prevents us from being sued is right)... so I'd take this with a grain of salt.

They do talk about ranked choice voting and ending regulatory capture, though, which is fucking based. I would have to read the act to form a good opinion if it was fail or not.

 

[Null]

As far as I can tell, attempts to regulate a huge unaccountable entity's power without dismantling that power largely tend to fall victim to the same flaw: "we will appoint a panel of people to tell you whether we did the right thing". Any time you hear the word "ethics" nowadays you should be on high alert for this. You have "bioethics" (we need doctors and pharma to be watched over... by some guy who went to Harvard with them). You have "corporate ethics officers" (i.e. whatever prevents us from being sued is right)... so I'd take this with a grain of salt.

They do talk about ranked choice voting and ending regulatory capture, though, which is fucking based. I would have to read the act to form a good opinion if it was fail or not.

Yeah I disagree that an ethics commission can do shit. They're non-obvious.

A lot of what they support is based, but I don't like how they misrepresent things. I've been looking at their fights with South Dakota and they blame EVIL ESTABLISHMENT LAWMAKERS!! for using EMERGENCY POWERS!!! to repeal their referendum, but a judge actually said it wasn't valid because even though it passed it wasn't a single-issue referendum.

 

[Harlay de Champvallon]

The entire legacy media was happy to give them a hearing, so that discounts it from the start. If it threatened anyone they wouldn't get this wide hearing. There's a lot of things not really clarified (update of second video) and they envisage some sort of committee. This looked to me like an another omni-party gatekeeper initiative who hope to mobilise the stupid to essentially keep things as they are. Any anti-lobbying act will be loosely written so a lobbyist could just call himself 'not a lobbyist' and carry on.

 

[Null]

The entire legacy media was happy to give them a hearing, so that discounts it from the start. If it threatened anyone they wouldn't get this wide hearing. There's a lot of things not really clarified (update of second video) and they envisage some sort of committee. This looked to me like an another omni-party gatekeeper initiative who hope to mobilise the stupid to essentially keep things as they are. Any anti-lobbying act will be loosely written so a lobbyist could just call himself 'not a lobbyist' and carry on.

Yeah but ranked choice is a good thing. I'm hesitant to say "they got on the news so therefore they are evil" because that's autistic and reductive.

 

[Botchy Galoop]

I'm still exploring their website but its is sending up some red flags. Under some of the political actions they are currently taking is to "condemn the shameful eight."
Here is a direct quote.
"Five people died, the Capitol was sacked, and America was shaken to its core. While most of the nation was reeling in the aftermath, eight Senators returned to the floor to object to state electoral votes and continued to push the same baseless claims of a stolen election that incited the riot in the first place."
They then list eight senators that you can send an email to condemn them.

It professes to be a non-partisan group, but it seems to have a definite narrative.
They have a pretty sophisticated organization from the looks of it, and looking at their backers and "cultural advisors", strong Hollywood support. JJ Abrams to name one.
Looking under their volunteer positions is their MemeTeam ,always fun for sowing some chaos.

Good find, interesting group. There are definitely some ideas that I can get behind, such as term limits, anti-gerrymandering, no lobbyists, etc. but I'm afraid I've grown cynical and mistrust most peoples motives.

eta: sorry for random bolding

 

[KingCoelacanth]

It seems like a scam and it feels like a power move.
They keep talking about how people elected via this act will replace current politicians, get into congress and once enough states do this the entire system will be flipped. They bring up gay marriage, but gay marriage was a result of the system not the people. Even California voted down gay marriage.

View attachment 2177388

The entire legacy media was happy to give them a hearing, so that discounts it from the start. If it threatened anyone they wouldn't get this wide hearing. There's a lot of things not really clarified (update of second video) and they envisage some sort of committee. This looked to me like an another omni-party gatekeeper initiative who hope to mobilise the stupid to essentially keep things as they are. Any anti-lobbying act will be loosely written so a lobbyist could just call himself 'not a lobbyist' and carry on.

The movement reeks of populism, yet all the outlets that normally decry populism are ok with it?
The videos feel like the videos you'll see for scams like solar roads or tree planting, which is concerning.
And the big issue with the video is that it touches on a lot of issues that nearly everyone dislikes, but it doesn't show how it will be solved. Just pass these laws, elect our guys, things will be better.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Republics and Democracies are meme systems. An elected leader's chance of retaining power is not tied to their ability to effectively govern, it's tied to their ability to garner popular support. On paper it would seem like a good leader would garner the most popular support but this simply isn't the case. Most of the general population simply doesn't care about politics enough to even know what effective governance looks like. Assuming they do know what effective governance looks like, they're likely not going to give a flying fuck what happens in the long term to the nation so long as they're taken care of in the short term. This means that the people who do both understand how to run a nation and care more about the nation than they do their own interests are an absolutely tiny subset of any given population.

Additionally, no one is immune to brainwashing and most people are simply natural-born followers and not leaders anyway. The average person will suck up whatever he's fed by people in positions of authority. Taking this into consideration alongside the aforementioned point, there is only an absolutely tiny subset of the population that one, actually gives a shit, that two, is capable of thinking for themselves, and three even knows what is going on. This tiny group of people won't actually have any real power and the "representatives" currently in control will always pit the rest of the population against them since this group of people are the only actual threats to them.

Even assuming that somehow an actual good leader comes along and is able to rally the general population enough in the right direction, there is one last safety method for the authorities within "representative" systems. This is that the people who are actually elected are not the ones with the real power anyway. So even if somehow within the rigged game someone worthy of being a leader actually "wins," they haven't really accomplished anything.

Archives of the videos in the OP:

 

[Xarpho]

I'm still exploring their website but its is sending up some red flags. Under some of the political actions they are currently taking is to "condemn the shameful eight."
Here is a direct quote.
"Five people died, the Capitol was sacked, and America was shaken to its core. While most of the nation was reeling in the aftermath, eight Senators returned to the floor to object to state electoral votes and continued to push the same baseless claims of a stolen election that incited the riot in the first place."
They then list eight senators that you can send an email to condemn them.

It professes to be a non-partisan group, but it seems to have a definite narrative.
They have a pretty sophisticated organization from the looks of it, and looking at their backers and "cultural advisors", strong Hollywood support. JJ Abrams to name one.
Looking under their volunteer positions is their MemeTeam ,always fun for sowing some chaos.

Good find, interesting group. There are definitely some ideas that I can get behind, such as term limits, anti-gerrymandering, no lobbyists, etc. but I'm afraid I've grown cynical and mistrust most peoples motives.

eta: sorry for random bolding

Yeah, no. If you directly get on the "reee reee no evidence for vote fuckery" train you're automatically red-flagged. And without a strong borders push, you're basically demanding that third worlders dilute native citizens' votes, undermining the whole idea of representation to begin with.

 

[KingCoelacanth]

you're basically demanding that third worlders dilute native citizens' votes, undermining the whole idea of representation to begin with.

This is why they say that democracy is the greatest threat to "white supremacy". A democracy works with the idea of citizens making up the nation and the nation being governed by the government. If you destroy the idea of citizens and borders and whatnot, you've destroyed the citizen, destroyed the nation and all that remains is the government. The government is meant to represent the citizens, but if the concept of citizen is so vague that anyone can be the citizen (nation of immigrants) who is the government really suppose to represent.
I'd imagine this group supports ideas like "we can't help anyone (99% of the citizens) until the most marginalized (1% of the citizens) are helped", which is just an excuse to ignore the citizens as a whole.

 

[DumbDude42]

my thoughts on their positions:

Spoiler: Let voters rank their top candidates

Under the Act, voters can rank their top candidates, allowing them to support their top choice without fear of inadvertently helping elect the other party’s candidate. This makes it easier to elect independent-minded candidates who aren’t beholden to establishment special interests.

my thoughts: i don't see this really changing anything. it's aimed at making third parties more viable i guess, but in my opinion if any third party becomes even close to viable then the dem+rep uniparty establishment would just assimilate them by bringing their shotcallers into the fold. end result would then be a situation like germany for example, where they have 6 "different" parties in parliament, but the "choice" between them is mostly illusion because at least 5 of them pursue the exact same agenda.

Spoiler: End gerrymandering

The Anti-Corruption Act ends gerrymandering by creating independent, fully transparent redistricting commissions that follow strict guidelines to ensure accurate representation for all voters, regardless of political party.

my thoughts: instead of government making decisions about redistricting directly, now government makes decisions about redistricting by proxy, by having a commission of government appointed bureaucrats do it in their stead? sounds like a pointless expansion of bureaucracy with no real impact.

Spoiler: Let all voters participate in open primaries

By controlling the primaries, the political establishment controls which candidates we can vote on.

The Act requires all candidates for the same office compete in a single, open primary controlled by voters, not the political establishment. This gives voters more control over our elections and more choices at the ballot.

my thoughts: the intention is probably to enable more AOC or Trump situations, where an outsider blows out party establishment in primaries through populist agitation. not sure what to make of it though, opening up party primaries to the general public also sounds like it would make running a party in an area where it is small and weak near impossible because opposition parties could mobilize their voter base to get trojan horse candidates put on your partys election list.

Spoiler: Allow all Americans to Vote Absentee

Absentee voting, also known as vote by mail, gives every American the choice to securely vote from the comfort and safety of their home.

my thoughts: horrible take, voting by mail is highly abusable and super vulnerable to fraud.

Spoiler: Change how elections are funded

Running a political campaign is expensive, but few Americans can afford to donate to political campaigns. That makes politicians dependent upon – and therefore responsive to – a tiny fraction of special-interest donors.

The Act offers every voter a small credit they can use to make a political donation with no out-of-pocket expense. Candidates and political groups are only eligible to receive these credits if they agree to fundraise solely from small donors. The Act also empowers political action committees that only take donations from small donors, giving everyday people a stronger voice in our elections.

my thoughts: what this means in practice is using the state to transfer public funds straight into the pockets of political parties. absolutely terrible.

Spoiler: Enact reasonable term limits

When elected officials are allowed to become career politicians, our elections become uncompetitive and new ideas have a harder time being heard.
The Act sets reasonable term limits of 18 years total at each level of government, so that candidates focus on public service instead of staying in office.

my thoughts: reasonable take. 18 years still seems WAY too long though.

Spoiler: Enact Automatic Voter Registration

The Act automatically registers all interested eligible voters when they interact with government agencies – whether it’s when they go to the DMV, get a hunting license, apply for food assistance, or sign up for the national guard. Voters can always opt-out from being registered. Information is transmitted electronically and securely to a central source maintained by the state.

my thoughts: sounds like a pretext for more record-keeping and surveillance aimed at citizens. i don't like it at all.


all that being said, i'm not a believer in democracy to begin with, so i don't think these people are speaking truth or acting with good intentions in the first place.