Talk:For the People Act

The (ir)relevance of the Green Party's opinion on federal legislation

Submitting for review in case it becomes an issue, I have removed this edit today, this one back on March 8th, and one on March 5th. The Green Party of the US is considered fringe, they hold no national offices, no statewide office, just a handful of local ones. As such, IMO, their opinions on federal legislation is not relevant. Select members of national parties may champion small-g green initiatives, like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal, but they have no ties to the Green Party itself when doing such. Zaathras (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree - too marginal to be encyclopedic here. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No. This is a big part of the bill. And the green party is the 4th largest political party. It is important for people to know about this kind of thing. Colonizor48 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The "4th largest" party had around 300,000 members and zero national seats. Their impact on American politics, outside of a debatable spoiler impact on the 2016 elections, is beyond negligible. Zaathras (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the opinions of minor parties on legislation that would influence elections is important no matter what party it is or where in the world it is. It doesn't have to focus on one party, it doesn't have to take up a huge part of the article, but it's an important aspect of the legislation and people who want to understand the bill deserve to know about it. DominateEye (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Third parties have virtually no impact on national politics in America. Zaathras (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Pressure groups have no direct impact, and yet their opinions are included in this article. The bill would have a disproportionate impact on third parties, and that makes them relevant to the issue. DominateEye (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Poision pill.

https://www.gp.org/hr_1 Can someone nonbiased sources for critisisms based on the socalled "poision pills" in HR_1? That would supposedly hurt 3rd parties? Perhaps this should be added to the critisizm section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonizor48 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The green party's own website is not a usable source here, no. Zaathras (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a usable source and also very marginal. Leave it out. Neutrality^talk 02:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Colonizor48 (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Yes. However there are sources from the actuall bill's text to my knowlage. That should be mentioned in the article from a npov. It doesnt have to be in the critisism secxtion. It could just mention that It would increse the cost for 3rd parties.

Then by all means, find & present sources independent of the Green Party that discuss this. Zaathras (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

How about these two?

• http://ballot-access.org/2021/01/14/congressional-bill-to-increase-difficulty-of-qualifying-for-primary-season-matching-funds-for-president/
• https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/03/h-r-1-the-for-the-people-act-legitimizes-wapos-propornot-reporting-institutionalizes-ballot-marking-devices-and-cripples-minor-parties.html

They're both sites which present strong but informed and non-partisan opinions. (For full disclosure, I am an active Green Party member, and contribute to the discussions on both sites -- but I am not a post-writer for either.)

--35.62.1.106 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)jalp5dai

A web forum and a blog. No, and...wait for it...no. Zaathras (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I would also be very careful to not use the phrase "poison pill" in discussing the legilsation. The phrase has a very specific meaning in the legislative process -- it means that the opposition party attempts to include an amendment or provision in a bill not because they themselves support the provisions, but in order to that peel away support from legislators who would otherwise support the overall bill. That does not appear to be the origin of the provisions under discussion here. --Jfruh (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of "falsely" regarding claims of voter fraud

Okay, this has been reverted enough times that I figure we should have an actual discussion. There are several areas in the article where the word false/falsely is being added and removed:

Many political commentators view the bill as a defense against an onslaught of voting restrictions pushed by state Republicans following false claims by former President Donald Trump that the 2020 election was rigged in favor of Joe Biden; in this view, Republicans are pushing a false narrative about the 2020 election in order to lower citizens' confidence in the integrity of elections, and then using that lack of confidence as pretext to impose new voting restrictions.

Representative Dan Crenshaw falsely claimed in 2019 that the bill would "legalize" the type of fraud seen in North Carolina in 2018.

During a May 2021 Senate Rules Committee hearing, Senator Ted Cruz falsely asserted that House Democrats had "designed" the Act such that it "directs" people "to break the law and register millions of people to vote who are not eligible to vote because they are not United States citizens" and "automatically registers to vote anyone who interacts with the government", regardless of their immigration status.

I am of the opinion that false/falsely should remain, given that independent fact checkers have repeatedly found that these claims are false (sources are in the article if you feel like checking) and we should not be spreading misinformation without clearly disclosing that it is, indeed, misinformation. It seems that others believe that using the false/falsely is biased. Thoughts? Did this need a discussion?

Pinging @Jarshewa, Gcjnst, Soibangla, 2601:cf:4780:7eb0:900b:8c02:dfa1:4018, and Squeakachu. Aerin17 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much to add beyond what I said in my edit summary. Claims of massive fraud in the election are false. There is functionally no disagreement among reliable sources on that point, and Wikipedia should reflect that. The descriptions of the claims of Representative Crenshaw and Senator Cruz also look well sourced to me. I can't see any policy-based reason to remove the false/falsely wording. Squeakachu (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is not necessary, as the nature of the allegations being false are crystal-clear. Revert the edits of disruptive IPs and the like, and call it a day. Zaathras (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Politics and Religion are divisive subjects. Shall we add "falsely" before every Jim Jones or Joseph Smith quote? Should we add a bias to the ridiculous conspiracy theories? This is obviously controversial enough to warrant this discussion. Adding "false" creates a controversy unnecessarily. There is no reason to create a controversy. It is best to leave the quote without a bias. The subject should be presented academically, without influence from the author. Show the subject. present the supporters, the history, the opposition, and whatever other subcategories that add information to the subject. Jarshewa (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Section orders

I have two proposals for changing section order. I list them here rather than perform them immediately, because they are major:

1. Move § Legislative history to the front, as a "history" of the act in general; this is similar to how court cases are treated, but I don't know how laws are done.
2. Reorder the Key provisions §§ to reflect the order in the original act (the 2021/117th Congress, at least).

In addition, what makes a provision "key"? Especially in the first division (voting), there are many notable findings, so which of them should be listed? I think that's a major discussion to be had. 72.86.39.245 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)