A Time of Troubles | Hacker News Reader

A Time of Troubles

noahpinion.substack.com

19 pointsjseliger8 comments

The ever-widening political divide, which I have observed both in the abstract and in family/friend relationships, is something that I could easily see spelling the end of US democracy. I'm dead serious, and this (well-reasoned) post does nothing to ease my concerns.

I have been particularly anxious about one bit also mentioned in this post -- the upcoming Moore v. Harper ruling that the Supreme Court has added to their docket. It seems that the court's intent is to legitimize the "independent state legislature" theory, which would give state legislatures unchecked power to control the process (and, in turn, the outcomes) of their states' federal elections.

And by unchecked I mean exactly that. It relies on some ambiguous wording in the federal constitution (and interprets it to imply the word "only" where that word is not actually present) to bar state courts from having a say over any of the state legislature's election laws, and it would bar the state's governors from vetoing any such laws. In effect, if a state legislature decides to overrule their state's federal election outcome and appoint their own electors, etc, it would be perfectly legal and entirely un-challengeable for them to do so.

This, in effect, means that US democracy, at least in federal elections (this fringe legal theory does not apply to state laws dictating state elections), will have failed. It doesn't matter who you support - without free and fair elections, there is no democracy. (And of course, the winning side will just say "but there was fraud," and when that fails to be proven they can fall back on, "but actually we're a republic, not a democracy," and rely on their highly-polarized-and-then-gerrymandered states to continue backing them, because hey, we'd rather have single party rule than by ruled by the other side, right?)

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that 2020 was the last time that we'll have even a semblance of a free and fair presidential election, at least for a generation or two. From here out, I expect to see the winning party continue to dismantle the engine of whatever remaining democratic processes stand in the way of being able to reap the rewards of controlling all three branches of federal government. Though I suspect they'd rather burn most of it down and keep only the parts that allow them to tighten their hold on power at the state level.

I wish I could see a way out of this crisis. But all I see is the smokescreen of a culture war that distracts everyone from what's really at stake.

I wonder, without a functioning democracy, what kind of mandate they think they would have to assert authority over others. What would then stop the rest of the population from considering them tyrants and either ignoring their laws or overthrowing them by force? Americans living in states heavily-gerrymandered via REDMAP would seem to have a duty to openly reject any laws passed by such legislatures.

I think it's fair to say that believing in a "functioning US democracy" is akin to believing in Santa Claus.

There has never been a functioning US democracy, for at least as long as I've been alive (50+ years). Instead, the US political system can best be described as an oligarchy that catters to corporate power. The mechanism that constitutes the backbone of this oligarchy does not change, regardless of which political party "rules".

I'm no fan of the system we have, and I agree that it's dysfunctional at best, but my view is that the only thing worse than a two-party system is a single-party system. All of the problems we have with the power structure of the current US system would only be amplified if one party gains full, long-term control of the federal government.

Assuming that there continues to be a system in which I can personally operate, I'm hoping to focus my efforts around promoting positive electoral reform ideas in whatever increments can be gained. Things like ranked-choice voting, campaign finance reform, fair representation laws to counter gerrymandering, etc. My dream would be to see the (de-facto) two-party system turn into a (functioning) multi-party system within my lifetime, with a greater number of smaller parties, better-representing those who voted for them, and who must form coalitions with other parties rather than enacting change unilaterally in winner-take-all scenarios.

Of course, for any of that to work, we need a media environment that isn't constantly amplifying the extremes, and a general populace that is more resilient to extreme forms of propaganda, radicalization, and manipulation.

We have some structural time bombs embedded in the Constitution: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doom...

The same thing that is splitting the US split Rome. It was inevitable since 1965 and the policies from then were probably an inevitable part of people naturally seeking power through coercion.

Probably one of the most tempered and even-keeled analysis of our predicament I've come across to date. Thank you jseliger.

When Obama's campaign used Facebook in 2008, he was visionary. 'A groundswell of support' writes US News.[1] When right-wingers did the same thing, they are destroying democracy.

When the election commision restricted the release of a documentary critical of Ms. Clinton, how many left-wingers cared? In my opinion, the national media has basically failed to ever properly address this issue fairly or honestly. Instead we have a sort of reverse-Fox news occurance (that is, left-wing half truths and misdirected outrage).

Justice Ginsberg spent 3 decades eviserating the constitution, picking and choosing on a whim what laws to uphold. But a few justices have the gall to actually read the constitution at face value, and suddenly it's the end of America?

I think the biggest problem we have is the unwillingness and inability to alter the constitution. The courts are correctly deciding based on the constitution. But because the constitution is so difficult to change, the courts decision is being over-weighed. Who sits on the court should be completely boring. Average people shouldn't care anymore than who heads the department of energy.

But instead of fixing the constitution, the people are using the courts as a run-around.

Noah mentions popular support, but the court has never worked on popular support (was Brown popular? I dont know, but it doesnt matter).

You cannot get everyonento agree. But the best political fix is imo to make constitutional amendments much easier. This is in agreement with the late Justice Scalia.

Of course, that would itself require an amendment.

[1]https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/19/barack-ob...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com