Poll: Most Americans feel democracy is in danger and under attack in US
cnn.com
cnn.com
I sometimes wonder if it would really be that bad to revert to the original system defined in the constitution - vastly increase the number of representatives, and make the senate and presidency appointed positions.
It seems like it would undercut a lot of the lowest-common-denominator populist rhetoric.
In a world where gerrymandering is scientifically practiced, state-wide federal elections are some of the few where democracy is actually practiced. Reverting senators to being appointed is just removing what few levers of accountability currently exist in the federal system.
And the official policy of at least one political party:
Recently I got into a political argument with family. They started it by talking about a school district policy in a school district 2,000 miles away. Things were said I wanted to challenge and so I got involved in the argument. Only afterwards did I realize how strange it was for us to be arguing about the policies of a high school 2,000 miles away. So you're right in that regard, most of what we think and argue about is far from our sphere.
I decided in any future arguments like that I want to clearly establish whether we're arguing over a general principle or specifics. Otherwise it's too easy for the conversation to wander between the two. And again, I'm not concerned about the specifics of some distant state, though I may have beliefs about general principles.
Except now it's reversed: RI - with a fraction of citizens of LA county - is catering Federal to local aims.
Not sure how identity politics ruined the electoral college but go off.
[Edit] Identity politics is the 'cheater' in the US government prisoners dilemma. Now everyone cheats, and we get less utility out of the system.
Senators on paper are only a procedural body. Their ability to jam up legislation in the current era has largely been a function of their need to draw votes.
Republicans think democracy is under threat because Joe Biden allegedly stole the election.
Democrats think democracy is under threat because of January 6 and Trump's thing about "fake" electors, or calling the Georgia governor to change vote totals, or that many state candidates for Secretary of State are pledging to enact or repeat the above.
So even if most Americans feel "democracy is in danger", each side's proposed solutions would be incompatible with the other.
These were pretty good.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/31/politics/trump-drug-importati...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/us-drug-importation-...
https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/07/investing/president-trump-d...
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/donald-trump-hurrica...
I suspect that if you were actually ever intending to honor your wager you'd lose a lot of money.
live: https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/moment-cnn-projects-...
article: https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/election-day-2016-hi...
Scroll down to adfontes. One is objectively much more objective and you are betting on the wrong horse here.
> I'll pay $10,000 to anyone that finds me a positive headline about Trump that CNN has ever at any point run.
No, you won’t.
(Since it’s part of their live election coverage, you’ll want to search for the headline “ Trump says he voted for DeSantis, predicts "great night" for GOP”)
Shall I expect a check, or… idk, Venmo or something?
—————
Former President Donald Trump confirmed Tuesday that he voted for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, predicting a "great night" for Republicans.
"Yes, I did," Trump told reporters when asked if he cast a ballot for DeSantis outside a polling location in Palm Beach where he voted.
"I think we're going to have a very great night and it's exciting," he added.
Trump cast his ballot shortly after 11:30 a.m. ET at the Morton and Barbara Mandel Recreation Center in Palm Beach, just minutes away from his Mar-a-Lago estate where he plans to watch election returns this evening with dozens of aides, allies, and local Republicans. He arrived with former first lady Melania Trump and briefly took questions outside after voting indoors.
The former president's political future may largely depend on Tuesday's midterm outcomes, as he looks for his handpicked and endorsed candidates in key federal and statewide races to prevail. Major losses for Trump-backed candidates could create obstacles for his 2024 presidential campaign, which Trump is eyeing to announce one week from today.
At a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday, Trump referred to the Florida governor as “Ron DeSanctimonious.”
Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.ric...
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that says that states have zero requirement to follow their citizens wishes and that the ruling legislators can cast that states electoral votes any way they want, without any consequence.
Minority Republican (or Democrat) Governor in a state that votes (even overwhelmingly) Democrat (or Republican)? Eh, no matter. "My state is giving all our votes to the Republican (or Democrat) candidate in the Electoral College."
And the current Supreme Court has all but telegraphed that it will rule in favor of the state, saying that that Governor is perfectly allowed to do so.
> The Elections Clause delegates to states the power to regulate federal elections while giving Congress the overriding authority to make or alter such laws. Proponents of the independent state legislature theory — like the gerrymanderers — read the Elections Clause to give state legislators near-exclusive authority to regulate federal elections, prohibiting any other state entity — like state courts or governors — from placing checks and balances on that power. In this case, the gerrymanderers are arguing that the theory licenses them to violate the state constitution when drawing congressional maps and that the state courts do not have the power to stop them.
The immediate issue in Moore is whether the state legislators’ extreme partisan gerrymander will stand in North Carolina. But adopting the independent state legislature theory would also mean that voters across the country have no judicial remedy — in state court or in federal court — to fight partisan gerrymandering.
The potential consequences could stretch still further. The theory would throw elections into chaos, nullifying hundreds of election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. State lawmakers would be able to adopt vote suppression legislation without any checks or balances from state courts or even gubernatorial veto. In other words, the theory would upend key aspects of our elections.
The current Supreme Court has also stated, in explicit and specific terms ("erroneous decisions in need of correction"), that if given a case on gay marriage, it will remove that as a right, that if given a case banning birth control in a state, it will allow that, and that basic privacy concerns are null and moot.
Tell me more about that delusion.
The Electoral Compacts REMOVE states rights, Liberal States disregard their Citizens' Electoral Votes.
For a "ridiculous" but perfectly legal example in this case, NC could create an electoral district that comprised the governor's home, and his brother's, who lives next door. And say that that is the entirety of the electoral district, and that that district's voting will determine the votes of the Electoral College for that state.
Try to spin that as being designed behavior.
So yeah, that extreme. Because it is extreme.
Yes, they are. Good thing, too. We need a clear ruling that this kind of nonsense is illegal before 2024.
In fact, I think the Supreme Court is violating normal rules to take this case. Normally, they only will take a case after the actions have occurred, rather than rule on a hypothetical. This one is likely enough under current circumstances that they went ahead and took it.
> And the current Supreme Court has all but telegraphed that it will rule in favor of the state, saying that that Governor is perfectly allowed to do so.
That's where I'm calling BS. One, I've not seen anything that indicates that they have telegraphed any such thing. Two, even legal experts routinely are wrong when they say which way the court is "leaning".
Maybe telegraphed is a strong word. That being said, the "independent state legislature" theory is one strongly evangelized by the Federalist Society. Six of the nine Justices are or were members, and several have only ever voted consistently with the Federalist Society's stated positions. I think there's a real risk there.
Yeah, I'm calling BS on that claim, too.
Likewise, Alito and Gorsuch. The only deviation from this that I could locate was in Citizens United. Alito talked of "practical originalism" as opposed to textbook.
But if you can name cases where at least those three have significantly deviated from the Federalist Society, please do.
I mean, you could justify no vote for women on "originalism", too. So I think that saying "Thomas only rules in an originalist manner" is too simplistic. Yes, he clearly bases his reasoning on originalism. But you can use originalism to justify many things, not all of which Thomas supports.
Post 17th Amendment, I'm not sure you can build a valid originalist argument for independent state legislature appointment of electors.
Ubi jus ibi remedium. If you have no remedy in the event your right is violated you have no right.
This is impossible, unless the majority voters haven't been bothering to vote. The gubernatorial race is open to everyone in the state, and everyone's vote is equal (it's not like the legislature), so the governor reflects the popular will of the state.
This isn’t flamebait it’s a real topic of discussion for many people. Its even discussed in legislation related articles on HN. Are we to pretend it isn’t?