Legal experts: "Shameful" Supreme Court put US one vote away from "the end of democracy"
Legal experts: "Shameful" Supreme Court put US one vote away from "the end of democracy"
"Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed," says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig.
"Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed," says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig
It’s not a hard question, or at least it hasn’t been before: Does the United States have a king – one empowered to do as they please without even the pretext of being governed by a law higher than their own word – or does it have a president? Since Donald Trump began claiming he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two courts have issued rulings striking down this purported right, recognizing that one can have a democracy or a dictatorship, but not both.
“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results,” states the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued this past February, upholding a lower court’s take on the question. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes cast.”
You can’t well keep a republic if it’s effectively legal to overthrow it. But at oral arguments last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court – which took up the case rather than cosign the February ruling – appeared desperate to make the simple appear complex. Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that accountability was what would actually lead to lawlessness.
You're viewing a single thread.
With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls. More people voting equals more democratic votes.
How we vote is controlled at the state level, so why haven't blue states passed electoral reform? Don't the democrats want more votes? Why would the democratic party say no to these extra votes?
Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican's nightmare?
Electoral reform won't make blue states more blue. More people turning out doesn't matter if they're already voting for you, so you gain nothing. It would result in minor parties getting elected more often, which would weaken the power of the DNC. Obviously, the DNC doesn't want that.
You are correct, the objective of ranked choice voting is not to empower the two existing parties. It is to create a system that it amenable to having more than two parties so of course the powers that be who benefit from that system don't want that - which is why it needs to be pressed because the two major block parties increasingly obstructionist and diverging will eventually cause a civil war. Smaller parties allow for more nuanced takes requiring cross party concensus and break up the stratification. If the game of democracy ends the Dems will end up with their heads on a plate so whatever kickbacks they receive from the status quo won't be worth jack.
The hypothesis behind ranked choice is that enough people would vote for a third sane option that we don't have only choices between red and blue shitheads.
If you have a lot of people ranking like: Blue -> Red -> Con Man
And "moderates" ranking like: Red -> Con Man -> Blue
Presumably the number of people who prefer basic red over a con man would mean the con man cannot take office. Not even if a large group of Trumpanzees vote: Con Man -> Red -> Blue
Then, given that possibility, the assumption is that we would have viable third party candidates. If people could take third party candidates seriously, they are more likely to be incentivized to vote when they hate the favored top two.
IDK about the presidency because of EC bullshit, but I am pretty certain it would work like that for state and local elections.
You could definitely still use ranked choice voting in conjunction with the electoral college.
I'd still much rather get rid of the electoral college tho
It would result in minor parties getting elected more often, which would weaken the power of the DNC.
We already functionally have that fight in the primaries (both in the DNC and RNC brackets). And we do have a rump base of Tea Party Republicans who routinely sabotage the Republican majority in the House. We have an even smaller rump base of progressives in the Dem party who mostly just exist to get censured by the Ethics Committee for being too antiwar or pro-Palestinian.
3rd parties have their own primaries and don't effect DNC or RNC primaries
Winning a primary as a member of a caucus in a major party gives you better odds of taking a seat than winning a primary in a 3rd party.
So people tend to endorse internal party caucuses, which then function as de facto third parties.
Republicans and Democrats are working for the same corporate bosses. Third parties might actually want to represent the people.
With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls.
Ranked Choice only matters when you've got a third position that successfully triangulates between the other two positions.
But when Democrats already do all the triangulation and Republicans simply push conspiracy theory to the farthest rightward fringe, and Republicans still win by large margins in big states, there's no material benefit to ranked choice voting.
Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican’s nightmare?
Any 3rd party simply becomes the whipping boy of the other two parties. Ranked choice won't change that. Republicans will still despise Libertarians and Democrats will still despise Greens.
And a private corporate news media that profits off fear and resentment won't make these peripheral parties more appealing.
So give it to us anyway and we’ll see if your predictions are true. Can’t hurt to find out.
if it's not done correctly; it would guarantee that our current system is locked in forever
You have zero conception of how ranked choice voting works.
When one party is winning 50%+ of the vote by fielding increasingly far-right candidates to an audience of increasingly far right voters, the only thing Ranked Choice Voting accomplishes is to change the mechanism by which a new far-right candidate wins the seat.
Ranked Choice only matters when you’ve got a third position that successfully triangulates between the other two positions.
Hold it!
Uhh...
What on earth are you talking about?
Guy A: 52% of the vote because Far-Right
Guy B: 48% of the vote because Moderate and we have this lingering progressive block dragged along for the ride.
Ranked Choice Guy: "If we can just convince 2% to go for Guy C and then Guy B and then Guy A, then Guy B will win!"
Guy C: Splits Guy B's vote in the first round, but doesn't win any of Guy A's vote, because he's not the Most Far Right Guy.
Guy A Still Wins.
Ranked Choice Accomplished Nothing.
This basically describes how things work now... It should be more like GuyA: 42% GuyB: 38% GuyC: 20%
So guyC gets cut and most of his votes go to guy B
Starting with guyA having 52% means he would have won outright
So guyC gets cut and most of his votes go to guy B
That holds when you have a 58% "moderate-left" swing.
It doesn't hold when you've got a 52% "far-right" swing.
Starting with guyA having 52% means he would have won outright
Right. And that's the problem Ranked Choice Voting can't solve. When you have a poll of far right voters who control the election, you're still going to get far-right candidates.
The question is why states like Florida and Texas and South Dakota and West Virginia are so chronically overwhelmed with far-right voters. And the answer we've seen - time and time again going back to the end of Reconstruction - is that states don't want minority groups or young people or poor people to participate in elections. So they disenfranchise these groups, by hook or crook.
And absent a fix for this systematic disenfranchisement, you're just shifting around deck chairs on the Titanic.
I see what you're saying... Yes I agree, the election system itself needs to be corrected so everyone has equal opportunity to vote
I understand your reasoning better now. Which is why I can say... this is a major oversimplification!
Your version of events assumes that elections are linear along a left-right axis, and that the far right would act as a monolith, but neither of those claims are supported by
evidence
But there's an even bigger issue with what you just said. You're assuming that the only way to get votes is by siphoning them from another candidate. But you've forgotten about another possibility, established by this piece of
evidence: voter turnout statistics! There's plenty of people who don't vote who might be persuaded to vote if the system was more representative, or if a candidate specifically represented their interests. Therefore, Guy C would benefit Guy B... by drawing in more voters!
But when Democrats already do all the triangulation
They don't. And politics isn't so easily boiled down to a single axis - Democrats are focused on social issues that are easy to repeal. This will save the lives of minority groups right now, but allow billions to die from climate change.
Democrats are focused on social issues
What part of the Russia-Ukraine War, the Inflation Reduction Act, or the CHIPS Act strike you as "social issues"?
This will save the lives of minority groups right now, but allow billions to die from climate change.
Climate Change is and always has fundamentally been an economic issue. We're not trying to keep the Earth from spiking ten degrees because we're obsessed with the Spotted Owl. This shit is threatening trillions of dollars of accrued real estate and trillions more of agricultural output.
focused on social issues that are easy to repeal
I mean focused in the literal sense, and didn't mean to imply exclusively. You did provide examples of things the Republicans can simply undo, rather than improving our representation in goverment.
Climate Change is and always has fundamentally been an economic issue.
It's fair to say that everything has at least some economic component. Climate change is a bit more than that because our lives have no value in their calculations. The trajectory we're on now already maximizes the net present value of real estate.
Literally yes. It is Pepsi and Coke. They act like they're not friends but they'd rather be the only soda on the block and make it harder for others.
On top of that Dems feel they should always be a shoe in for victory compared to these dunderheads.