Stop with these kind of comments. Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term? “We can all be certain” should be translated to “I feel like making a crazy rant here”. “Experiment is over” - the election is in 7 weeks, let’s hold off on the “get out while you can” comments until it’s over.
How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is over”? Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.
And the Electoral Integrity Project gave North Carolina's 2016 elections the rating you'd give if it didn't have free and fair elections, and more people were wrongly denied the ability to vote in Georgia's gubernatorial election (overseen by the eventual winner) than decided the election, and so forth.
So, I'm interested in potentially taking this bet. Can you define what you mean by "a free and fair election"? (The EIP's conclusions were widely contested, so I'm not saying we should accept them as a standard, but I would like to set an objective standard.)
> Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term?
Do I think a Supreme Court starting with the current one, with Ginsberg’s empty seat and probably Justice Breyer’s replaced by the kind of people the current Republican Party would appoint and confirm (assuming Trump gets a second term and the Republicans hold the Senate) would allow Trump to serve beyond the end of his second term with a fig leaf of an excuse of emergency preventing normal process, even with the 22nd Amendment in place?
Probably not, but I don't see it as outside the realm of possibility.
> Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.
No one who has publicly expressed concern about an incipient authoritarian regime can expect to be able to collect and enjoy their winnings if the answer is no, so that's never going to be a bet they'll accept no matter how certain they are of the outcome.
So now we’re claiming the entire US monetary system is going to collapse (and as a result most likely the worlds monetary system)? The more levels down we go in the comments here, the crazier the conspiracies.
> So now we’re claiming the entire US monetary system is going to collapse (and as a result most likely the worlds monetary system)?
No, that's not why outspoken critics of an incipient authoritarian regime would not be likely to be able to collect or enjoy their winnings if the regime was successful in establishing itself. The monetary system is in no way part of the issue.
Understanding how modern societies fail was my professional field.
The United States is following in the footsteps of many countries that transitioned from democracy to authoritarianism. The judiciary was the last remaining bulwark that had been slightly slowing the erosion of democratic rights. With the judicial balance of power now in the hands of a president who has both taken steps to conduct an unfair election and has repeatedly expressed desires for extra-constitutional powers, it is naive in the extreme to imagine that American democracy is not mortally wounded.
America is turning itself into a cross between apartheid-era South Africa and Putin's Russia. While Trump has accelerated this trend, it is a trend far larger than him and it will not be stopped even if Biden somehow becomes the next president. Even if there is a Biden victory and some solution in the Senate, there must be no doubt that a 6-3 GOP USSC will overturn any pro-democratic, or anti-authoritarian, reforms that might be approved by Congress.
I reiterate, the alarm bells are ringing for America as a free society and it is time for anyone who doesn't want to live in The Handmaid's Tale to get out because things aren't going to get any better.
What do your studies say about creating new states to gain more votes in the senate? Something that's already been introduced in the house.
Worse even its being created by shrinking the zone that was purposefully created to not be a state. Puerto Rico would undoubtedly also give 2 more democratic seats, but at least it's a large American territory, not something we're artificially creating for more votes.
The general problem with any kind of pro-democracy reforms is that the people who need to approve reforms are precisely the people who benefit from current antidemocratic policies. No one will approve reforms that will end their careers.
Some of the US' democratic problems could be helped by splitting up the more populous states so their populations have more representation in the Senate and Electoral College, but any such plan would need to be approved by flyover state Republican Senators who benefit handsomely from the status quo.
Given that the GOP party line--echoed by both McConnell and Trump--is that fixing US democracy would be a Democratic power grab, meaningful reforms are dead on arrival. This is especially true as any meaningful reforms would, by definition, remove the Republican party's disproportionate hold on power.
Sadly, I don't see a way out of this. With no route for peaceful reform, the usual escape route for irreconcilable differences within a country is civil war, but the human geography of the United States makes another civil war very unlikely. An inexorable slide into deepening authoritarian oligarchy/kleptocracy seems unavoidable.
>Some of the US' democratic problems could be helped by splitting up the more populous states so their populations have more representation in the Senate and Electoral College, but any such plan would need to be approved by flyover state Republican Senators who benefit handsomely from the status quo.
Do you not see how this could be done by the republican party as well? Split Texas up into 4 parts, make 1 part primarily Democrat, the rest republican?
Besides, I guess your studies are more focused around theory, and not the actual legal government structure in the US. I miss understood. The whole point of the senate was to avoid tyranny of the majority, otherwise 3 states could control the other 47.
The functional manifestation of the American democratic deficit is that the Republican party is able to maintain a near-permanent lockhold on power despite commanding only the support of a minority of the population. Any reform that maintains the status quo by protecting the tyranny of the Republican minority is not beneficial.
Notwithstanding the original purpose of the Senate, shifting population demographics mean that, by 2040, 70% of the Senate will represent the interests of only 1/3rd of Americans. The other 2/3rds of the US population will be forced to live with control over 30% of the Senate[1]. This is not avoiding tyranny of the majority; it is allowing the (Republican) flyover states to dictate to (Democratic) urban areas how they should organize their societies and live their lives.
Meaningful democratic reforms in America mean making its institutions reflect the makeup of America, and that means less representation for rural areas and fewer Republican in power.
Your comments also call into question if you understand that the house is determined by popular vote. The senate alone can not force anyone to live their lives differently. It would require control of both the house and the senate to do that.
And you said near permanent control while being the minority, when Republicans last had won the popular vote for control of the house in 2016.
In terms of erosion of democratic rights by the Supreme Court, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act is the most literal example, as is the decision to prevent Al Gore from taking the White House in 2000 despite being the legitimate electoral victor. A more peripheral example is Citizens' United.
Non-judicial examples include sabotage of the USPS to prevent mail-in voting, the last state election in Georgia (where the then-secretary of state supervised an election in which he was a candidate; needless to say, he won), removal of polling stations in Democratic areas, targeted disenfranchisement of demographic groups that traditionally vote Democratic, Mitch McConnell rejecting measures to increase voter turnout on the grounds that making it easier to vote would be a "Democratic power grab," Republican use of big data to jerrymander safe districts to maintain GOP control of states despite losing the popular vote, FBI interference in the 2016 election by releasing unsubstantiated accusations (the Comey Memo) against Clinton shortly before the election, and, finally, the Republican party soliciting foreign help to illegally acquire and spread disinformation against Democrats.
These are not signs of a healthy democracy.
I can provide sources if you would like but this stuff is everywhere and simple DDG/Google searches about these examples should lead to plenty of information.
I'll grant you "the gutting of the Voting Rights Act". It's both a well-defined target for me read and it seems like a legitimate erosion of rights. Still I would like to read the majority opinion before I make up mind completely. Thanks for bringing it up.
Aside from the Voting Rights Act various voter-suppression activities were going on for decades and I don't see a change there. Wrong? Certainly. But not erosion.
Citizens' United seems like a legitimate court decision to me. I'm not sure I am a fan of the outcome, but the law is what it is. The Congress can make new law if they do not like it, and I might support this change.
Everything else you posted is a grab-bag of complains rather that an actual erosion of rights. I'm sorry. "FBI interference" swings both ways - some of it against dems, other against reps. I would rather they stayed out altogether, but we're far from Hoover days. In any case it's more dirty political infighting and pretty much nothing to do with citizen rights.
So end of the day Voting Rights Act is the only thing I can agree with. Meanwhile we've have also gained significant rights, e.g. gay rights, healthcare rights, women's participation in society, free speech (in particular "indecent" speech).
Bottom line is that I am not buying the "the alarm bells are ringing for America as a free society".
They don't have lifetime appointments - they have appointments during "good behavior." Who's going to determine when they've started behaving badly?
I mean, the history of basically every country that has fallen into single-party rule is the story of good intentions, including the belief that people will listen to the constitution, not counting for much in the face of real-world political power. I'm not saying it will happen to the US; I'm saying it's naive to believe it can't happen.
If you mean that you're treating the Democrats and Republicans as a single party, sure, there's a decent argument for it, but also, it's a "party" that permits significant internal dissent and debate. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union remained a single party until the end, but the country started on its path towards becoming freer and less authoritarian when they became open to internal dissent.
Frankly, independent of actual political goals, the most concerning thing about the state of US politics is the extent to which the Republican Party does not tolerate internal dissent. There was a lot of it in early 2016, and it all evaporated as people fell in line behind a cult of personality (a term introduced at the start of the above process in the CPSU, incidentally). Regardless of whether you're left or right or center or anywhere else, if you're at a place where disagreement with the leader is a reason to question your loyalty and good faith, you're at a place where there's far less pressure for the leader to serve the country than for the country to serve the leader. (This is why it's not particularly helpful that the leader isn't super competent or even that the leader is not on team More-Stupid-Wars - a position that, by itself, I agree with. I also enjoy it when trains run on time.)
How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is over”? Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.