How are you feeling about the state of American democracy?

[mahagonny]

It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).

Has everyone forgotten all of the whining about the electoral college, that Clinton won the popular vote and so "should" be president, etc.? That was only ONE election ago!!!!!

BOTH sides need to grow up and respect the process.

right. there is no such thing as 'winning the popular vote.' That's like saying 'I won the weigh in at the boxing match.' the phrase itself is misleading. Infused with agenda.

[Sun_Worshiper]

It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).

Has everyone forgotten all of the whining about the electoral college, that Clinton won the popular vote and so "should" be president, etc.? That was only ONE election ago!!!!!

BOTH sides need to grow up and respect the process.

Of course. I mentioned in almost every one of my posts in this thread that there is a danger that the Democrats also do not accept the results of elections. That said, there is a more serious problem on one side - that being the side whose political elites are largely advancing lies about voter fraud in an effort to delegitimize past and future elections.

Crucially, Democrats did not go to extrajudicial lengths to try to overturn the results of the 2016 election. There is an order of magnitude difference between complaining and trying to "find votes" or prevent the VP from accepting electors. But they could in the future, which is one reason why there should be bipartisan agreement on this.

[marshwiggle]

It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).

Has everyone forgotten all of the whining about the electoral college, that Clinton won the popular vote and so "should" be president, etc.? That was only ONE election ago!!!!!

BOTH sides need to grow up and respect the process.

Of course. I mentioned in almost every one of my posts in this thread that there is a danger that the Democrats also do not accept the results of elections. That said, there is a more serious problem on one side - that being the side whose political elites are largely advancing lies about voter fraud in an effort to delegitimize past and future elections.

Again, the Democrats spend a lot of time complaining about voter suppression.

As long as both sides only "accept" results that favour them, the whole system suffers. The fact is that any election that is very close is one where voters were very divided, and THAT'S a big problem, regardless of who wins.

[Sun_Worshiper]

It is also important to acknowledge that there was a concerted political effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the election by pressuring VP to reject electors, demanding that governors "find votes," and pressuring officials to vote against certifying results. It is good that this did not work this time, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned that it will work in the future (or that Democrats will try to do the same thing).

Has everyone forgotten all of the whining about the electoral college, that Clinton won the popular vote and so "should" be president, etc.? That was only ONE election ago!!!!!

BOTH sides need to grow up and respect the process.

Of course. I mentioned in almost every one of my posts in this thread that there is a danger that the Democrats also do not accept the results of elections. That said, there is a more serious problem on one side - that being the side whose political elites are largely advancing lies about voter fraud in an effort to delegitimize past and future elections.

Again, the Democrats spend a lot of time complaining about voter suppression.

As long as both sides only "accept" results that favour them, the whole system suffers. The fact is that any election that is very close is one where voters were very divided, and THAT'S a big problem, regardless of who wins.

There is nothing wrong with complaining about voter suppression. Saying one party is trying to advance policy that makes it more difficult to vote is different then saying, with zero evidence, there was massive fraud.

Look, there are problems on both sides, as I've said in many posts in this thread, but there is a bigger problem on one side.

And again, the Republicans tried to overturn the results of the last election. That is different than complaining about structural issues in the electoral system.

[Wahoo Redux]

Jerrymandering is an sin of both parties.

The Republicans have been far worse.

The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations.  They enact laws which target certain demographics.

It is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.

[marshwiggle]

Jerrymandering is an sin of both parties.

The Republicans have been far worse.

The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations.  They enact laws which target certain demographics.

So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Jerrymandering is an sin of both parties.

The Republicans have been far worse.

The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations.  They enact laws which target certain demographics.

So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.

The SC ruled that it is not their jurisdiction. In theory, Congress could do it, but seems unlikely that they will. Some states have made some some good strides (e.g. Michigan) while others are going in the wrong direction.

[mahagonny]

Again, the Democrats spend a lot of time complaining about voter suppression.

Funny they haven't complained that soaring street crime in urban areas might make people more reluctant to go the polls.
Funny, but not surprising, since soaring street crime is something they prefer to 'racist policing.'

[dismalist]

It is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.

Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.

Fraud will be most easily be committed by the party in power. Under current institutions, fraud will be contained to individual States, as different parties hold office in various jurisdictions. Under a popular vote for president, all the Dems gotta do is cheat in California and perhaps New York, and you've won.

[If we wanna whine about past elections, let's go back to 1960, when the Chicago margin for Jack Kennedy just happened to overcome the downstate margin for Tricky Dick. I believe they waited to report the result so they would know how much to cheat by. Nixon knew it, but didn't pursue it on account he didn't want the Soviet Union to get a bad impression of American democracy! Never thought I'd miss the Cold War.]

[jimbogumbo]

Jerrymandering is an sin of both parties.

The Republicans have been far worse.

The Republicans tout "election integrity" and close balloting locations.  They enact laws which target certain demographics.

So is there any sort of movement to prevent jerrymandering by anyone? In principle, everyone should be in favour of it. A process that isn't dependent on who's in power should have broad support.

21 states are doing so:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission

[Anselm]

I believe the state of democracy to be at best weak and in reality fraudulent for several reasons:

1) The system is rigged against third parties
2) Weak voter participation
3) Too much money is involved
4) "low information" voters
5) The news media picks a few favorites and gives them free advertising on the TV news, especially during presidential primaries.

I take the cynical view of Mencken that democracy is the illusion that you and I together have more power than Rockefeller.

[Ruralguy]

One person, one vote is so quaint. We all need to just be quiet and give in to the oligarchy I guess.

[dismalist]

One can see the same facts and infer different things:


I believe the state of democracy to be at best weak and in reality fraudulent for several reasons:

1) The system is rigged against third parties -- Yes, first-past-the-post makes them unnecessary. We don't want Weimar!
2) Weak voter participation -- Yes, there's so little at stake. Evidence of contentment.
3) Too much money is involved -- Less than for bubble gum advertising.
4) "low information" voters -- that's the only kind.
5) The news media picks a few favorites and gives them free advertising on the TV news, especially during presidential primaries. -- that, too, is us. We like garbage. Or, entertainment. But who watches TV anymore?

System is working.

[Wahoo Redux]

It is time to get rid of the Electoral College----although I understand the complexities of doing so and realize that it will not happen.

Interestingly, among its many other advantages, the Electoral College serves also as a bastion against voter fraud.

Conservatives know that without the Electoral College they would be done politically.  This is why they are so desperate to keep it. 

[marshwiggle]

One person, one vote is so quaint. We all need to just be quiet and give in to the oligarchy I guess.

In any system with representatives, the number of votes in each district varies, so "one person, one vote" is misleading, to the extent that each person's vote doesn't carry equal weight.