The great constitutionalists, from Aristotle to Montesquieu to Madison, believed that the populace should have a voice, but they also thought, with Cicero, that the well-being of the people was the highest law. Survival and flourishing is most important, not pandering to popular passions.
Any small “r” republican knows that a good society divides up power among authorities, repositories, and mysteries, such that all are checked and balanced; neither the bounder nor the mobile vulgus can become tyrannical. Pluralist theory seeks both safety and stability in multiplicity. The wisdom of crowds—and brokering institutions.
This article seems like an oppinion piece that is fear mongering
I found it talks way too much about ancient Greece and Rome and France in 1789. To me, I read it as: “The way elections work in the US means almost nobody gets a real say anyways, so why even have a voting system? Voting wasn’t even a thing for most of history.” I’m scratching my head wondering why someone would argue elections should be eliminated instead of reformed.
Why do you think it’s fear mongering?
I’ll concede the other two. It is an opinion piece after all.
They frame voter fraud as a widespread thing happening everywhere, but their own source link in the article says 1500 proven voter fraud, 1200 something convictions - which is a small fraction of the whole.
They fear monger about immigrants and undocumented voting but I’ve yet to actually see a real source that says this has happened and is happening on a large scale.
The whole thing is fear mongering fraudulent elections but there’s no proof that happened at a scale large enough to actually influence the result in 2016 2020 or 2024.
I think that’s an unfair characterization of the author’s argument.
At most, they said voter fraud is a very real threat, linking to the article you cited with 1500 proven instances. The article does proceed under the assumption that voter fraud is a threat, but that’s hardly controversial. As you say, it’s “a small fraction of the whole.” A threat it may be, but a small one.
Moreover, unlike many articles in this community, this isn’t the crux of his argument, merely a premise to it. In response to the threat of voter fraud, red and blue states are responding differently. There is absolutely an underlying assumption that non-citizens voting is bad, I’ll grant you that. And one of his sources cites at least one instance of non-citizens voting in local elections.
The whole thing is fear mongering fraudulent elections but there’s no proof that happened at a scale large enough to actually influence the result in 2016 2020 or 2024.
Again, that’ just a premise, and I agree, but you’re missing the forest for the trees.
We can step back and see: Red states are going one way on voting, while blue states are going the other way. Republicans and Democrats are both seeking to secure their vision of just politics
So in America today, we might need our own version of the estates: A Red Estate and a Blue Estate. In the best days of the Roman Republic, two consuls would keep a watchful eye on each other, the better to prevent overreach.
In other words, there are two visions of just politics becoming more defined, and a potential solution to them is for them to coexist and keep a watchful eye on each other, like the Romans did back in the day.
The whole article seems to say that because voter fraud exists and that there is a preception amoung conservative voters that elections are rigged that voting is pointless.
And then these folks that didn’t vote because “it’s rigged” will lose fairly and scream that it’s rigged.
This article supports this odd mindset and is unhelpful to maintaining a healthy democracy.
We don’t need two sides looking for a reason to claim fraud every time they lose. We need to encourage everyone to vote and have confidence that their vote matters. How we get back to that place I have no idea. But this article does not help.
This article supports this odd mindset and is unhelpful to maintaining a healthy democracy.
This is it exactly! I think the author of this article honestly believes that a healthy American democracy, the kind that we’ve had for a couple hundred years now, is gone and won’t come back. So yeah, it’s not trying to help maintain that version of democracy. An odd mindset indeed.
But, they say:
Some will ask: Is this symmetrical entrenchment bad for democracy? The answer is, it depends on how we define democracy. The ancient Greeks gave us the very word, and yet the Athenians expressed people-power through sortition, drawing by lot and ruling through councils. Athens did not have political parties and election campaigns. That doesn’t make them bad democrats, it makes them a different kind of democrat. And maybe their past is our future.
American democracy isn’t the only framework of democracy available. He’s arguing that our version of democracy looks more like the old Roman version, so why not just do that?
So, I agree with you partially, this article doesn’t help get us back to where we were. Frankly, I’m inclined to agree with him. But, I think there’s an interesting idea here nonetheless. I’m not keen on the implication that America is the modern-day Rome, but is voting really the only process that legitimates the democratic ideal? If not, then why can’t we implement these different processes so that people are more effectively able to participate in governing?
As a matter of fact, Morris Fiorina, a conservative political scientist I’m tangentially aware of, wrote an interesting paper titled “Extreme Voices: A Dark Side of Civic Engagement”. He argues that the increase in civic engagement over the past century or so is directly and ironically responsible for our dissatisfaction with the political process. Basically, special interests are inclined to participate and regular people aren’t, despite the ease with which both might participate. But since special interests actually participate, it’s their views that are most often represented. Fiorina’s solution to the problem as he identified it? Encourage more civic engagement. Go all in on democracy.
At least, that’s how I’m looking at this. It’s why I prefer the blue solution over the red one, even if they are opposites sides of the same American democratic coin.
Except that the premise is untrue. He is repeating the big lie:
At the risk of heresy, this author is on record: QAnon’s graces notwithstanding, the Democrats are unlikely to yield power to a figure they increasingly regard as authoritarian, Putinian, even Hitlerian. So, yes, Scott Adams’ followers are probably right
He can’t fully bring himself to say it outright, but what is the meaning a reasonable person would take from this? He “is on record” saying yeah, the 2020 election was probably rigged.
I should not have to remind the esteemed members of this community that if you start off with a false premise, all that follows will also be wrong.
It is absolutely stupid that the discourse of American politics should still be focused and forced into the repetition and refutation of this absolute fabrication. The 202O election was not rigged, no matter how many hair-dye dripping landscaping parking lot press conferences you hold.
I should not have to remind the esteemed members of this community that if you start off with a false premise, all that follows will also be wrong.
Esteemed, you say? Why, aren’t you kind!
Anyway, yes, and an invalid argument doesn’t make dialogue impossible, contrary to the entire virtual world of social media. His argument is invalid. I posted the article and I ultimately disagree with the conclusion, even if I were to treat the argument as valid. Nonetheless, there’s still value in considering the other premises of his arguments.
It is absolutely stupid that the discourse of American politics should still be focused and forced into the repetition and refutation of this absolute fabrication.
Yes, but people who believe this are who we have to deal with. It doesn’t matter how stupid it is or how misinformed we believe them to be, American politics is going to be influenced by this absolute fabrication. It is being influenced by it now. The choice for is how we handle it.
And, if the lesson isn’t clear, I’m against disenfranchising these people just because I think they’re completely removed from reality, and, in fact, would prefer that everyone have a real opportunity to (consider perspectives they fundamentally disagree with and) engage civically and politically.
Yeah that was sarcasm. Still, I admire your optimism.
I myself view these examples of rhetoric - which would have been unthinkable a scant few years ago- as yet more signs of the impending and imminent collapse.
Rev 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning
The whole thing is fear mongering fraudulent elections but there’s no proof that happened at a scale large enough to actually influence the result in 2016 2020 or 2024
This is what I’ve said in the past. I’m 100% sure fraud is happening. I’ve seen no evidence there is enough fraud to sway the election. Seems to be a rounding error at best.
I thought this was a good read but a flawed conclusion from a flawed premise.
I greatly disagree with the author’s characterization of the VRA.
And his victim mentality that conservatives have been discriminated by the federal government since the 80s the same way that blacks were discriminated against in the south is pathetic.
That being said I agree that the growing entrenchment is a problem, that tit-for-tat gerrymandering is a problem, and there is not an easy solution when we cast our political enemies as world-ending fascists that we must defeat in elections. No one wants to weaken the advantages they’ve given their side when they delude themselves that winning the election is life or death.
I wish the article’s author would have presented a solution rather than just summarizing the problem. Maybe he did, and I just missed it. Until we de-escalate the rhetoric surrounding “the other side” I don’t know if there is a solution.
and there is not an easy solution when we cast our political enemies as world-ending fascists
I think this misses the mark of our current situation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/jack-posobiec-jan-6-2024-cpac-rcna140225
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/
“If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, then you got a table with 11 Nazis.”
It is a justified characterization of conservatives as fascists.
Until we de-escalate the rhetoric surrounding “the other side” I don’t know if there is a solution.
Why would we seek to de-escalate the rhetoric surrounding “the other side” when the other side is openly embracing and defending neo nazis?
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/gop-popular-front-white-nationalism/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation/
How much of this can they do before you’re OK with labeling them as fascists?
I think it is currently a HUGE problem that the current conservative political machine is courting neo-nazis and white supremacists. The fact that Jack Posobiec spoke at CPAC is a travesty and shows how unserious the current GOP has become. I have no problem calling these people fascists. Thats exactly what they are.
I still don’t believe that is representative of even the whole or even just the majority of conservatives. I think it’s valid to call out the “normal conservatives” for siding with the extremists because they have to in order to have a shot to win elections. I think thats the problem that the article author Identified but got wrong when he whined that Democrats are empowering election fraud by supporting the Voting Rights Act and not taking the draconian measures like some red states have. They’ve deluded themselves that the ends justify the means.
Maybe it shouldn’t be our responsibility to listen, but that just entrenches the existing divisions. If we want the 10 conservatives to stop sitting at the table with the 1 Nazi, (and I do) you have to let them have a seat at the serious table. If the only person that will talk to them is the 1 Nazi, they are gonna be 11 Nazis pretty soon.
I don’t like the path we are on with current political polarization of every aspect of American life. Like the other article from Discourse that was posted said, I think we get along fine when we don’t talk about politics. I want to be able to have disagreements and still get along because when we interact we moderate ourselves and each other. I want conservatives to have a voice because the tit-for-tat politics we have now lead to these big pendulum swings where we empower once fringe voices such as Donald Trump.
Maybe it shouldn’t be our responsibility to listen, but that just entrenches the existing divisions. If we want the 10 conservatives to stop sitting at the table with the 1 Nazi, (and I do) you have to let them have a seat at the serious table. If the only person that will talk to them is the 1 Nazi, they are gonna be 11 Nazis pretty soon.
Then you have 10 nazi sympathizers sitting at the serious table. Seems like a real bad idea to me. It’s probably better to know who is a nazi, which ie easier when they are out in the open so you can throw them in jail.
I don’t like the path we are on with current political polarization of every aspect of American life. Like the other article from Discourse that was posted said, I think we get along fine when we don’t talk about politics. I want to be able to have disagreements and still get along because when we interact we moderate ourselves and each other
This portrayal of the political divide being simple opinions isn’t accurate. It’s not a simple difference of opinion when one side is ok with, or actively trying for your extermination.
I want conservatives to have a voice because the tit-for-tat politics we have now lead to these big
I think legitimate political opinions (not nazi/nazi sympathetic) should be allowed to have a voice. But a blanket acceptance of all opinions is how we get to the current situation with neo nazis gaining power and influence.
There are conservatives that think that non-heteronormative people shouldn’t exist and shouldn’t have rights. You’re right that isn’t a matter of opinion, those people shouldn’t have power.
But you (impersonal you, not you specifically) give those conservatives that power. If we don’t allow discourse with conservatives in good faith for things that a just differences in opinion such as gun control measures shouldn’t infringe their right to own a gun, health care reform should be incremental and gradual and not separate them from their preferred private practitioner, or that private industry might be better stewards of certain services than public government, without calling them fascist/nazi/whatever, then expect those conservatives to have discourse with someone who will.
And I won’t put this blame entirely on the left wing, the internet has made it easier than ever for conservatives (and progressives, to a lesser extent) to pick the “junk food” option of listening to only voices that validate their beliefs instead of challenging them. And alt-right and neo nazi movements have capitalized on the populist zeitgeist to capture “junk food” conservatives
I am being idealistic for sure, but i think its equally nihilistic to think all conservatives are OK with or are actively trying for extermination of non-white non-cis people. I think we will have to disagree and thats ok.
If we don’t allow discourse with conservatives in good faith for things that a just differences in opinion such as gun control measures shouldn’t infringe their right to own a gun, health care reform should be incremental and gradual and not separate them from their preferred private practitioner, or that private industry might be better stewards of certain services than public government, without calling them fascist/nazi/whatever, then expect those conservatives to have discourse with someone who will.
I don’t think that’s something that we (general we) are failing to do. Conservatives aren’t getting called fascists for their opinions on gun control or privatization. They get called fascists for taking away peoples rights, for their open calls to end democracy, for their defense of neo nazis, etc.
I am being idealistic for sure, but i think its equally nihilistic to think all conservatives are OK with or are actively trying for extermination of non-white non-cis people. I think we will have to disagree and thats ok.
Not all Germans who voted for Hitler were actively trying for the extermination of jews. It’s not an issue of what they are actively trying for or want (at least for a large chunk of them).
This issue is that they are ok with supporting politicians who are actively trying for or want extermination.
There are conservatives that think that non-heteronormative people shouldn’t exist and shouldn’t have rights. Very few. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that. Usually, the debate is over what a right is. Many people accept trans people, but they do not think they should be forced by law to use whatever pro-nouns people want or that they should compete in sports opposite of their biological sex. You will see most debates sit around those points. I use whatever pronouns a person wants except they or them. It’s just polite. I do see why people argue over it, but that’s just me. To me, it’s the same as wanting to be called Bob if my name is Robert.
without calling them fascist/nazi/whatever
That is the hard part, most liberals don’t want to have a conversation, they want to scream fascist/nazi or whatever.
And I won’t put this blame entirely on the left wing, the internet has made it easier than ever for conservatives (and progressives, to a lesser extent) to pick the “junk food” option of listening to only voices that validate their beliefs instead of challenging them.
I would say both sides are just as guilty. Twitter, Reddit, Lemmy are all know for extreme left views.
Did France get better amidst that radicalism? For the answer, we can brush up on our Burke.
This guy read some book, and confirmation biased himself.
And yes, yes, supporters of the VRA have their arguments, based on past discrimination. We might acknowledge that and then reply, what about present-day discrimination? The federal government has been discriminating against conservatives for the past six or so decades—doesn’t the right now have the right of redress?
Indeed, if Blue thinks about designating favorites to seats, why shouldn’t Red? Maybe sometimes—oftentimes, in fact—what’s most important is that your side wins. After all, fair is fair: Since they’re doing it to you, you do it to them.
The result of this approach would be a kind of representational equity
Oh gosh, Republicans have been so oppressed! Republicans have suffered so much discrimination for the past 6 decades! It’s unfair! We need representational equity!
Absolute nonsense. 6 out of the last 10 presidents were republican. if you look at the history of congressional elections since Johnson, republicans have been overall pretty evenly represented in Congress with some notable majorities.
What makes republicans nervous is that over the past presidential cycles, they have been winning with decreasing popular vote margins, decreasing to the point that the last republican president won without the popular vote. To win the presidency at all, republicans must now rely on the electoral college, an unfair system that artificially boosts the voting power of rural and sparsely populated states - red states.
But that doesn’t stop them from crying that they are the victims of unfair oppression and discrimination, while relying on gerrymandering and trying to restrict voting in ways that disproportionately affect minority (read: democrat) voters. They keep repeating the große Lüge (big lie). Shameless.