https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Quotations on an Election Day

Some thoughts about elections, voting, and democracy

I collect quotations at my Wish I’d Said That (WIST) site. Aaand, every couple of years, on election day, I pull out some thoughts from the past that I find pertinent to our present.

This one’s a bit longer than usual, but it keeps me off the streets and out of trouble.

Links provided are to the WIST site, which often has original sourcing and additional notes on each quotation.

Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves — and the only way they could do this is by not voting.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) US President (1933-1945)
Radio address (5 Oct 1944)

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

John Philpot Curran (1750-1817) Irish lawyer and politician
Speech before Privy Council, Dublin (10 Jul 1790)

Whatever the laws may provide, however lofty may be their sentiments, a man without a vote is a man without protection.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963-69)
(Attributed)

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

 Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) US President (1861-65)
Annual Message to Congress (1 Dec 1862)

This is a column for everyone who ever said, “I’m sorry, I’m just not interested in politics,” or, “There’s nothing I can do about it,” or, “Hey, they’re all crooks anyway.” … I’ve got one word for all of you: Katrina. … This, friends, is why we need to pay attention to government policies, not political personalities, and to know whereon we vote. It is about our lives.

Molly Ivins (1944-2007) American writer, political columnist [Mary Tyler Ivins]
The Progressive (Oct 2005)

Build movements. Vote with your values, but vote strategically. Voting isn’t a Valentine. It’s a chess move.

Rebecca Solnit (b. 1961) American writer, historian, activist
Facebook (17 Oct 2016)

Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British playwright and critic
(Attributed)

If a man has a genuine, sincere, hearty wish to get rid of his liberty, if he is really bent upon becoming a slave, nothing can stop him. And the temptation is to some natures a very great one. Liberty is often a heavy burden on a man. It involves that necessity for perpetual choice which is the kind of labor men have always dreaded. In common life we shirk it by forming habits, which take the place of self-determination. In politics party-organization saves us the pains of much thinking before deciding how to cast our vote.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1809-1894) American poet, essayist, scholar
Elsie Venner, ch. 18 (1859)

If there is distrust out there — and there is — perhaps it is because there is so much partisan jockeying for advantage at the expense of public policy. At times it feels as if American politics consists largely of candidates without ideas, hiring consultants without convictions, to stage campaigns without content. Increasingly the result is elections without voters.

Gerald R. Ford (1913-2006) US President, (1974-77) [b. Leslie Lynch King, Jr.]
Speech, Profiles in Courage Award Acceptance, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library (2001)

There are worse things than losing an election; the worst thing is to lose one’s convictions and not tell the people the truth.

Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) American diplomat, statesman
(Attributed)

We’d all like t’vote fer th’best man, but he’s never a candidate.

Kin Hubbard (1868-1930) American caricaturist and humorist [Frank McKinney Hubbard]
Abe Martin’s Primer (1914)

When you have to make a choice and don’t make it, that is in itself a choice.

William James (1842-1910) American psychologist and philosopher
(Attributed)

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change — in a perpetual peaceful revolution — a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions — without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) US President (1933-1945)
Annual Message to Congress (6 Jan 1941)

The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
Speech, Cooper Union, New York City (27 Feb 1860)

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) US President (1825-29)
(Attributed)

The single most dangerous thing you can do in politics is shut off information from people who don’t agree with you. Surround yourself with sycophants, listen only to the yea-sayers … then stick a fork in it, you’re done.

Molly Ivins (1944-2007) American writer, political columnist [Mary Tyler Ivins]
“Election Denial” (3 Apr. 2001)

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Winston Churchill (1874-1965) British statesman and author
Speech, House of Commons (11 Nov 1947)

Pessimism about man serves to maintain the status quo. It is a luxury for the affluent, a sop to the guilt of the politically inactive, a comfort to those who continue to enjoy the amenities of privilege.

Leon Eisenberg (1922-2009) American psychiatrist and medical educator
“The Human Nature of Human Nature,” Science (14 Apr 1972)

Bad officials are elected by good people who do not vote.

George Jean Nathan (1892-1958) American editor and critic
(Attributed)

But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wicked situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any for of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.

James Madison (1751-1836) American statesman, political theorist, US President (1809-17)
Speech at the Virginia Convention (20 Jun 1788)

The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal — that you can gather votes like box tops — is, I think, the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.

Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) American diplomat, statesman
Comment, after his presidential nomination acceptance speech, Chicago (18 Aug 1956)

But freedom isn’t free. It shouldn’t be a bragging point that, “Oh, I don’t get involved in politics,” as if that makes someone cleaner. No, that makes you derelict of duty in a republic. Liars and panderers in government would have a much harder time of it if so many people didn’t insist on their right to remain ignorant and blindly agreeable.

William “Bill” Maher (b. 1956) American comedian, political commentator, critic, television host.
When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden (2002)

We are not a cynical people. The will to believe lingers on. We like to think that heroes can emerge from obscurity, as they sometimes do; that elections do matter, even though the process is at least part hokum; that through politics we can change our society and maybe even find a cause to believe in.

Ronald Steel (b. 1931) American writer, historian, and professor
“The Vanishing Campaign Biography,” New York Times (5 Aug 1984)

CALVIN: When I grow up, I’m not going to read the newspaper and I’m not going to follow complex issues and I’m not going to vote. That way I can complain when the government doesn’t represent me. Then, when everything goes down the tubes, I can say the system doesn’t work and justify my further lack of participation.
HOBBES: An ingeniously self-fulfilling plan.
CALVIN: It’s a lot more fun to blame things than to fix them.

Bill Watterson (b. 1958) American cartoonist
Calvin & Hobbes

The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963-69)
Speech, Signing of the Voting Rights Act (6 Aug 1965)

Monarchy is like a sleek craft, it sails along well until some bumbling captain runs it into the rocks. Democracy, on the other hand, is like a raft. It never goes down but, dammit, your feet are always wet.

Fisher Ames (1758-1808) American politician, orator
(Attributed)

Every honest and God-fearing man is a mighty factor in the future of the Republic. Educated men, business men, professional men, should be the last to shirk the responsibilities attaching to citizenship in a free government. They should be practical and helpful — mingling with the people — not selfish and exclusive. It is not necessary that every man should enter into politics, or adopt it as a profession, or seek political preferment, but it is the duty of every man to give personal attention to his political duties. They are as sacred and binding as any we have to perform.

William McKinley (1843-1901) US President (1897-1901)
Speech, Woodstock, Connecticut (4 July 1891)

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
“On Slavery and Democracy” (fragment) (1858?)

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

[Я считаю, что совершенно неважно, кто и как будет в партии голосовать; но вот что чрезвычайно важно, это – кто и как будет считать голоса.]

Josef Stalin (1879-1953) Georgian revolutionary and Soviet dictator
Comment (1923)

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.

Robert M. Hutchins (1899-1977) American educator and educational philosopher
Great Books: The Foundation of a Liberal Education (1954)

Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) French writer, diplomat, politician
Democracy in America, 1.14 (1835) [tr. Reeve and Bowen (1862)]

All free governments are managed by the combined wisdom and folly of the people.

James A. Garfield (1831-1881) US President (1881), lawyer, lay preacher, educator
Letter to B. A. Hinsdale (21 Apr 1880)

Look at the tyranny of party — at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty — a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes — and which turns voters into chattels, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern Master.

Mark Twain (1835-1910) American writer [pseud. of Samuel Clemens]
“The Character of Man” (23 Jan 1906), in The Autobiography of Mark Twain, Vol. 1 (2010)

The deadliest enemies of nations are not their foreign foes; they always dwell within their borders. And from these internal enemies civilization is always in need of being saved. The nation blest above all nations is she in whom the civic genius of the people does the saving day by day, by acts without external picturesqueness; by speaking, writing, voting reasonably; by smiting corruption swiftly; by good temper between parties; by the people knowing true men when they see them, and preferring them as leaders to rabid partisans or empty quacks.

William James (1842-1910) American psychologist and philosopher
“Robert Gould Shaw: Oration upon the Unveiling of the Shaw Monument” (31 May 1897)

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other.

Oscar Ameringer (1870-1943) German-American political activist, Socialist organizer, author, politician
The American Guardian

Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle […] sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting — i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences. […] The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) American linguist and activist
“An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)” (15 Jun 2016) [with John Halle]

I am a democrat because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. And whenever their weakness is exposed, the people who prefer tyranny make capital out of the exposure. I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people — all the people who believe advertisements, and think in catchwords and spread rumours. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) English writer and scholar [Clive Staples Lewis]
“Equality,” The Spectator (27 Aug 1943)

Let us not be afraid to help each other — let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and Senators and Congressmen and Government officials but the voters of this country.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) US President (1933-1945)
Speech, Marietta, Ohio (8 Jul 1938)

Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument. Every American citizen must have the right to vote. … Yet the harsh fact is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes. … No law that we now have on the books … can insure the right to vote when local officials are determined to deny it. … There is no Constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong—deadly wrong—to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country. There is no issue of States’ rights or National rights. There is only the struggle for human rights.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963-69)
Speech, Congress (15 Mar 1965)

It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.

James Fenimore Cooper (1789-1851) American novelist
“On the Disadvantages of Democracy,” The American Democrat (1838)

The test of a democracy is not the magnificence of buildings or the speed of automobiles or the efficiency of air transportation, but rather the care given to the welfare of all the people.

Helen Keller (1880-1968) American author and lecturer
“Try Democracy,” The Home Magazine, Vol. 11, # 4 (Apr 1935)

It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques — techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American Way of Life.

Margaret Chase Smith (1897-1965) American politician (US Senator, Maine)
“Declaration of Conscience,” Congressional Record, vol. 96, 81st Congress, 2d. sess. (1 Jun 1950)

Political strategies and tactics are not jealous lovers. You don’t have to be monogamous. Direct Action will not feel betrayed if you also vote from time to time — you can be poly in your tactics. And I am. Of course I vote! If you’re a woman, or a person of color, or a person who doesn’t own property, or even a white male who doesn’t belong to the nobility, centuries of struggle and many deaths have bought you the right to vote. I vote to keep faith with peasant rebels and suffragist hunger strikers and civil rights workers braving the lynch mobs of the South, if for no other reason. But there is another reason — because who we vote for has an enormous impact on real peoples’ lives.

Starhawk (b. 1951) American writer, activist, feminist theologian [b. Miriam Simos]
“Pre-Election Day Thoughts,” blog post (7 Nov 2016)

Let us not be mistaken: the best government in the world, the best parliament and the best president, cannot achieve much on their own. And it would be wrong to expect a general remedy from them alone. Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all.

Václav Havel (1936-2011) Czech playwright, essayist, dissident, politician
“New Year’s Address to the Nation” (1 Jan 1990)

There has been a certain cynical genius to what some of these folks have done in Washington. What they’ve realized is, if we don’t get anything done, then people are going to get cynical about government and its possibilities of doing good for everybody. And since they don’t believe in government, that’s a pretty good thing. And the more cynical people get, the less they vote. And if turnout is low and people don’t vote, that pretty much benefits those who benefit from the status quo.

Barack Obama (b. 1961) American politician, US President (2009-2017)
Speech, Purchase, New York (29 Aug 2014)

The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) French writer, diplomat, politician
Democracy in America, Vol. 1, ch. 13 (1835)

Democracy postulates community of interest or loyal patriotism. When these are absent it cannot long exist.

William Ralph Inge (1860-1954) English prelate [Dean Inge]
“Our Present Discontents,” Outspoken Essays: First Series (1919)

This is the affirmation on which democracy rests … [W]e can all be responsible … We become what we do. So does the world we live in, if enough of us do it — whether “it” be good or detestable. This is the burden of freedom: that it is all our fault or our credit.

Herbert Agar (1897-1980) American journalist and historian
“The Perils of Democracy” (1966)

To give the victory to the right, not bloody bullets, but peaceful ballots only, are necessary.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
Speech fragment (c. 18 May 1858)

The 2020 Election and Dark Fantasies

Donald has damaged the nation by damaging the election, and it may get worse.

Of all the awful things Donald Trump has done, his teeing up this election to be a shit-show that his pet Attorney General will litigate to the bitter end is arguably the worst. I know that list has bitter contention for top billing, because the nominees are legion. But I believe it so, because Donald’s actions, attitude, and announcements have fractured a keystone of our democracy / representative government: that election results can be trusted.

(Yes, for some populations in the US, that’s hardly new news. But we’re potentially talking here about a majority of Americans having that faith called into question.)

Everything stems from belief in election results. From the Constitution to the courts, from effective governance to crisis management. Taxes, obeying the law, basic societal bonds — all are affected by that basic trust. Because, as Donald’s own behavior shows, a lot of our society runs on a degree of confidence in the system, and voluntary compliance to civil norms.

Donald is damaging that. He’s setting things up so that confidence will be –already is — rattled, and so compliance becomes something for suckers because it’s every person for themselves. The social contract we have in this country is at stake.

So what’s the worst that could happen?

There are no electoral scenarios where things necessarily end well, because Donald has already called the whole process into question, and seems ready to continue to do so regardless of the outcome.

If Donald wins “bigly” (he will make any win into a “bigly” one, no matter the actual numbers), his and the GOP’s shenanigans regarding mail-in votes, on top of the (reprehensibly) usual GOP voter suppression, will further erode the idea of elections meaning anything. Even among his supporters, it will enforce the idea that winning depends on who’s willing to be the most cut-throat, regardless of traditions or even the law.

If Donald barely loses, he will fight tooth and nail in court, abetted by his pet AG, to call into question enough of the votes (mail-in or in-person, through his already asserted claims of massive fraud and illegal voting) to get the results changed enough to win. And then do his damnedest to make sure that the party (and his) advantage so gained is codified in law, as supported by a judiciary of the same persuasion.

(I have no faith that Donald, should he win, will not attempt to get the Constitution changed to allow him to run for another term. Or get SCOTUS to rule that so much of his first term was tied up in the “FAKE RUSSIA HOAX AND IMPEACHMENT HOAX TOO” that it doesn’t count. In either case, he will have a personal stake in making vote suppression even a bigger thing.)

If Donald loses big-time (doubtless with an accompanying drubbing of the GOP in the House and Senate), he’ll just switch to the Big Lie and use it as proof of massive fraud (“The only way I could lose is if there’s huge fraud, because everyone loves me, and the Dems always cheat, and this is proof of it” kind of thing).

Does anyone actually think he WON’T claim massive vote fraud, regardless of the outcome?

Again, massive court fights will ensue. And remember, he has as potential allies not just the executive branch, and half of Congress, but a massive fraction of federal judges he’s gotten appointed, plus 2-3 SCOTUS justices he’s named.

Even if Roberts declines to damage SCOTUS’ rep by supporting a perceived coup, if the Trump nominees and Thomas & Alito vote as a bloc, they win 5-4 vs Roberts and the remaining liberal justices. And I have no question in my mind that this, far more than any sentiment about abortion, is why Donald is pushing his SCOTUS nominee so fast. He’s admitted it. And that Mitch is supporting that raises even more grave doubts about outcomes.

And, to that end, there have already been discussions with GOP-run statehouses about how state legislatures could override the popular vote. (The Constitution gives the selection of electors to the lege, not to voters; it’s just a norm, under the law, that the voters get to make that decision. And we all know about the fragility of norms under the Trump presidency.)

Or for that matter, it might only take a GOP-run state to declare that there was massive fraud and they cannot select electors reliably. SCOTUS might rule the same. If the neither side ends up with 270+ electoral votes … then under the Twelfth Amendment, the election goes to Congress.

In that case, the House elects the President — but each state only casts one vote, as polled within its delegation. And there happen to be 26 states with a majority of GOP Representatives, vs 22 with a majority of Dems (one state, PA, is tied, and one state, MI, with has half Dems, an Independent, and the rest GOP). That means the House, if everyone follows party lines, chooses Trump for President. (And you thought the Electoral College was bad.)

(The VP is chosen in the Senate, where each Senator has a vote, so we know how that goes.)

Even if he’s finally stopped in court, and we don’t get state legislative shenanigans — however long that whole process would take — the spectacle itself would itself be a shock to the nation’s confidence and trust, and Donald’s inevitable rallying of the public (and the counter-rallying done by his opponents) further fracture the country. And it would, as importantly, firmly set the precedent first dabbled with in 2000: elections will be appealed and settled in court, not the ballot box, no matter the apparent result.

Way to be a bummer, Dave

So, yes, all of that is very depressing, and I sincerely hope against hope that the only Donald outcome we get is his leaving the White House grounds in January for good.

But that he’s made such dark fantasies even half-plausible demonstrates the damage he’s already done in four years, abetted by the news networks and pols and pundits who’ve been willing to deny reality and show undying loyalty, even in the face of regular zany behavior, in exchange for a cut of continuing power. They’ve all, collectively, called into question for coming decades, if not longer, how stable and reliable and honest our elections are.

And, by extension, our democracy, our government, and our society.
 
“It can never happen here” is itself a pleasant fantasy. Donald’s proven that to us in four short years.
“MINE!”

Why didn’t Warren win the Democratic nomination?

Everyone’s looking for a single, simple answer. There isn’t one.

I would normally do this as a set of Twitter entries these days. But it’s a bit long, so …

As Elizabeth Warren — my primary choice — drops out of the field after a poor performance on Super Tuesday, the question that naturally arises is, why didn’t she win?

Everything seemed like it could have been there for her to do so. She had a remarkably high favorability score amongst Dem voters. She was usually at the top of the list as a second choice candidate. She was articulate, intelligent, passionate, showed her homework, and on and on.

Is there a magic, singular reason it didn’t happen? Nope. Instead, there are several reasons that coalesced to erode away her front-tier status — some of them her fault, some of them nobody’s fault, others …

It was a very crowded field. This was one of those years when everyone and their sibling decided to run in the Democratic field against Trump, heartened both by Trump’s own “anything’s possible” win in 2016 and his deep unpopularity. Remember those first few debates, where the contestants got mixed randomly across two nights?

Image result for first democratic debate

The result was that a lot of folks liked Warren and even would have been okay with her, but were able to find someone closer to their preferences as their first choice.  And among Warren’s own supporters, polls showed that they tended to be more excited about other candidates than other candidate’s supporters were, meaning other factors meant it was easier to peel off that support.

That said, to the extent that she, along with Sanders, were off to the further left side of the spectrum, she also suffered from direct ideological competition with Sanders, who came into the race with a large group of dedicated followers and the experience of 2016. If Sanders had not been in the race, a lot of that support would have presumably gone to her.

Image result for warren sanders gif

A lot has been made about sexism, given how we’ve gone from a large candidate tally that had multiple female candidates of varying credibility — Williamson, Gabbard, Harris, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Warren — and have ended up with Two Old White Guys. (Gabbard remains in the race, but very much under the radar, and for reasons and goals that do not seem to be an actual run for the presidency.)

The sexism here is definitely a factor. Nobody credible said, “Oh, a woman can’t be President,” but plenty of people worried, “Hmmm, can a woman be elected President?” It wasn’t their own feelings that restrained them from supporting Warren, but their evaluation of other peoples’ feelings — the dreaded “electability” consideration. “Will Trump supporters who might be wavering consider voting for a woman?” “Will being a woman make her a particular target for Trump, like Clinton was?”

Image result for democrawtic women candidates high five

Even some folk who might overcome those questions in the abstract, when faced with the overwhelming urgency to defeat Trump, might have decided to play it safe and go for a guy.

That similarly came into play in the question of Warren’s progressive politics — my sense is that she sold that policy more effectively for a lot of people than Sanders has, having  more appeal to people closer to the center, but that whole “socialism” thing played into her electability factor as well. “I’d vote for her, but I’m not sure other people will” being the the self-fulfilling prophecy in the era of fearing Trump’s re-election.

Indeed, to the extent that the “socialism” thing has generated worry within the more centrist/moderate ranks of the Democratic party — where, even if they like individual proposals, it feels risky right now in a time of plague and with a Trump re-election at stake. Had Biden continued to falter, would Warren have been seen as a possible middle ground between Bloomberg and Sanders? The Biden resurgence at Super Tuesday, following his success in South Carolina, not only knocked out his immediate moderate competition, but ultimately Warren as well.

Image result for super tuesday results

While Warren seemed to be less seen as an enemy of the Democratic establishment than Sanders, it’s also been clear that establishment — whether from fear of a Trump re-election or fear of their own wealth — were less enthused with the progressive left than the moderate / centrist wing of candidates. I don’t think they particularly put their thumb on the scales in her case, but I think they are just as glad to see her go.

Warren got generally good marks for her debate performance, and everyone seems to agree that she gets the lion’s share of the credit for knocking Mike Bloomberg out of the race. But I found her outings at the debate a mixed bag, too reliant canned answers and repetitious anecdotes (she fared much better in 1:1 interviews and other less game show-style verbal outings). While her Vegas debate got her a small bump, I don’t think the debates helped her enough.

I’ve mentioned the problems of being, policy-wise, competing for the same ground against another major candidate whose turned out to be in the final contention. Subjectively, in the Twitter threads I followed, I found that there was a particularly vocal cadre of Sanders supporters who were aggressively resentful of her running as a progressive, “stealing” votes from Bernie, not being as ideologically pure as Bernie, and (worst of all) her occasionally criticizing or disagreeing with Bernie.

Image result for elizabeth warren snake twitter

I don’t actually think a host of snake emoji and hashtags and vitriol scared her off, but it made any positive discussion of Warren and her campaign more difficult.

One of Warren’s tag lines was her “I have a plan for that.” I think that, net-net, that was a positive for her: she’d thought about these things, came up with concrete ways to address them that didn’t rely on magical thinking, and pursued them with confidence.

The problem with so many plans was two-fold. For some folk it came across as too intellectual and wonkish. Like the Emperor’s “too many notes” critique in Amadeus, for some people her intellectual rigor and professorial background was a turn-off  (which, coupled with societal sexism, probably didn’t help, either).

The other problem is that, when she felt she needed to revise something — from a misunderstanding, or because she saw a way to improve it, or even for political practicalities — it left her open to attack. This came up in particular over her shifting on Medicare For All; her shift (however you characterize it) on implementation timing didn’t improve her appeal to moderates who think M4A is either an awful idea or an election killer, and it was throwing chum into the tank for the Sander supporters who wanted to characterize her as No True Progressive And, In Fact, Probably Just Plain Evil Hssssssss (that Sanders politely disagreed with her and has spoken positively about her M4A support didn’t do anything about that kind of attack).

Image result for elizabeth warren plans

The question of age has come up in this election. While Warren always showed remarkable vigor, physically and mentally, she was sometimes lumped in with the other older candidates by some folk, and, to get back to the sexism thread, age is always more of a handicap for women in the public limelight than for men.

While some media outlets and individuals seemed warm to Warren, the nature of contemporary news coverage of elections netted out against her.  She got face time when she was rising, but once that had stalled and she was further back in the pack — 3rd to 5th — she became yesterday’s news, to the extent that she was sometimes left out of polls or reporting on them, even in favor candidates that were doing worse but were the media flavor of the week (as Klobuchar and Buttigieg took turns with late in the campaign).

The media loves a horse race, competitive drama. When Warren wasn’t providing that, the media coverage dried up, whether or not it shouldn’t have. Super Tuesday was a poor showing for her, but the coverage of that night made it out to be a two-person race regardless of what primaries were still to come or the nature of the convention. That didn’t help.

The last element in the room, so to speak, was the whole Native American heritage kerfuffle.[1] Warren’s initial error in letting family stories about that heritage convince her to identify for a time as Native American (though not with any actual harm done or advantage gained, from all that it has been investigated), and then her attempt to confirm that family story through DNA testing would always have been a blot of misjudgment on her record. But its gleefully racist misuse by Trump made it be seen as a liability in the election, and there were enough folk who felt, despite Warren’s repeated explanations and apologies, that it a serious problem that it gave more ammo to her critics within the party (again, generally from the Sanders camp) as if she had been gleefully stealing money from Native American babies while wearing a Washington Redskins jersey, hisssssssss.

What should have been — in the face of a thousand racist (etc.) transgressions by Trump, or of Biden lying about his background in the civil rights movement, or even some of the baggage Sanders is carrying around — a road bump became, not the iceberg that sunk Warren, but a wound that never was allowed to heal.

No list of “Why did this happen in the election” is complete without mention of possible foreign interference (thanks, Trump, for letting that particular concern about our democracy metastasize). Nobody’s suggested that Warren was a target for opposition (or support) by, say, Russia. But I can’t see her as a potential president that Russia would consider in their interests, like Trump, nor is she as divisive as her ideological niche competitor, Sanders.  If nobody actively targeted Warren, the general partisan and intra-partisan conflict that Russia has fomented certainly worked against her.

None of these were conclusive. None of these factors explain everything. Individually Warren could have survived any of them. Cumulatively, though, they drove her campaign to the point of non-viability to win outright, or even to have a substantial delegate role in the convention.[2] Her decision to suspend her campaign is, sadly, probably the best one.

But I’ll always regret she didn’t get the nomination and become the next President of the United States.[3] Thanks, Senator Warren!

 


[1] I am not Native American, so I acknowledge my perspective here has limitations. It did seem that I saw a lot more criticism of Warren on this from non-NAs than from NAs and tribal representatives, esp. after she apologized early days in the campaign.

[2] Note that there is a timeline out there where we end up with a contested election and Warren gets drafted as the compromise candidate between Biden and Sanders– this kind of possibility is one reason why candidates always suspend their campaigns, not end them (though campaign finance is a much bigger reason). I deem this scenario highly unlikely, but it is not outside the bounds of historic possibility. Just saying.

[3] It has been suggested that either Biden or Sanders might offer her the VP role. I don’t think she would take it; more importantly, she is of more value in the Senate, both for her ongoing contributions and because, if she was elected as VP, the GOP governor of Massachusetts would name her, presumably GOP, successor, and Senate balance is nearly as critical as the White House.

That said … Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren has a nice ring to it.

“Voting Rights? You don’ need no steenking Voting Rights!”

It’s easy to bypass the will of the people when you control the state government

Ah, Florida …

Florida voters managed to pull off a coup in the 2018 election, passing by a nearly a 2-1 majority Amendment 4 to the state constitution, saying that felons would have their voting rights restored as soon as they completed their sentence.

It was a vote decision that was widely feared by the GOP, because it would potentially re-enfranchise 1.4 million Floridians, and the GOP assumes that a majority of them will vote for Democrats, which is enough to tip the very narrow balance of partisan power in Florida away from the Republicans.

So, of course, they’re gutting the law.

“But, Dave,” you might say, “this is a state constitutional amendment — how can they override that?” Great question!

Answer: by deciding that the amendment actually needs enacting legislation, and by crafting that legislation to say that you can’t have your franchise back until you’ve fully paid all the thousands of dollars of fees related to your trial, your court time, your prison time, your prison medical care, all sorts of fees that the state of Florida has imposed to (a) pay for a justice system without taxing the taxpayers, and (b) saddle ex-cons with debts they cannot pay off.

As a result it’s estimated that at least half, if not more, of those disenfranchised felons that the majority of Floridians thought should be re-enfranchised … will remain disenfranchised.

“But, Dave,” you might say, “how can they get away with that?” Another great question.

It’s easy.

The GOP has the majority of both houses of the state legislature.

The GOP has the governorship (through a headline-narrow margin in 2018).

The GOP, thanks to the actions of that governor, now have a 6-1 lock on the state supreme court, too.

The “enacting legislation” is thus expected to be passed, signed, and be immune to state court challenge.

See, it’s easy to keep power and defy the will of the voters, if you know how and don’t mind being shameless about it.

Do you want to know more? Florida Republicans are sabotaging Amendment 4.

A rank choice demonstrates the need for ranked choice

It’s a voting process that makes a lot of sense

While this specific example is a bit of an outlier, it’s another demonstration of why ranked choice voting can avoid a possible travesty of an election.

Correia, a 27-year-old Democrat who was arrested last fall on federal fraud charges, survived a recall election Tuesday in somewhat unconventional fashion.

Fall River voters were given a two-part ballot in which they were asked if Correia should be removed from office and then to choose from five candidates to replace him. Due to the city’s rules, Correia was allowed to run for re-election on the second part of the ballot. And even though more than 60 percent of voters voted to recall the mayor, he won re-election with a 35-percent plurality in the five-way race.

That is to say, 60% voted him out of office, and 65% wanted someone else — but he remains in office.

Ranked Choice voting is one of a variety of voting schemes that have become increasingly popular recently as a way to eliminate these kind of small plurality wins, spoiler candidates splitting a voting pool, the significant costs (and binary starkness) of run-off elections, etc. Voters don’t just pick a candidate but their 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice — however many of the candidates are acceptable to them, and in what order.

If no candidate gets a majority, then the lowest vote-getter is eliminated has their votes given to the 2nd choice their voters had indicated. This continues until someone has a majority; someone always get a majority of the vote.

This sort of thing is particularly useful in primary voting scenarios, or where there are multiple popular candidates. It also empowers people to vote for the long-shot candidate of their choice without fear that doing so will tilt the field to someone whom they really don’t want to see in office.

It seems like a good idea to me.

Do you want to know more? Fall River recall election result elicits calls for ranked choice voting | Boston.com

Oregon considers its automatic voter registration a "phenomenal success"

Well, yeah, but only if you consider increased voter turn-out, and an electorate that's "less urban … less wealthy … much more diverse" to be good things. I do, but clearly there are some people who don't.




Oregon governor calls automatic voter registration a ‘phenomenal success’ – POLITICO

Original Post

Idiotic reasons people are giving for not voting

We're doomed.

1. I was so disappointed in 2016.
2. Grassroots organizing feels good and is so much more impactful than (ugh) voting.
3. The Democrats aren't fighting hard enough against Trump, so what's the point?
4. It's better to be an informed non-voter than an uninformed voter.
5. I need to be absolutely certain before I vote, lest I vote for someone bad.
6. "I hate mailing stuff: it gives me anxiety."
7. My vote will only be symbolic, so who cares?
8. I hate being judged by people who judge me for not voting. That's very judgmental, so I won't vote, just to spite them.
9. Since my vote doesn't matter, I only want to vote for people who are perfectly aligned with my ideals.
10. Getting absentee ballots is haaaaard.
11. The Democrats aren't progressive enough for me, so I'll just let the Republicans continue to be in charge.
12. Political parties spend too much time talking to old people, so I'll show them to pay more attention to young people by not voting.
13. I'm not ready to vote this election. Maybe next election.
14. How dare my perfect candidate throw their support behind their bitter rival in the primaries?! Just for that, I won't vote!
15. I felt bad about the candidate I voted for because they weren't perfect and they didn't win, so why bother voting again?
16. The biggest issue is Climate Change, and the Democrats aren't opposing that hard enough, and we're all going to die, so why vote?
17. The candidates opposing Trump just aren't exciting enough to motivate me to vote.
18. Voting sucks time and energy away from "actually building power" with the people around you.
19. If your candidate loses, it feels awful and causes despair for years! Why risk that?
20. Voting is support of system I don't like, so by not voting I am signalling I want the system to change, because that's how it will happen.
21. Voting is too easy. Stickers are trivialities. Who can respect a system like that?
22. Registering to vote is haaaaaard.
23. I didn't have any stamps.
24. Mean people used to tell me how to vote, so now that I am out from under them, I don't vote at all. That'll show them!
25. Voting takes so much tiiiiiiime! And I'd have to forward my work calls to my cell phone, too!
26. Everyone told me how to register, but not how to vote. What's up with that?
27. Candidates don't use social media and bullet points enough. How can I ever possibly figure out who to vote for?

Sorry, User of Excuse Number 8: I am judgmental.




12 Young People on Why They Probably Won’t Vote

Original Post

North Carolina’s GOP manage to successfully run out the clock on gerrymandering

Though a federal court found that the state legislature’s districting plan is rigged to favor the GOP and “constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution,” the same court has now ruled that there’s not enough time for the state to redraw a new plan and have it in place for the November mid-terms without impacting campaigning and voter turn-out.

While Democrats are a plurality in the state (followed by Republicans, who are almost falling behind Unaffiliated), the GOP has managed to draw districts to capture 10 of the 13 House seats from North Carolina. Presumably, under the current gerrymandered map, they will be able to hope for similar outcome, and will then have another two years to drag things out further.




North Carolina’s unconstitutional gerrymandered map will be used in midterms – CNNPolitics
A federal court concluded Tuesday there is ‘insufficient time’ before the November midterm elections to redraw North Carolina’s unconstitutional gerrymandered map.

Original Post

Hacking the Electoral College

Connecticut is joining a coalition of other states trying to bypass the zaniness of the Electoral College, which has led to US presidents being elected even though they lost the popular vote. While the most recent time this happened (in 2016) is noteworthy for the resulting disastrous choice it foisted on us, this is about far more than Trump, but about an avoidable breach of democratic (small-D) will in a representative government.

The scheme, now passed by 11 states (if CT’s governor signs the bill), says that they agree to give all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This doesn’t go into effect until 270 EC votes’ worth of states pass the compact; the CT bill will bring that number up to 172, well over half the votes needed.

What’s been interesting is reading the reaction to the bill, mostly from folk on the Right who see this as some sort of fiendish Democratic plot.

“This is blatantly unconstitutional!” — Um, not so far as I can tell. The Constitution mandates the Electoral College (the states send electors to actually vote for the president), but not how those EC votes are allocated. That’s why, for example, some states do a “winner takes all” choice, while a few allocate out ECVs based on congressional district votes, etc.. As CT voters would have their votes counted in the total popular vote, their voting rights are preserved.

“The Founding Fathers hated direct democracy; that’s why they chose the EC mechanism!” — While it’s true that some of the Founders mistrusted direct democracy, the EC mechanism was developed more because communication within and between the states was so slow. Rather than gathering and sending in tallies, it made more sense to elect delegates to an election convention (essentially what the EC members are) and have them go to vote a few months later.

“This weakens smaller / flyover states, and means you’ll have New York and California electing the President.” — This argument is telling for what it says (liberal hordes will control the country!) and what it doesn’t say (one man, one vote, is a dangerous proposition!). It also ignores population powerhouses like Texas and Florida.

While it’s true the EC mechanism was also set up to give smaller states (esp. in the early days of the US) a leg up over more populous states, by assigning into the EC count for each state not only the number of US Representatives (which are based on the population), but the number of US Senators (which every state, regardless of size, gets two of), smaller states get a little more oomph. I.e., of the 538 EVs, 100 of them, close to 20%, come from those Senatorial seats. And 100 (or even 50) EVs are more than enough to swing an election, as we know.

That goes away under a popular vote mechanism (however devised), but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing, even coming from a smaller state (population-wise). We are not the assemblage of autonomous states under a weak central government that the Founders largely envisioned, for better or worse, and really never will be again (the rhetorical states-rights federalism of the GOP always gives way to maintaining strong central power whenever any of its own oxen are gored). Just like the US would object to every country in the UN General Assembly getting two extra votes, whether a large nation like the US or a tiny one like Tuvalu, so too this “small states have some inherent right to extra representation” that means the vote of someone in California (or Texas) counts less than the vote of someone in North Dakota or Rhode Island is an unfair artifact of history.

In other words, why, for purposes of electing the President, does Rhode Island have a right to be more powerful, voter-for-voter, than Texas?

“This will mean that candidates ignore everywhere except for the Big Cities!” — This is a variation on the previous, and really has a lot of the “can’t trust those liberal hordes, especially Those People” overtones to it, but it’s got a little different spin. Will candidates just go to Big Cities to campaign and ignore the hinterland?

Honestly, I kind of doubt it. Or, if they do, it’s only a variation on the focus by presidential candidates on the “Purple” states that seem in play, largely ignoring states that are seen to be a lock. Montana doesn’t get a lot of love either way.

But, again, this is somehow saying that we need to treat the population differently — that “Big City” voters are somehow less valuable or less enfranchised than “Heartland Farmer” voters. If all of them are treated the same, tallied into popular votes, then candidate will be forced to make an effort to show that they care about people in Cornbelt, Nebraska, as representatives of the people in Wheatland, South Dakota, etc.

This also has the effect of enfranchising people in states that have all-or-nothing EV allocations but who are not members of the majority party in the state. How many Californian Republicans have you heard bemoaning that their presidential vote is meaningless because all of that state’s EVs will go to the Democrat? Under a scheme like this, those votes suddenly count, and those voters can be energized to participate more.

“This lets all them Illegals vote!” — That’s usually not quite how this is phrased, but it’s the fundamental message.

One thing this scheme does is make accurate tallies of the popular vote everywhere more important, from a presidential standpoint. The all-or-nothing EV allocation at present means that, unless it’s a real squeaker in a state, a margin of error is somewhat tolerable. Start looking at national voting on a popular basis, and those zany accusations thrown about by Trump about “millions” of ineligible voters throwing the election have to be paid more attention to.

But that’s already the case to a certain degree, as the GOP (usually) keeps pushing the meme that illegal voters are everywhere (or at least in liberal districts). If this forces more attention on cleaning up our voting processes in a just fashion — ensuring voting rights, not just making them difficult to exercise — perhaps that’s a good thing.

Does this scheme have any chance of success? Hard to say. People wanting to reform the Electoral College — by Constitutional Amendment or by state-based workarounds like this — have been pushing at the idea for decades. I have my doubts about a state-based system working, but this one has the advantage of not being incremental (it doesn’t trigger until it can actually settle the matter) and not requiring everyone to sign on to make it work fairly (as do EV allocation schemes).

We shall see.




Connecticut state Senate passes bill giving electoral votes to presidential candidate who wins popular vote
The Connecticut state Senate on Saturday voted in favor of a measure to give the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

View on Google+

As we descend further into Banana Republic status

As the President goes off-script … again … to discredit any opposition to his regime.

“In many places, like California, the same person votes many times,” the president explained. “You probably heard about that. They always like to say ‘Oh, that’s a conspiracy theory.’ Not a conspiracy theory, folks. Millions and millions of people. And it’s very hard because the state guards their records. They don’t want [you] to see it.”

Gee, you know who else has their head government leaders declaring that the opposition party is winning elections through massive fraud? Tin-pot dictatorships, right before they crack down on the press and and start throwing opposition politicians into jail.

Not that I think we’re there yet. But I have little doubt that if Trump could, that’s precisely what he’d be doing.




President Trump Claims C.A.’s Elections Are Illegitimate

View on Google+

Trump makes it clear who his bestest buddy is

I have no doubt that Donald is wildly impressed by and envious of Vlad’s 75% victory (not to mention the ease with which Vlad suppressed the opposition and the media). I have no doubt that Donald wishes he could do those same things. “Congratulations on the victory!”

Oh, and that nerve agent attack that everyone — including portions of the US government, at least in theory — are blaming Russia for? Never came up in the conversation. Because, y’know, even if it’s not fake news, Donald probably thinks it’s kinda cool super-spy stuff that he wishes we were doing to his our enemies.




Trump congratulates Putin on his reelection, discusses ‘arms race’ – The Washington Post
The U.S. president confirmed the call and said he hopes to meet with Putin “in the not too distant future.”

View on Google+

A first-time federal ruling against partisan gerrymandering

And I say huzzah.

Gerrymandering — by any political party to achieve and sustain its staying in power — is anti-democratic and wrong. That’s true whichever party is doing it (though at present most challenges are against the GOP, who were most recently in a position to game the system after their 2010 midterm victories), and I am perfectly happy to see court decisions and legislation that block the practice by anyone, even the party I vote for most often.

If you can’t win without stacking the deck in your favor, then you don’t deserve to win. The fundamental principle of voting is that we all have a say in determining our elected representatives; when that principle is violated with no more reason than “We want our side to win,” it’s an attack on everyone.




North Carolina’s Novel Anti-Partisan-Gerrymander Ruling – The Atlantic
Judges said redistricting designed to elect Republicans violated the Constitution, the first time a federal court has come to that conclusion.

View on Google+

Yes, there are Alabama Bussed-In-Illegal-Voters Conspiracy Theories

Of course there are. Because it’s easier to imagine something effectively impossible (see attached take-down of what that would have taken, and the improbability of it being done not only successfully but without some bystander with a mobile phone taking a picture of the shenanigans), than to imaging that Your Obviously Blessed and God-Ordained Candidate could possibly lose.

(And if he was God-Ordained, then the conspiracy shouldn’t have worked, amirite? Or are you suggesting that George Soros is more powerful than God?)

I mean, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But “vigilance” means watching for what’s there, not spreading rumors about stuff that a few moments consideration demonstrates makes as much sense as “The Devil Stuffed the Ballot Boxes.”

Originally shared by +Kee Hinckley:

Someone takes apart the conspiracy theory of voters being bussed into Alabama (works for any of the many “bussed voters” theories).




Unrolled thread from @jonrog1
1/ Okay, you racist hack, apparently I have to do this every time. Like all conspiracy theories, this falls apart as soon as one asks “How?” 2/ Let’s just go with the most popular right-wing conspiracy, George Soros (because, of course, you blame a J

View on Google+

An Alabama Example of Gerrymandering

This is why politicians — primarily, at the moment, GOP ones — like gerrymandering. Also an example of why some conservatives want to get rid of the 17th Amendment and move US Senate elections back to the (gerrymandered) state legislatures.

Jones won 49% of the state-wide vote; Moore won 48%. But as Leonardo Carella notes:

If yesterday’s Alabama Senate race had been a House election, the Republicans, who got fewer votes, would have won 6 out of 7 seats, and the Democrats, who won the vote statewide, only 1 out of 7. That’s how gerrymandered Alabama is.

And that’s why gerrymandering is wrong. I wonder if SCOTUS will do anything about it in the upcoming case they are reviewing?




Leonardo Carella on Twitter
“If yesterday’s Alabama Senate race had been a House election, the Republicans, who got *fewer* votes, would have won 6 out of 7 seats, and the Democrats, who *won* the vote statewide, only 1 out of 7. That’s how gerrymandered Alabama is.”

View on Google+

All those post-1791 constitutional amendments are just ruining this country

And in another fun bit of Roy Moore trivia, in a 2011 appearance on a whackadoodle conservative radio show, he opined that getting rid of all those amendments to the Constitution beyond the first Ten would “eliminate many problems.”

His spokesfolk have come out and declared that, no, he really only meant the 14th and 17th Amendments. Or maybe more, but those are the ones he’s really peeved at.

It is kind of weird, though, that he’d just be interested in getting rid of two when agreeing with the show host about voiding all the amendments after the first 10 he said, “That would eliminate many problems.” I mean, that would include 17 other amendments, not just two. Why wouldn’t he say, “Well, I disagree with a couple,” so that people didn’t think he wanted to allow slavery again, or undo women’s suffrage, or get rid of extending the vote down to 18, restricting a president to two terms, barring poll taxes, or barring denial of the right to vote based on race?

Anyway, let’s assume for argument that he only has a mad-on about 14 and 17.

17 is a bugbear for conservatives, calling for US Senators to be voted for by a state-wide election, not by state legislators. Moore really dislikes that one, apparently because he doesn’t trust the state citizenry, or else because he liked the problem that progressives sought to fix with this amendment, that state legislators are easily bought off, and therefore by extension so are the US Senators they are selecting.

14 is the real kicker here. That post-Civil War amendment [1] was designed to make it clear that: (a) freed slaves — in fact, all African-Americans — born in the US were US citizens, (b) all US citizens have a right to due process under the law, including state and local laws, and that (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), the provisions of the US Constitution trump those of state constitutions and local laws, and (c) all people in the US must be treated equally by the law: federal, state, and local.

Moore just doesn’t like it because it means states don’t have ultimate rights.

The danger in the 14th Amendment, which was to restrict, it has been a restriction on the states using the first Ten Amendments by and through the 14th Amendment. To restrict the states from doing something that the federal government was restricted from doing and allowing the federal government to do something which the first Ten Amendments prevented them from doing. If you understand the incorporation doctrine used by the courts and what it meant. You’d understand what I’m talking about.

Looking at the quote … I have no idea what he is talking about, except that the 14th Amendment lets the feds restrict what state governments can do. That seems to be a cardinal sin in Moore’s book.

For example, the right to keep and bear arms, the First Amendment, freedom of press liberty. Those various freedoms and restrictions have been imposed on the states through the 14th Amendment. And yet the federal government is violating just about every one of them saying that — they don’t they don’t — are not restrained by them.

Yes, how horrible that those Bill of Rights rights have been “imposed on the states through the 14th Amendment.” Yet, somehow, Moore thinks that the federal level is (or is claiming it is) not subject to the Bill of Rights, which is kind of weird given that they are part of the federal constitution and are litigated in federal courts all the time.

But let’s stick a pin in this:

  • Roy Moore doesn’t think the citizens of Alabama should be voting for him; he’d prefer if the Alabama state legislature had that right.
  • Roy Moore thinks that “equal protection under the law” and “due process” should be the choice of each state.
  • Roy Moore thinks that other federal protections in the Bill of Rights should be up to the states, too.

Roy Moore might believe some other things, based on his broad dismissal of Amendments 11-27 … and he said a lot of really interesting things in those radio shows … but I think focusing on the above is sufficient.

——
[1] Because he last felt that America was great at a time when “despite slavery” we were somehow a bunch of united families. That implies that after the Civil War ended slavery (as confirmed by the 13th Amendment), America was no longer great.




Roy Moore in 2011: Getting rid of amendments after 10th would ‘eliminate many problems’ – CNNPolitics
Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore appeared on a conspiracy-driven radio show twice in 2011, where he told the hosts in an interview that getting rid of constitutional amendments after the Tenth Amendment would ‘eliminate many problems’ in the way the US government is structured.

View on Google+

A poll tax on college students in New Hampshire

Both federal and state courts have made it clear that students attending college in a given state have the right to vote in that state.

New Hampshire GOP’s current response is, “Sure. Here’s how much extra it will cost you.”

It’s unlikely that the New Hampshire law will stand up courts scrutiny … but who ever can really be certain? And, in the meantime, it will add a layer of uncertainty for a group of voters that the Republicans are always looking to suppress or discourage.




New Hampshire Republicans Want to Impose a Poll Tax on College Students
The 2016 election was a bittersweet one for the New Hampshire Republican Party. The GOP won unified control of the state government, but Hillary Clinto …

View on Google+

The Trump Administration and the 2020 Census: What Could Go Wrong?

Because why worry because Donald Trump has named a Republican activist around gerrymandering, who’s written a book about how “Competitive Elections Are Bad for the United States,” who has no federal statistical background, to be Deputy Director of the Census Bureau? The Census Bureau, that will run the US Census, that will be the basis for electoral redistricting?

Or that the guy was named Deputy Director because the actual Director requires Senate approval, so Trump can just name a Deputy Director and leave the Director position vacant?

I mean, there’s being blatant, and there’s being Trump blatant.




Leading Trump Census pick causes alarm – POLITICO

View on Google+

Indiana is using bad software to kick people of voter rolls

And the fact that it’s statistically more likely to affect minority populations than whites has, I am sure, absolutely nothing to do with it.

#crosscheck




Lawsuit: Indiana Purging Voters Using Software That’s 99% Inaccurate
A study found that more than 99 percent of voter fraud identified by a GOP-backed program is false. Now Indiana is using the faulty program to de-register voters without warning.

View on Google+

On Wisconsin and Voter Suppression in 2016

Voter ID laws and similar shenanigans are always passed with the ostensible justification that they prevent voter fraud — even though evidence of such fraud is always starkly lacking. Meanwhile, such laws demonstrably suppress voter turn-out, particularly from poorer voters, minority voters, students, and other groups that tend to vote Democratic. Which, of course, is the real reason for such laws.

Wisconsin looks like an excellent example of how that can tip an entire national election.




Yes, the election was rigged. Here’s the proof.
It starts with this story in Wisconsin.

View on Google+

What will the Supreme Court do about gerrymandering?

Everyone, even the staunchest conservatives on the court, admit that gerrymandering — the political party in power drawing district lines to favor their party’s future electoral success — is distasteful and hampers democracy. The particular Wisconsin case before them stands as a stark example — the GOP legislative / executive majority redrawing maps such that in 2012 they received a minority of statewide votes for the legislature, but still won 60 of 99 legislative seats.

The debate seems to be what the heck SCOTUS can do about it (or, it appears from Gorsuch’s questions and comments, are they even allowed to do anything about it). Given the very narrow margins in anticipated votes (Anthony Kennedy will almost certainly be the swing here, yet again), if they do decide against Wisconsin, we can’t expect any sort of sweeping dictate of using non-partisan commissions and the like. The test for whether unallowable gerrymandering has occurred will need to be clear (so that the courts don’t get immersed in challenges to every redistricting), and the remediation as unintrusive as possible (in keeping with the states fundamental Constitutional power to manage their own elections, within the overarching bonds of other principles such as “one man, one vote”).

It’s interesting, if perhaps disheartening, that there seems to be as much debate within SCOTUS about this from an institutional basis as discussion of the merits and Constitutional principles. Roberts, in particular, seems tugged more by not wanting the courts to seem too political (or be overwhelmed with future suits), but also being concerned that doing nothing will send its own message about SCOTUS partisanship or impotence.

I truly hope that they manage to find a majority path to actually doing something. Regardless of the party doing it [1], gerrymandering is fundamentally anti-democratic, and a clear exercise of power breeding corruption. Its expanded and systematic use is a challenge to the very nature of our society and government and will, in the end, present an existential danger to both.

——
[1] Yes, both parties have done it over the years, to their discredit. That doesn’t make it somehow wrong to prevent it; on the contrary it makes it all the more critical to do so. That said, the current wave of gerrymandering stems from the significant statehouse wins the GOP made in 2010, and their use of the latest technology to maximize their ongoing advantage following the 2010 census decennial redistricting. This imbalance has meant that Republican defenders of the practice can argue both that “both sides do it (so don’t pick on us when we do)” and “this is a partisan effort by the Dems against the GOP (because overturning this will hurt us most)”.




Partisan Gerrymandering: How Much Is Too Much?
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a gerrymandering case that could have sweeping political consequences.

View on Google+