New rulings on presidential immunity, workers’ rights, and Chevron deference make it clear: we can have social progress or we can have a powerful Supreme Court, but we can’t have both.
I’m not sure that the electoral college precludes qualifying as a democracy. Voter disenfranchisement certainly seems to put a wrench in the idea though.
Its failure to what, though, exactly? Go by the popular vote?
There are definitely problems with our democracy, but I don’t think an electoral college automatically disqualifies it. I’d love to see it gone, because I don’t think it’s representative, but the argument behind it is one of broader representation rather than narrow representation.
The idea is that life in the population centers of the US and life in rural areas is very different. We’ve got a fair chunk of our population living in the middle of nowhere, but they’re dwarfed by the population of our cities. By dividing votes by state, it keeps the most populous states from constantly determining the course of the less populous states on a federal level.
The alleged intent is to give those less populous states an opportunity to be involved in the discussion of our federal government. As you’ve probably noticed, laws vary wildly from state to state in the US. Instead of one consensus on law in general, we have 50 mini-consensuses. There are states that literally will refuse to enforce certain federal laws, or that will refuse to honor the laws of other states.
So our presidential electoral process looks very similar. It’s not one consensus, it’s 50 mini-consensuses. Because the votes happen at the state level, you can win a popular vote and still lose the state-by-state vote. That’s not it being broken, that’s it functioning as intended.
This model of state and federal government honestly works pretty well for us in a lot of cases. It allows states like Massachusetts, California, or Washington to go ahead and try some new stuff that other states are hesitant about. It’s why we’ve got things like ACA, marriage equality and other protections for queer folks in some states, and it’s why marijuana has been legalized in a lot of places. Unfortunately it’s also why Texas and Florida are dystopian hellscapes, but it does insulate the people in these more progressive states from a bit of their nonsense.
Unfortunately we also have a lot of gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement going on that makes the situation worse. But even in a really bad situation, you’re going to have states that protect people from some of the worst of it.
It’s democracy, it’s just not direct democracy at a federal level. It’s representative democracy that focuses on an alliance of 50 states rather than running it like one big thing.
If we want to challenge the legitimacy of American democracy, voter disenfranchisement and the ongoing persistence of legal slavery are probably a better place to start.
Why would you want people to stop talking about disenfranchisement? States deciding to take the vote away from their citizens after they’ve been convicted is something we should absolutely be highlighting. You’ll even notice there’s a significant correlation between which states are consistently redder and which have greater rates of voter disenfranchisement.
Maybe what we need is clarification about what disenfranchisement is, because it’s not just people deciding not to vote. It’s people having their ability to vote taken away.
Agreed that we need to talk about this more. Say you get a ticket you can’t pay because your car broke down or you couldn’t miss work at your minimum wage job. You could be doing everything legally right and still have a warrant out for your arrest, get put through the “justice” system, and eventually lose your job, your livelihood, and be set up for recidivism. If you’re charged with a felony, or are locked up, you cannot exercise your right to vote. It’s so easy to be caught up in a cycle that systematically strips away your rights and ability to provide for yourself and your family.
Disenfranchisement is a broad and complex issue that is caused by policy choices and local/subjective policing of historically overburdened communities, like BIPOC/LGBTQ+/disabled peoples. I’m sure it’s also much more involved than I can speak to. And don’t get me started on how for-profit and private prisons everywhere essentially use slave labor to make money. With the Supreme Court effectively criminalizing homelessness, you’re getting more inmate labor on the way. I believe inmates should have access to education and federal minimum wage jobs so they have incentive to get out and contribute to society, and aren’t forced to start their lives over just to make ends meet. Especially for those that were locked up for low level crimes. It doesn’t make sense to damn someone to hell for small crimes and never allow them to get back on their feet.
I’m not sure that the electoral college precludes qualifying as a democracy. Voter disenfranchisement certainly seems to put a wrench in the idea though.
Considering its abject failure twice in recent memory, I’d say it is quite evident that it precludes qualifying as a democracy.
But, originally, our founding fathers only intended for rich, landowning men to vote, so the US was never intended to be a democracy anyway.
Its failure to what, though, exactly? Go by the popular vote?
There are definitely problems with our democracy, but I don’t think an electoral college automatically disqualifies it. I’d love to see it gone, because I don’t think it’s representative, but the argument behind it is one of broader representation rather than narrow representation.
The idea is that life in the population centers of the US and life in rural areas is very different. We’ve got a fair chunk of our population living in the middle of nowhere, but they’re dwarfed by the population of our cities. By dividing votes by state, it keeps the most populous states from constantly determining the course of the less populous states on a federal level.
The alleged intent is to give those less populous states an opportunity to be involved in the discussion of our federal government. As you’ve probably noticed, laws vary wildly from state to state in the US. Instead of one consensus on law in general, we have 50 mini-consensuses. There are states that literally will refuse to enforce certain federal laws, or that will refuse to honor the laws of other states.
So our presidential electoral process looks very similar. It’s not one consensus, it’s 50 mini-consensuses. Because the votes happen at the state level, you can win a popular vote and still lose the state-by-state vote. That’s not it being broken, that’s it functioning as intended.
This model of state and federal government honestly works pretty well for us in a lot of cases. It allows states like Massachusetts, California, or Washington to go ahead and try some new stuff that other states are hesitant about. It’s why we’ve got things like ACA, marriage equality and other protections for queer folks in some states, and it’s why marijuana has been legalized in a lot of places. Unfortunately it’s also why Texas and Florida are dystopian hellscapes, but it does insulate the people in these more progressive states from a bit of their nonsense.
Unfortunately we also have a lot of gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement going on that makes the situation worse. But even in a really bad situation, you’re going to have states that protect people from some of the worst of it.
It’s democracy, it’s just not direct democracy at a federal level. It’s representative democracy that focuses on an alliance of 50 states rather than running it like one big thing.
If we want to challenge the legitimacy of American democracy, voter disenfranchisement and the ongoing persistence of legal slavery are probably a better place to start.
It is unfortunate. People need to stop using the D word here.
Why would you want people to stop talking about disenfranchisement? States deciding to take the vote away from their citizens after they’ve been convicted is something we should absolutely be highlighting. You’ll even notice there’s a significant correlation between which states are consistently redder and which have greater rates of voter disenfranchisement.
Maybe what we need is clarification about what disenfranchisement is, because it’s not just people deciding not to vote. It’s people having their ability to vote taken away.
Agreed that we need to talk about this more. Say you get a ticket you can’t pay because your car broke down or you couldn’t miss work at your minimum wage job. You could be doing everything legally right and still have a warrant out for your arrest, get put through the “justice” system, and eventually lose your job, your livelihood, and be set up for recidivism. If you’re charged with a felony, or are locked up, you cannot exercise your right to vote. It’s so easy to be caught up in a cycle that systematically strips away your rights and ability to provide for yourself and your family.
Disenfranchisement is a broad and complex issue that is caused by policy choices and local/subjective policing of historically overburdened communities, like BIPOC/LGBTQ+/disabled peoples. I’m sure it’s also much more involved than I can speak to. And don’t get me started on how for-profit and private prisons everywhere essentially use slave labor to make money. With the Supreme Court effectively criminalizing homelessness, you’re getting more inmate labor on the way. I believe inmates should have access to education and federal minimum wage jobs so they have incentive to get out and contribute to society, and aren’t forced to start their lives over just to make ends meet. Especially for those that were locked up for low level crimes. It doesn’t make sense to damn someone to hell for small crimes and never allow them to get back on their feet.