Great conversation. Enlightening and informative. I'm less concerned about shenanigans *before* the election (still concerned, just... less) and more concerned about what happens after. Confiscating voting machines, 'finding' noncitizen voting, and inspiring another January 6th is entirely within the realm of possibility.
I'm in a uncontested district/state but plan to drive a state over on election day and help. Free and fair elections should not be a partisan issue.
This is a great discussion, and I don't disagree with anything that's touched on here. But I will say it didn't mention what I'd consider to be the most likely "major" election interference potential, which is the House and Senate refusing to swear in new members because Trump has speciously claimed election fraud and the GOP leadership says "well we have to get this sorted before we can seat the new Congress".
That's what we really avoided on January 6 because we had some people in the administration and GOP leadership who were unwilling to go down that road, but I'm not sure we do now. And while I have some faith that the American people would push back in this scenario, that doesn't mean it wouldn't truly fubar things in at least the medium term.
What makes this one worth worrying about is that Congress can point to their Article I, Sec. 5 power to "be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members". As would the case with, for example, court-packing, they'd be violating a peri-constitutional norm rather than the text of the Constitution itself.
True. But, the election has gotta be close, real close. Once State Certification is issued, it's tough. Nevertheless, the judiciary cannot review any result decided by Congress. That's it. So, yes. Mikey Johnson can challenge a House outcome. However, with such a small majority, that'll be tough. The bottom line is win, by a lot, in lots of elections.
Good point --- Pence was FURIOUS and certified the election as soon as they were bused back from that military base that very night of Jan. 6. Pelosi was furious, too. I was watching the whole day on TV because I had tuned in precisely to hear Tom Cruz' speech on why they SHOULD "sort out" (delay) certification, based on post-Civil War events with dueling bodies each claiming the right to represent a state. They cut off Tom Cruz in mid-speech and never resumed (talk about OBE, overtaken by events) with the news that a crowd of people were climbing the walls at the Capitol grounds!
I think a little historical perspective is in order here. For the century following the Civil War, US elections were obviously rigged--suppression by lynching, not asking for ID, and urban political machines voting dead people, not ballot harvesting. Everyone knew it.
Starting in the late 1960s we patched up some of the more obvious abuses and elections became fairer. But the old officials were not fired, they were just given new instructions. A few grudging technological improvements were made. But the system was still run by incumbent election officials, some of whom were running themselves, others whose career interests were closely tied to election results. The players and team staffs were refereeing the game.
What the interview refers to as "normal elections" are not an ideal to aspire to. The ideal is every eligible voter who wants to vote gets his or her vote recorded correctly, one voter, one vote. Non-partisan expert professionals might get us 90% of the way from say, the 1960 Presidential election, to the ideal. I'd say we're about 50% of the way, and it's not laziness that's keeping us there but political calculation. And Donald Trump is not some unique danger to a pure system, just the crudest recent practitioner of an ancient and universal political sport.
The news is not "Donald Trump is breaking the rules again and telling lies," but that almost everyone tolerates such a terrible election system and calls it "normal."
Wonderful post. It reminded me of Edgar Allen Poe in his alcoholic days at the end getting paid in liquor to go from poll to poll voting -------- until he ended passed out in a gutter and then died.
This was "cooping" — Baltimore in the 1840s and '50s was notorious for it. Gangs working for a candidate would grab men off the street, hold them in a room (the "coop"), get them drunk or beat them into compliance, then march them from polling place to polling place in different disguises and changes of clothes to vote multiple times. Voters were routinely given liquor as a reward. I hope nobody tells Donald Trump about it, it would likely appeal to him.
Poe was found delirious on October 3, 1849, outside Ryan's Tavern in Baltimore, which happened to be serving as the Fourth Ward polling place. He was wearing ill-fitting clothes that weren't his own, which is the detail that most strongly supports the cooping story, since Poe was famously a fastidious dresser. He never recovered enough to explain what had happened and died four days later at Washington College Hospital.
Although the cooping story is plausible, it wasn't published until 1872, more than two decades after Poe's death. The skeptical case: Poe was reasonably well-known in Baltimore and might have been too recognizable for the scam to work with him specifically. Competing theories include rabies, alcohol poisoning, a beating, carbon monoxide, even a brain tumor.
!! The hospital in question has a sign, or did last I saw, "Edgar Allen Poe died here." Which seemed to us a dubious advertisement for a hospital -----
All it takes is ONE vlogging camera; Minnesota proved that, at any polling place and you have real-time evidence of election tampering...if ICE were to start hassling/touching people in line, the Courts would step in. Tina Peters proved ya gotta stay away from voting machines. But, Doom Porn is endemic in today's on-line wasteland...just writing this makes me sick. But, hey, I'm on the back end of a two-leg parlay...I'll cross those voting bridges when I get there.
The two party system is archaic, undemocratic and has failed. Gerrymandering, single member districts, and plurality elections are all part of a failed system to elect state and federal officials. The Democratic leadership has been power hungry and run by insiders (formerly knows as party bosses or hacks). Massive changes are overdue and needed as social and economic conflicts and disasters loom. So what are some steps towards a better political process, especially noting that more people are registering as unaffiliated or independent.
1). Open primaries, at least semi-open primaries for Democrats. I don't think anything good is likely to be accepted by MAGA types. You can't fix crazy or stupid!
2) Ranked Choice Voting in primaries and general elections.
3) A practical voter registration and voting process that is a small step forward towards some verification of citizenship and identity. Mail in voting, early voting, and limited vote counting of late received ballots (say not more than five or seven days).
4) Some form of proportional voting, such as what Raskin proposed. Single member districts need to be limited to not more than 60% of the legislative seats, with the remaining seats "backfilled" to address proportional votes. Germany and a few other countries have a successful hybrid system that includes both direct election districts and proportional voting. Gerrymandering has to be dealt with as a blight on democracy.
5) No racial or religious quotas. Proportional systems would provide a adequate but limited aid if large population states would have a a few limited sub areas for proportional structures.
The key issue is the Democratic party leaders are power hungry and lost in the past. I don't expect too much from the party that selected Biden in 2024. Maine, Alaska, DC, NYC are proving examples of steps in the right direction. But excluding unaffiliated voters from Democratic primaries is simply undemocratic. (I am also a fan of term limits for legislators and judges, say 20 years max!)
And other pie-in-the-sky manifestos raging against The System.
Actual data indicate that (a) the Parties are not in fact powerful as insittutions - in fact the "reforms" based very much on this kind superficial thinking emptied them legally of real control over their own-brands (b) the voting structures that are baked in constitutionally generate two party equilibrium by their structure. This may be "bad" (or not) but unless one changes the Constitution, which very evidently is not happening, one has to live the reality as it actually is,.
The primaries nonsense you push are precisely the egghead elite class mistaking "if the populatoin were only just like me" as a goal (and of course any structural reform based on the current obsession of the moment, MAGA, is not something that is well considered.)
The "key issue" is the primary system is very poorly structured, a pseudo-democratic open gov empty-headedness that opens the door to narrow activist fractions - who structrally are the voters in off-season pre-elections to take over a party and as then the sheer weight of Party Brand, drags along the rest.
Neither Party has the since the 70s era naive idealist reforms real control over their brand. So we get Trump and of course it could happen to Democrats in a differing set of fact sets
Identification of actionable changes within the Constittutional system rather than Pie in the Sky naive idealised dreaming
Blather and nonsense. Gerrymandering has clearly been identified as a worsening problem. Closed primaries, with low turnout, give party insiders significant control over party picks, by the use of party funds and the tendency of many voters to be sheep. Money changes everything, whether you ask Cindy L or King Donald.
The reality that is is terrible. American parties select extremist candidates and the sheep follow. Unaffiliated voters get to vote the lesser of two evils. You should look at the stats that show the dramatic increase in unaffiliated voters. Change is gradual but has a reason and consequences.
Complacency in the face of painful reality changes nothing. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." Take a nap along with Sleepy Joe!
Look into the reality of Alaska's ranked choice voting with open primaries in the last six years. RCV and open primaries are within the federal Constitution.
"the tendency of many voters to be sheep." No use reading past that statement. Just one of the leftwing who suppose they are elite, probably not, though. As soon as you actually WIN an election, you'll stop calling the voters sheep and consider them wise persons with the good of the Republic firmly in mind. [Sigh}
Now sure, most people are sheep, or rather we are all a bunch of tribal Chimpies with delusions of grandeur, including those of who think others are sheep.
But that is really fundamentally my point - there is a strong structural tendency for political groupings to get into Teams (hell one can look back to the Romans, the Byzanitnes for this, and even sports teams to become political).
One can rail against this ... or accept we as humanity are what we are.
People below to religions because their ancestors "belonged." People belong to groups that their grandparents belonged to. Not because of any deep personal agreement or understanding, just because they were raised as followers. Politics are similar. Thinking is rare for most humans. We are mammals first, perhaps thinkers later if at all. It's not elitism, it's reality.
Critical thinking is rare and should not be confused with being critical without a depth of understanding of the issues. The so-called masses are not generally well educated - they don't have the luxury of good schools, teachers, or parents. It's easier to be a follower than an independent thinker. Choosing who to follow is the biggest choice that many people make. Choosing not to be a follower of fashion, sports teams, religions, racial thinking isn't easy. Few people think of the good of the many, vs what's in it for me. People who think and care about others beyond their immediate group are rare.
Well Gerrymander is a different problem isn't it - it's one about regulatoin
As for supposed Party Insiders control - See Trump. Trump is the very illustration of the complete inability of American parties insiders to actually genuinely control very much at all.
The contrary is the case, US Parties don't actually have very much own-control, nothing like what international situation
The heated imagination that "closed" primaries are the problem is the typical Politics Nerd mistaking themselves as general public.
Primaries structurally only attract a small fraction of interest.
Perhaps Alaska model is a consideration although Alaska is not a very typical state, but the delusion that primaries will get turnout by some magical level of interest.
As for Voters are Sheep - Voters are People
People are People, full of mental short-cuts, self-interest and generally short-termism. Such is humanity.
and People as ordinary humans are what they are, they're not the idealisations of intellectuals.
Humans are mammals and as such we are social creatures. Some few are leaders, most are followers. "Sheep" behavior is mammal behavior and has advantages to the herd ... sometimes. Not everyone in each herd can be lumped into one group, meaningfully. Even a casual reading of history demonstrates wide variations of groups of people, by race, religion, history, culture or education. Lumping all people in one bucket is...simple minded.
The Lying King is the insiders' choice. The insiders of the Republican party were formerly the Tea Party, but they overcame the "old guard" and selected their champion - the one and only King Donald. They have the money, they have their leader, they have benefited from their political MAGA focus. So, I think you are simply 100% wrong about party leaders. Sleepy Joe was the champion of the Democratic insiders, those with money and a history of control and power.
My point: each major political party is controlled by a group of politicians who see the benefits (power and financial) of their sub group. Peripheral members are disregarded. And Unaffiliated Voters are definitely not welcome. Except we are seeing a growing percentage of voters who are not enchanted with the political insiders group and want something else. Like a voice in primaries and more and better choices of candidates at the state and federal level.
It seems you have some anger or distaste for people who are educated. Anti-intellectualism has a long history. But it's nice to be able to read, write and think, at least occasionally.
I'm wondering whether there is too much focus on can Trump himself screw with the midterms and not enough on whether others can. For example, after Callais we discover that the secretary of state of Louisiana can declare an emergency and the governor can use that to cancel/delay the election. Both decisions are probably unreviewable even if we imagined courts would step in. Do these powers exist in other states? For example, could the same scenario happen in the general in say Ohio if it looks like Brown is going to win? If the result in Watson is what we expect, then the Ohio election just wouldn't happen because it could not just be delayed. The Governor could then call special elections for the House seats, maybe even in time to seat them in January, but would be able to appoint a Republican as senator.
The Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act yesterday April 29 seems to have thrown this interesting discussion up in the air. I'd love to see a numerical analysis (or as you like) of how this new situation may change the Midterm situation nationwide -- and also state by state, perhaps.
Leaving aside the mechanics, I think the insight of Dan Drezner from comparative Poli-Sci is informative on Trumpian "The Weakness and Incompetence of American Authoritarianism
The lessons of authoritarian attempts is that they need structurally to have underlying acquisence (popularity, intimidating wins), which thanks to Trumpian own-incompetence they self-undercut.
"It is extremely important for the Trump White House to present his brand of authoritarianism as inexorable and inevitable, precisely for the collective action reasons that Farrell (and I) have articulated this past year. The more that Trump can spin his actions — and the second and third-order effects of those actions — as successful and popular, the more he can deflate his political opposition."
Not to say one should dismiss the realistic scenarios, but I think Drezner is quite right on the comparative lessons in PS - to pull off actions a wanna be authoritiarians need to have some semi-broad appearance of popular support and not just with a hard-core fraction. We can be perhaps glad the incompetent bungling of the Iran War is making general incompetence painfully evident and the general approval rate on Pocket-Book issues is going into unplumbed depths territory.
Constantly laughing at / pointing out incompetence and failure are now very strategic - people don't put themselves on the line for bungling incompetence
Nice. Very informative. I like the conclusion that there's nothing to see here, move along. [:-) Good.
I don't think it's correct that the President can't call up a state's national guard: Trump just did that during the recent California riots in Los Angeles, without the cooperation of Newsom. Also the precedent was the National Guard called out over the governor's objection in Arkansas during desegregation, wasn't it? Or was that Alabama, with George Wallace? It's been done before, anyway.
Must have been Arkansas --- remember that Saturday Evening Post cover by Norman Rockwell? The soldiers, the little black girl dressed in her Sunday best.
This carry-on about Trump supposedly interfering with the Midterms reminds me of right after 9/11 when the same claim was made much less noisily (because: no Internet) about George Bush. Poor-loser Democrats, mad that Bush had won (more or less) and had his own war and everything. So Congress passed a Resolution that there would be an election, it wouldn't be called off, No Matter What. Seems silly now, but the country was a mess because of 9/11, anthrax, the war, terrorism, the new currency -- maybe it was good.
I don't think it's a good idea to set a law that the votes must come in by Election Day: what if California had The Big One and a third of the state fell into the sea, the usual scifi scenario? I can imagine an exception for disasters. Also, I agree that if there are riots again in Los Angeles or anywhere, that soldiers or police might have to be called to polling places --- I think that's a fairly realistic scenario, God forbid.
I liked the extensive analysis of why various demographics would be harmed or helped by a show-your-documents requirement for registration. Also the voting in person business --- Trump seems to have his own principles about these things that don't correspond to political need. My husband agrees with him about voting in person --- but we haven't for years, and his own poor mobility is why. Voting by mail is popular, and we jumped at it. But we're conservative, so go figure.
It's not as contradictory as you may think. You can return a mail-in ballot to a county-run ballot dropbox. And if you've never received your ballot, you can just cast a provisional ballot in person.
"And ,yes, it likely leads to a result that avoids the destructive outcome of any Democratic/leftist governance."
Be careful what you wish for. This is an untested hypothesis. The SAVE Act may be more favorable to Democrats given the lower friction the law affords to passport holders. Some states do not recognize old birth certificates and so many voters must request new certified copies printed on the latest security paper. The flaws with the SAVE Act is that it provides no transition period and no support to states to overcome their vital record backlogs. Moreover, if the Republicans get rid of the filibuster and then if the Democrats win a trifecta in 2028, all kinds of progressive policies that would have zero chance in a filibuster environment become viable. Is that a risk you're willing to take?
"A governance that destroys value, property rights and the US as a meritocracy."
This statement deserves qualification. If you really wanted to convince others, it would behoove you to be persuasive. So, how do you square the "destruction of value" with California being the 4th largest economy? What, in your opinion, prevented both DeSantis's Florida and Abbott's Texas from becoming the AI capital of the world? Does the administration's demand for a stake in dozens of private companies help or hinder property rights?
I am a substantial property tax payer in California and New York.
So I know full well about the ravages of leftist governance - so typified by excessive taxation , really wealth confiscation, for no real return in viable services or conscionable transfers.
California's current scale of its economy is all legacy , not attributable to leftist governance.
And why wouldn't Apple move to Texas? It would doing its employees a favor.
AI is not legacy. I'm not saying Texas does not have redeeming qualities, but the average property tax in Texas is more than twice that of California. So it might not be the best example.
Dr. Jerome Corsi says the Democrats have been stealing elections nationwide for years. "The vote cheating by Democrats is legion. I mean it’s rampant. You’ve got 29 states that refuse to turn over to the Department of Justice (DOJ) their state voter registration data bases because they know they are packed with people that don’t exist, illegal immigrants and dead people. These voter rolls are a disgrace.”How is the cheating done with inaccurate and fraudulent voter rolls? Dr. Corsi explains, “The voter rolls have algorithms in them that we have shown allow the creation of all these records that are false records. The records can be hidden in the data base and pulled out and used in mail-in ballot schemes. That’s what’s been happening, and it just happened in Virginia. The ballot was being taken on the redistricting, and when you watch it very carefully, the vote against redistricting was leading. Then, there were two bumps. Those bumps were the registration of mail-in ballots, and the vote favoring redistricting are ahead, and they stay ahead. Well, that’s not accidental. That is the voting of false records, and this is a pattern in order to cheat on the election, on the side of the Democrats’ favor. So, the President is going to have to put the National Guard in states that won’t cooperate.
The conspiracy theories listed on his wikipedia page are a riot. Birther, 9/11 truther, thinks Hitler didn't actually die at the end of WWII. He also apparently lives near some of my family who are big into the InfoWars type stuff, so maybe there's something in the water in NJ.
I'm a liberal and I hate mail in. It's not secret, so vulnerable voters could be forced into voting for someone. There's also disenfranchisement. Voters who move don't get their ballots unless they reregister. Renters move more often. Our ancestors fought for these rights and they've been given away.
Can you make an argument against decentralization of the electoral process? Why do you think the founders intended for the states to be the primary administrators of elections, and not the executive branch of the federal government? Do you see any downsides to a centralized federal election system administered by a political branch answerable to a single elected person? Do you think the president placing the National Guard at the polls might have detrimental consequences if a very left-wing person were President?
Great conversation. Enlightening and informative. I'm less concerned about shenanigans *before* the election (still concerned, just... less) and more concerned about what happens after. Confiscating voting machines, 'finding' noncitizen voting, and inspiring another January 6th is entirely within the realm of possibility.
I'm in a uncontested district/state but plan to drive a state over on election day and help. Free and fair elections should not be a partisan issue.
This is a great discussion, and I don't disagree with anything that's touched on here. But I will say it didn't mention what I'd consider to be the most likely "major" election interference potential, which is the House and Senate refusing to swear in new members because Trump has speciously claimed election fraud and the GOP leadership says "well we have to get this sorted before we can seat the new Congress".
That's what we really avoided on January 6 because we had some people in the administration and GOP leadership who were unwilling to go down that road, but I'm not sure we do now. And while I have some faith that the American people would push back in this scenario, that doesn't mean it wouldn't truly fubar things in at least the medium term.
What makes this one worth worrying about is that Congress can point to their Article I, Sec. 5 power to "be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members". As would the case with, for example, court-packing, they'd be violating a peri-constitutional norm rather than the text of the Constitution itself.
True. But, the election has gotta be close, real close. Once State Certification is issued, it's tough. Nevertheless, the judiciary cannot review any result decided by Congress. That's it. So, yes. Mikey Johnson can challenge a House outcome. However, with such a small majority, that'll be tough. The bottom line is win, by a lot, in lots of elections.
Good point --- Pence was FURIOUS and certified the election as soon as they were bused back from that military base that very night of Jan. 6. Pelosi was furious, too. I was watching the whole day on TV because I had tuned in precisely to hear Tom Cruz' speech on why they SHOULD "sort out" (delay) certification, based on post-Civil War events with dueling bodies each claiming the right to represent a state. They cut off Tom Cruz in mid-speech and never resumed (talk about OBE, overtaken by events) with the news that a crowd of people were climbing the walls at the Capitol grounds!
Great article! This is the kind of content i subscribe for.
I think a little historical perspective is in order here. For the century following the Civil War, US elections were obviously rigged--suppression by lynching, not asking for ID, and urban political machines voting dead people, not ballot harvesting. Everyone knew it.
Starting in the late 1960s we patched up some of the more obvious abuses and elections became fairer. But the old officials were not fired, they were just given new instructions. A few grudging technological improvements were made. But the system was still run by incumbent election officials, some of whom were running themselves, others whose career interests were closely tied to election results. The players and team staffs were refereeing the game.
What the interview refers to as "normal elections" are not an ideal to aspire to. The ideal is every eligible voter who wants to vote gets his or her vote recorded correctly, one voter, one vote. Non-partisan expert professionals might get us 90% of the way from say, the 1960 Presidential election, to the ideal. I'd say we're about 50% of the way, and it's not laziness that's keeping us there but political calculation. And Donald Trump is not some unique danger to a pure system, just the crudest recent practitioner of an ancient and universal political sport.
The news is not "Donald Trump is breaking the rules again and telling lies," but that almost everyone tolerates such a terrible election system and calls it "normal."
Wonderful post. It reminded me of Edgar Allen Poe in his alcoholic days at the end getting paid in liquor to go from poll to poll voting -------- until he ended passed out in a gutter and then died.
Thank you for the kind words!
This was "cooping" — Baltimore in the 1840s and '50s was notorious for it. Gangs working for a candidate would grab men off the street, hold them in a room (the "coop"), get them drunk or beat them into compliance, then march them from polling place to polling place in different disguises and changes of clothes to vote multiple times. Voters were routinely given liquor as a reward. I hope nobody tells Donald Trump about it, it would likely appeal to him.
Poe was found delirious on October 3, 1849, outside Ryan's Tavern in Baltimore, which happened to be serving as the Fourth Ward polling place. He was wearing ill-fitting clothes that weren't his own, which is the detail that most strongly supports the cooping story, since Poe was famously a fastidious dresser. He never recovered enough to explain what had happened and died four days later at Washington College Hospital.
Although the cooping story is plausible, it wasn't published until 1872, more than two decades after Poe's death. The skeptical case: Poe was reasonably well-known in Baltimore and might have been too recognizable for the scam to work with him specifically. Competing theories include rabies, alcohol poisoning, a beating, carbon monoxide, even a brain tumor.
!! The hospital in question has a sign, or did last I saw, "Edgar Allen Poe died here." Which seemed to us a dubious advertisement for a hospital -----
Great story.
All it takes is ONE vlogging camera; Minnesota proved that, at any polling place and you have real-time evidence of election tampering...if ICE were to start hassling/touching people in line, the Courts would step in. Tina Peters proved ya gotta stay away from voting machines. But, Doom Porn is endemic in today's on-line wasteland...just writing this makes me sick. But, hey, I'm on the back end of a two-leg parlay...I'll cross those voting bridges when I get there.
The two party system is archaic, undemocratic and has failed. Gerrymandering, single member districts, and plurality elections are all part of a failed system to elect state and federal officials. The Democratic leadership has been power hungry and run by insiders (formerly knows as party bosses or hacks). Massive changes are overdue and needed as social and economic conflicts and disasters loom. So what are some steps towards a better political process, especially noting that more people are registering as unaffiliated or independent.
1). Open primaries, at least semi-open primaries for Democrats. I don't think anything good is likely to be accepted by MAGA types. You can't fix crazy or stupid!
2) Ranked Choice Voting in primaries and general elections.
3) A practical voter registration and voting process that is a small step forward towards some verification of citizenship and identity. Mail in voting, early voting, and limited vote counting of late received ballots (say not more than five or seven days).
4) Some form of proportional voting, such as what Raskin proposed. Single member districts need to be limited to not more than 60% of the legislative seats, with the remaining seats "backfilled" to address proportional votes. Germany and a few other countries have a successful hybrid system that includes both direct election districts and proportional voting. Gerrymandering has to be dealt with as a blight on democracy.
5) No racial or religious quotas. Proportional systems would provide a adequate but limited aid if large population states would have a a few limited sub areas for proportional structures.
The key issue is the Democratic party leaders are power hungry and lost in the past. I don't expect too much from the party that selected Biden in 2024. Maine, Alaska, DC, NYC are proving examples of steps in the right direction. But excluding unaffiliated voters from Democratic primaries is simply undemocratic. (I am also a fan of term limits for legislators and judges, say 20 years max!)
And other pie-in-the-sky manifestos raging against The System.
Actual data indicate that (a) the Parties are not in fact powerful as insittutions - in fact the "reforms" based very much on this kind superficial thinking emptied them legally of real control over their own-brands (b) the voting structures that are baked in constitutionally generate two party equilibrium by their structure. This may be "bad" (or not) but unless one changes the Constitution, which very evidently is not happening, one has to live the reality as it actually is,.
The primaries nonsense you push are precisely the egghead elite class mistaking "if the populatoin were only just like me" as a goal (and of course any structural reform based on the current obsession of the moment, MAGA, is not something that is well considered.)
The "key issue" is the primary system is very poorly structured, a pseudo-democratic open gov empty-headedness that opens the door to narrow activist fractions - who structrally are the voters in off-season pre-elections to take over a party and as then the sheer weight of Party Brand, drags along the rest.
Neither Party has the since the 70s era naive idealist reforms real control over their brand. So we get Trump and of course it could happen to Democrats in a differing set of fact sets
Identification of actionable changes within the Constittutional system rather than Pie in the Sky naive idealised dreaming
Blather and nonsense. Gerrymandering has clearly been identified as a worsening problem. Closed primaries, with low turnout, give party insiders significant control over party picks, by the use of party funds and the tendency of many voters to be sheep. Money changes everything, whether you ask Cindy L or King Donald.
The reality that is is terrible. American parties select extremist candidates and the sheep follow. Unaffiliated voters get to vote the lesser of two evils. You should look at the stats that show the dramatic increase in unaffiliated voters. Change is gradual but has a reason and consequences.
Complacency in the face of painful reality changes nothing. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." Take a nap along with Sleepy Joe!
Look into the reality of Alaska's ranked choice voting with open primaries in the last six years. RCV and open primaries are within the federal Constitution.
"the tendency of many voters to be sheep." No use reading past that statement. Just one of the leftwing who suppose they are elite, probably not, though. As soon as you actually WIN an election, you'll stop calling the voters sheep and consider them wise persons with the good of the Republic firmly in mind. [Sigh}
Well...
It is reflecting fundamentally sterile elitism.
Now sure, most people are sheep, or rather we are all a bunch of tribal Chimpies with delusions of grandeur, including those of who think others are sheep.
But that is really fundamentally my point - there is a strong structural tendency for political groupings to get into Teams (hell one can look back to the Romans, the Byzanitnes for this, and even sports teams to become political).
One can rail against this ... or accept we as humanity are what we are.
People below to religions because their ancestors "belonged." People belong to groups that their grandparents belonged to. Not because of any deep personal agreement or understanding, just because they were raised as followers. Politics are similar. Thinking is rare for most humans. We are mammals first, perhaps thinkers later if at all. It's not elitism, it's reality.
Critical thinking is rare and should not be confused with being critical without a depth of understanding of the issues. The so-called masses are not generally well educated - they don't have the luxury of good schools, teachers, or parents. It's easier to be a follower than an independent thinker. Choosing who to follow is the biggest choice that many people make. Choosing not to be a follower of fashion, sports teams, religions, racial thinking isn't easy. Few people think of the good of the many, vs what's in it for me. People who think and care about others beyond their immediate group are rare.
Well Gerrymander is a different problem isn't it - it's one about regulatoin
As for supposed Party Insiders control - See Trump. Trump is the very illustration of the complete inability of American parties insiders to actually genuinely control very much at all.
The contrary is the case, US Parties don't actually have very much own-control, nothing like what international situation
The heated imagination that "closed" primaries are the problem is the typical Politics Nerd mistaking themselves as general public.
Primaries structurally only attract a small fraction of interest.
Perhaps Alaska model is a consideration although Alaska is not a very typical state, but the delusion that primaries will get turnout by some magical level of interest.
As for Voters are Sheep - Voters are People
People are People, full of mental short-cuts, self-interest and generally short-termism. Such is humanity.
and People as ordinary humans are what they are, they're not the idealisations of intellectuals.
Humans are mammals and as such we are social creatures. Some few are leaders, most are followers. "Sheep" behavior is mammal behavior and has advantages to the herd ... sometimes. Not everyone in each herd can be lumped into one group, meaningfully. Even a casual reading of history demonstrates wide variations of groups of people, by race, religion, history, culture or education. Lumping all people in one bucket is...simple minded.
The Lying King is the insiders' choice. The insiders of the Republican party were formerly the Tea Party, but they overcame the "old guard" and selected their champion - the one and only King Donald. They have the money, they have their leader, they have benefited from their political MAGA focus. So, I think you are simply 100% wrong about party leaders. Sleepy Joe was the champion of the Democratic insiders, those with money and a history of control and power.
My point: each major political party is controlled by a group of politicians who see the benefits (power and financial) of their sub group. Peripheral members are disregarded. And Unaffiliated Voters are definitely not welcome. Except we are seeing a growing percentage of voters who are not enchanted with the political insiders group and want something else. Like a voice in primaries and more and better choices of candidates at the state and federal level.
It seems you have some anger or distaste for people who are educated. Anti-intellectualism has a long history. But it's nice to be able to read, write and think, at least occasionally.
I'm wondering whether there is too much focus on can Trump himself screw with the midterms and not enough on whether others can. For example, after Callais we discover that the secretary of state of Louisiana can declare an emergency and the governor can use that to cancel/delay the election. Both decisions are probably unreviewable even if we imagined courts would step in. Do these powers exist in other states? For example, could the same scenario happen in the general in say Ohio if it looks like Brown is going to win? If the result in Watson is what we expect, then the Ohio election just wouldn't happen because it could not just be delayed. The Governor could then call special elections for the House seats, maybe even in time to seat them in January, but would be able to appoint a Republican as senator.
The Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act yesterday April 29 seems to have thrown this interesting discussion up in the air. I'd love to see a numerical analysis (or as you like) of how this new situation may change the Midterm situation nationwide -- and also state by state, perhaps.
Leaving aside the mechanics, I think the insight of Dan Drezner from comparative Poli-Sci is informative on Trumpian "The Weakness and Incompetence of American Authoritarianism
And why it needs to be continually highlighted." wanna-be authoritarianism: https://danieldrezner.substack.com/p/the-weakness-and-incompetence-of
The lessons of authoritarian attempts is that they need structurally to have underlying acquisence (popularity, intimidating wins), which thanks to Trumpian own-incompetence they self-undercut.
"It is extremely important for the Trump White House to present his brand of authoritarianism as inexorable and inevitable, precisely for the collective action reasons that Farrell (and I) have articulated this past year. The more that Trump can spin his actions — and the second and third-order effects of those actions — as successful and popular, the more he can deflate his political opposition."
Not to say one should dismiss the realistic scenarios, but I think Drezner is quite right on the comparative lessons in PS - to pull off actions a wanna be authoritiarians need to have some semi-broad appearance of popular support and not just with a hard-core fraction. We can be perhaps glad the incompetent bungling of the Iran War is making general incompetence painfully evident and the general approval rate on Pocket-Book issues is going into unplumbed depths territory.
Constantly laughing at / pointing out incompetence and failure are now very strategic - people don't put themselves on the line for bungling incompetence
Nice. Very informative. I like the conclusion that there's nothing to see here, move along. [:-) Good.
I don't think it's correct that the President can't call up a state's national guard: Trump just did that during the recent California riots in Los Angeles, without the cooperation of Newsom. Also the precedent was the National Guard called out over the governor's objection in Arkansas during desegregation, wasn't it? Or was that Alabama, with George Wallace? It's been done before, anyway.
Must have been Arkansas --- remember that Saturday Evening Post cover by Norman Rockwell? The soldiers, the little black girl dressed in her Sunday best.
This carry-on about Trump supposedly interfering with the Midterms reminds me of right after 9/11 when the same claim was made much less noisily (because: no Internet) about George Bush. Poor-loser Democrats, mad that Bush had won (more or less) and had his own war and everything. So Congress passed a Resolution that there would be an election, it wouldn't be called off, No Matter What. Seems silly now, but the country was a mess because of 9/11, anthrax, the war, terrorism, the new currency -- maybe it was good.
I don't think it's a good idea to set a law that the votes must come in by Election Day: what if California had The Big One and a third of the state fell into the sea, the usual scifi scenario? I can imagine an exception for disasters. Also, I agree that if there are riots again in Los Angeles or anywhere, that soldiers or police might have to be called to polling places --- I think that's a fairly realistic scenario, God forbid.
I liked the extensive analysis of why various demographics would be harmed or helped by a show-your-documents requirement for registration. Also the voting in person business --- Trump seems to have his own principles about these things that don't correspond to political need. My husband agrees with him about voting in person --- but we haven't for years, and his own poor mobility is why. Voting by mail is popular, and we jumped at it. But we're conservative, so go figure.
I don't understand Dems who are afraid that Trump and MAGA judges will screw with mail in ballots but still insist on voting that way
It's not as contradictory as you may think. You can return a mail-in ballot to a county-run ballot dropbox. And if you've never received your ballot, you can just cast a provisional ballot in person.
Screw up?
End the filibuster, pass the SAVE Act, create electoral credibility again.
That is not "screwing up" it creating validation to the electoral process.
And ,yes, it likely leads to a result that avoids the destructive outcome of any Democratic/leftist governance.
A governance that destroys value, property rights and the US as a meritocracy.
Can you simple concede?
"And ,yes, it likely leads to a result that avoids the destructive outcome of any Democratic/leftist governance."
Be careful what you wish for. This is an untested hypothesis. The SAVE Act may be more favorable to Democrats given the lower friction the law affords to passport holders. Some states do not recognize old birth certificates and so many voters must request new certified copies printed on the latest security paper. The flaws with the SAVE Act is that it provides no transition period and no support to states to overcome their vital record backlogs. Moreover, if the Republicans get rid of the filibuster and then if the Democrats win a trifecta in 2028, all kinds of progressive policies that would have zero chance in a filibuster environment become viable. Is that a risk you're willing to take?
"A governance that destroys value, property rights and the US as a meritocracy."
This statement deserves qualification. If you really wanted to convince others, it would behoove you to be persuasive. So, how do you square the "destruction of value" with California being the 4th largest economy? What, in your opinion, prevented both DeSantis's Florida and Abbott's Texas from becoming the AI capital of the world? Does the administration's demand for a stake in dozens of private companies help or hinder property rights?
I am a substantial property tax payer in California and New York.
So I know full well about the ravages of leftist governance - so typified by excessive taxation , really wealth confiscation, for no real return in viable services or conscionable transfers.
California's current scale of its economy is all legacy , not attributable to leftist governance.
And why wouldn't Apple move to Texas? It would doing its employees a favor.
AI is not legacy. I'm not saying Texas does not have redeeming qualities, but the average property tax in Texas is more than twice that of California. So it might not be the best example.
Not true at the margin
And the "at the margin" is all that matters
Dr. Jerome Corsi says the Democrats have been stealing elections nationwide for years. "The vote cheating by Democrats is legion. I mean it’s rampant. You’ve got 29 states that refuse to turn over to the Department of Justice (DOJ) their state voter registration data bases because they know they are packed with people that don’t exist, illegal immigrants and dead people. These voter rolls are a disgrace.”How is the cheating done with inaccurate and fraudulent voter rolls? Dr. Corsi explains, “The voter rolls have algorithms in them that we have shown allow the creation of all these records that are false records. The records can be hidden in the data base and pulled out and used in mail-in ballot schemes. That’s what’s been happening, and it just happened in Virginia. The ballot was being taken on the redistricting, and when you watch it very carefully, the vote against redistricting was leading. Then, there were two bumps. Those bumps were the registration of mail-in ballots, and the vote favoring redistricting are ahead, and they stay ahead. Well, that’s not accidental. That is the voting of false records, and this is a pattern in order to cheat on the election, on the side of the Democrats’ favor. So, the President is going to have to put the National Guard in states that won’t cooperate.
Well if Dr. Jerome Corsi says it it must be true
The conspiracy theories listed on his wikipedia page are a riot. Birther, 9/11 truther, thinks Hitler didn't actually die at the end of WWII. He also apparently lives near some of my family who are big into the InfoWars type stuff, so maybe there's something in the water in NJ.
I'm a liberal and I hate mail in. It's not secret, so vulnerable voters could be forced into voting for someone. There's also disenfranchisement. Voters who move don't get their ballots unless they reregister. Renters move more often. Our ancestors fought for these rights and they've been given away.
Can you make an argument against decentralization of the electoral process? Why do you think the founders intended for the states to be the primary administrators of elections, and not the executive branch of the federal government? Do you see any downsides to a centralized federal election system administered by a political branch answerable to a single elected person? Do you think the president placing the National Guard at the polls might have detrimental consequences if a very left-wing person were President?