Poll: Most Americans feel democracy is in danger and under attack in US(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Poll: Most Americans feel democracy is in danger and under attack in US
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/15/politics/cnn-poll-most-americans-democracy-under-attack/index.html
55 comments
Alternate headline... "56% of Americans are dillusional"
What is delusional?
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that says that states have zero requirement to follow their citizens wishes and that the ruling legislators can cast that states electoral votes any way they want, without any consequence.
Minority Republican (or Democrat) Governor in a state that votes (even overwhelmingly) Democrat (or Republican)? Eh, no matter. "My state is giving all our votes to the Republican (or Democrat) candidate in the Electoral College."
And the current Supreme Court has all but telegraphed that it will rule in favor of the state, saying that that Governor is perfectly allowed to do so.
> The Elections Clause delegates to states the power to regulate federal elections while giving Congress the overriding authority to make or alter such laws. Proponents of the independent state legislature theory — like the gerrymanderers — read the Elections Clause to give state legislators near-exclusive authority to regulate federal elections, prohibiting any other state entity — like state courts or governors — from placing checks and balances on that power. In this case, the gerrymanderers are arguing that the theory licenses them to violate the state constitution when drawing congressional maps and that the state courts do not have the power to stop them.
The immediate issue in Moore is whether the state legislators’ extreme partisan gerrymander will stand in North Carolina. But adopting the independent state legislature theory would also mean that voters across the country have no judicial remedy — in state court or in federal court — to fight partisan gerrymandering.
The potential consequences could stretch still further. The theory would throw elections into chaos, nullifying hundreds of election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. State lawmakers would be able to adopt vote suppression legislation without any checks or balances from state courts or even gubernatorial veto. In other words, the theory would upend key aspects of our elections.
The current Supreme Court has also stated, in explicit and specific terms ("erroneous decisions in need of correction"), that if given a case on gay marriage, it will remove that as a right, that if given a case banning birth control in a state, it will allow that, and that basic privacy concerns are null and moot.
Tell me more about that delusion.
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that says that states have zero requirement to follow their citizens wishes and that the ruling legislators can cast that states electoral votes any way they want, without any consequence.
Minority Republican (or Democrat) Governor in a state that votes (even overwhelmingly) Democrat (or Republican)? Eh, no matter. "My state is giving all our votes to the Republican (or Democrat) candidate in the Electoral College."
And the current Supreme Court has all but telegraphed that it will rule in favor of the state, saying that that Governor is perfectly allowed to do so.
> The Elections Clause delegates to states the power to regulate federal elections while giving Congress the overriding authority to make or alter such laws. Proponents of the independent state legislature theory — like the gerrymanderers — read the Elections Clause to give state legislators near-exclusive authority to regulate federal elections, prohibiting any other state entity — like state courts or governors — from placing checks and balances on that power. In this case, the gerrymanderers are arguing that the theory licenses them to violate the state constitution when drawing congressional maps and that the state courts do not have the power to stop them.
The immediate issue in Moore is whether the state legislators’ extreme partisan gerrymander will stand in North Carolina. But adopting the independent state legislature theory would also mean that voters across the country have no judicial remedy — in state court or in federal court — to fight partisan gerrymandering.
The potential consequences could stretch still further. The theory would throw elections into chaos, nullifying hundreds of election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. State lawmakers would be able to adopt vote suppression legislation without any checks or balances from state courts or even gubernatorial veto. In other words, the theory would upend key aspects of our elections.
The current Supreme Court has also stated, in explicit and specific terms ("erroneous decisions in need of correction"), that if given a case on gay marriage, it will remove that as a right, that if given a case banning birth control in a state, it will allow that, and that basic privacy concerns are null and moot.
Tell me more about that delusion.
Isn't this an assumption of the "popular vote compact" that has been enacted in some of the leftist states? They would send their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote without regard to what the people in the state voted. The legality of this compact requires that states be able to override the wishes of their population in any given vote and assign electors based on other criteria.
Can the people pass a constitutional amendment to forbid that compact, and sue in the state court to overturn it? That is the right under attack.
[deleted]
"States rights for my pet causes, not for thine!" is one of the remarkably consistent principles one finds in US politics. Annoyingly. We'd be a lot better off if things were put back to the states.
Electoral Votes serve State Sovereignty, as designed.
The Electoral Compacts REMOVE states rights, Liberal States disregard their Citizens' Electoral Votes.
The Electoral Compacts REMOVE states rights, Liberal States disregard their Citizens' Electoral Votes.
One of these rulings would state that the state could gerrymander as it liked, and that there is no body that is allowed oversight, no remedies that can be sought.
For a "ridiculous" but perfectly legal example in this case, NC could create an electoral district that comprised the governor's home, and his brother's, who lives next door. And say that that is the entirety of the electoral district, and that that district's voting will determine the votes of the Electoral College for that state.
Try to spin that as being designed behavior.
For a "ridiculous" but perfectly legal example in this case, NC could create an electoral district that comprised the governor's home, and his brother's, who lives next door. And say that that is the entirety of the electoral district, and that that district's voting will determine the votes of the Electoral College for that state.
Try to spin that as being designed behavior.
[deleted]
So is the other extreme more palatable to you? That the legislature can gerrymander however it so wishes, and state that there is -zero- avenue of appeal in any setting?
Ah, the other extreme. The alternative extrema we can visit since we got bored of this extreme, and in the whole of this universe there exist only these two opposite extreme choices.
Sad!
Not a matter of getting bored with anything. That extreme will be the literal and actual outcome if the SC rules in favor of the state. NC's contention is exactly that: "to violate the state constitution when drawing congressional maps and that the state courts do not have the power to stop them". And further, that that theory extends to all other state election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. That the legislature can change any or all of these without referendum, without ballot, without vetoability, and without review in court, state or federal.
So yeah, that extreme. Because it is extreme.
So yeah, that extreme. Because it is extreme.
> The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that says that states have zero requirement to follow their citizens wishes and that the ruling executive can cast that states electoral votes any way they want, without any consequence.
Yes, they are. Good thing, too. We need a clear ruling that this kind of nonsense is illegal before 2024.
In fact, I think the Supreme Court is violating normal rules to take this case. Normally, they only will take a case after the actions have occurred, rather than rule on a hypothetical. This one is likely enough under current circumstances that they went ahead and took it.
> And the current Supreme Court has all but telegraphed that it will rule in favor of the state, saying that that Governor is perfectly allowed to do so.
That's where I'm calling BS. One, I've not seen anything that indicates that they have telegraphed any such thing. Two, even legal experts routinely are wrong when they say which way the court is "leaning".
Yes, they are. Good thing, too. We need a clear ruling that this kind of nonsense is illegal before 2024.
In fact, I think the Supreme Court is violating normal rules to take this case. Normally, they only will take a case after the actions have occurred, rather than rule on a hypothetical. This one is likely enough under current circumstances that they went ahead and took it.
> And the current Supreme Court has all but telegraphed that it will rule in favor of the state, saying that that Governor is perfectly allowed to do so.
That's where I'm calling BS. One, I've not seen anything that indicates that they have telegraphed any such thing. Two, even legal experts routinely are wrong when they say which way the court is "leaning".
> That's where I'm calling BS. One, I've not seen anything that indicates that they have telegraphed any such thing
Maybe telegraphed is a strong word. That being said, the "independent state legislature" theory is one strongly evangelized by the Federalist Society. Six of the nine Justices are or were members, and several have only ever voted consistently with the Federalist Society's stated positions. I think there's a real risk there.
Maybe telegraphed is a strong word. That being said, the "independent state legislature" theory is one strongly evangelized by the Federalist Society. Six of the nine Justices are or were members, and several have only ever voted consistently with the Federalist Society's stated positions. I think there's a real risk there.
> several have only ever voted consistently with the Federalist Society's stated positions.
Yeah, I'm calling BS on that claim, too.
Yeah, I'm calling BS on that claim, too.
Clarence Thomas has only ruled in an originalist manner on the constitutional cases he has heard.
Likewise, Alito and Gorsuch. The only deviation from this that I could locate was in Citizens United. Alito talked of "practical originalism" as opposed to textbook.
But if you can name cases where at least those three have significantly deviated from the Federalist Society, please do.
Likewise, Alito and Gorsuch. The only deviation from this that I could locate was in Citizens United. Alito talked of "practical originalism" as opposed to textbook.
But if you can name cases where at least those three have significantly deviated from the Federalist Society, please do.
Do you define the Federalist Society position as only originalism? Is the "independent state legislature" position purely justified on the grounds of originalism, or is there more to it than that?
I mean, you could justify no vote for women on "originalism", too. So I think that saying "Thomas only rules in an originalist manner" is too simplistic. Yes, he clearly bases his reasoning on originalism. But you can use originalism to justify many things, not all of which Thomas supports.
Post 17th Amendment, I'm not sure you can build a valid originalist argument for independent state legislature appointment of electors.
I mean, you could justify no vote for women on "originalism", too. So I think that saying "Thomas only rules in an originalist manner" is too simplistic. Yes, he clearly bases his reasoning on originalism. But you can use originalism to justify many things, not all of which Thomas supports.
Post 17th Amendment, I'm not sure you can build a valid originalist argument for independent state legislature appointment of electors.
Removed since parent comment was drastically changed.
"judges can't require the legislature to follow the state constitution" and "the legislature doesn't have to follow the state constitution" are functionally equivalent.
Ubi jus ibi remedium. If you have no remedy in the event your right is violated you have no right.
Ubi jus ibi remedium. If you have no remedy in the event your right is violated you have no right.
I can't see how it's more democratic to remove any oversight or avenue of appeal in any setting to arbitrary decisions.
>Minority Republican (or Democrat) Governor in a state that votes (even overwhelmingly) Democrat (or Republican)?
This is impossible, unless the majority voters haven't been bothering to vote. The gubernatorial race is open to everyone in the state, and everyone's vote is equal (it's not like the legislature), so the governor reflects the popular will of the state.
This is impossible, unless the majority voters haven't been bothering to vote. The gubernatorial race is open to everyone in the state, and everyone's vote is equal (it's not like the legislature), so the governor reflects the popular will of the state.
I wonder what percentage of Americans don’t know how to spell “delusional.”
Selecton bias to scare up some last minute votes
The vast majority of Americans are pretty happy with their local set of laws and politicians. How much better would politics be if we collectively focused only on issues that affect our jurisdiction?
I sometimes wonder if it would really be that bad to revert to the original system defined in the constitution - vastly increase the number of representatives, and make the senate and presidency appointed positions.
It seems like it would undercut a lot of the lowest-common-denominator populist rhetoric.
I sometimes wonder if it would really be that bad to revert to the original system defined in the constitution - vastly increase the number of representatives, and make the senate and presidency appointed positions.
It seems like it would undercut a lot of the lowest-common-denominator populist rhetoric.
Appointing senators didn't work because it became a corrupt office you could purchase.
In a world where gerrymandering is scientifically practiced, state-wide federal elections are some of the few where democracy is actually practiced. Reverting senators to being appointed is just removing what few levers of accountability currently exist in the federal system.
In a world where gerrymandering is scientifically practiced, state-wide federal elections are some of the few where democracy is actually practiced. Reverting senators to being appointed is just removing what few levers of accountability currently exist in the federal system.
> In a world where gerrymandering is scientifically practiced […]
And the official policy of at least one political party:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
And the official policy of at least one political party:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
My biggest complaint about society is housing costs. That's bigger than just my jurisdiction, but affects my jurisdiction so I guess I should care about it?
Recently I got into a political argument with family. They started it by talking about a school district policy in a school district 2,000 miles away. Things were said I wanted to challenge and so I got involved in the argument. Only afterwards did I realize how strange it was for us to be arguing about the policies of a high school 2,000 miles away. So you're right in that regard, most of what we think and argue about is far from our sphere.
I decided in any future arguments like that I want to clearly establish whether we're arguing over a general principle or specifics. Otherwise it's too easy for the conversation to wander between the two. And again, I'm not concerned about the specifics of some distant state, though I may have beliefs about general principles.
Recently I got into a political argument with family. They started it by talking about a school district policy in a school district 2,000 miles away. Things were said I wanted to challenge and so I got involved in the argument. Only afterwards did I realize how strange it was for us to be arguing about the policies of a high school 2,000 miles away. So you're right in that regard, most of what we think and argue about is far from our sphere.
I decided in any future arguments like that I want to clearly establish whether we're arguing over a general principle or specifics. Otherwise it's too easy for the conversation to wander between the two. And again, I'm not concerned about the specifics of some distant state, though I may have beliefs about general principles.
[deleted]
The Senate and the Electoral College are a basic part of the problem here. For example, Los Angeles County alone has a greater population than entire states but gets a fraction of the proportional representation of Rhode Island.
As it should. The problems that affect LA County are vastly different than RI - we should never cater the Federal to local aims. That was the original understanding... the most ubiquitous should be discussed at the federal level, not the mundane. Identity politics made everything ubiquitous to everyone - which ruined the whole lot - now we are eating ourselves from the inside out.
> The problems that affect LA County are vastly different than RI - we should never cater the Federal to local aims
Except now it's reversed: RI - with a fraction of citizens of LA county - is catering Federal to local aims.
Not sure how identity politics ruined the electoral college but go off.
Except now it's reversed: RI - with a fraction of citizens of LA county - is catering Federal to local aims.
Not sure how identity politics ruined the electoral college but go off.
The things we federally legislate + judicature, which now affects what we see as the things we execute - that has a feedback loop into the L + J - are not what we should discuss at the federal level - i.e. everyone's 'problems' with the electoral college having too much influence... yes, exactly, the worry is about things that shouldn't matter - that's the design, don't discuss stupid things up in the power centers.
[Edit] Identity politics is the 'cheater' in the US government prisoners dilemma. Now everyone cheats, and we get less utility out of the system.
[Edit] Identity politics is the 'cheater' in the US government prisoners dilemma. Now everyone cheats, and we get less utility out of the system.
The original understanding was wrong, and federal governments are wrong and should be abolished. A unitary government is better for democracy. People shouldn't lose representation just because they live in a place with more people than another place.
So this future is only possible if technology creates extremely tight vote loops -> or in the abstract, technology enables greater representation. The Federal Government basically admits that the unitary policy is not the global, or Pareto, optimum - this analysis was made when votes took orders of magnitude more effort to produce and tabulate, does that thesis need to be revisited?? I think so, or at least re-affirmed what deserves to be at the National level vs. the state.
I think that would be less important though in a world where national politics took second stage.
Senators on paper are only a procedural body. Their ability to jam up legislation in the current era has largely been a function of their need to draw votes.
Senators on paper are only a procedural body. Their ability to jam up legislation in the current era has largely been a function of their need to draw votes.
Yes. Get rid of all divisions. Move everything in to single central government. With representatives voted in in single proportional pool. The x hundred top vote winners get elected. Remove all levels below single central government run in Washington DC...
In other reporting of this, it was noted that voters of the two parties feel this for different reasons.
Republicans think democracy is under threat because Joe Biden allegedly stole the election.
Democrats think democracy is under threat because of January 6 and Trump's thing about "fake" electors, or calling the Georgia governor to change vote totals, or that many state candidates for Secretary of State are pledging to enact or repeat the above.
So even if most Americans feel "democracy is in danger", each side's proposed solutions would be incompatible with the other.
Republicans think democracy is under threat because Joe Biden allegedly stole the election.
Democrats think democracy is under threat because of January 6 and Trump's thing about "fake" electors, or calling the Georgia governor to change vote totals, or that many state candidates for Secretary of State are pledging to enact or repeat the above.
So even if most Americans feel "democracy is in danger", each side's proposed solutions would be incompatible with the other.
lost_tourist(1)
[deleted]
Well, since this is from CNN, how about this fun game: I'll pay $10,000 to anyone that finds me a positive headline about Trump that CNN has ever at any point run. Heck, not even a positive article, how about just a neutral article? An article that just neutrally says facts about some event that happened that involved Trump, without putting spin on it or telling you to think in a negative way about it. The fact that you would be extremely hard-pressed to collect the money says everything you need to know about the state of our "democracy".
> Trump that CNN has ever at any point run. Heck, not even a positive article, how about just a neutral article?
These were pretty good.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/31/politics/trump-drug-importati...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/us-drug-importation-...
https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/07/investing/president-trump-d...
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/donald-trump-hurrica...
I suspect that if you were actually ever intending to honor your wager you'd lose a lot of money.
These were pretty good.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/31/politics/trump-drug-importati...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/us-drug-importation-...
https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/07/investing/president-trump-d...
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/donald-trump-hurrica...
I suspect that if you were actually ever intending to honor your wager you'd lose a lot of money.
the coverage of him winning in 2016 was fairly neutral
live: https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/moment-cnn-projects-...
article: https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/election-day-2016-hi...
live: https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/moment-cnn-projects-...
article: https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/election-day-2016-hi...
https://my.lwv.org/california/torrance-area/article/how-reli...
Scroll down to adfontes. One is objectively much more objective and you are betting on the wrong horse here.
Scroll down to adfontes. One is objectively much more objective and you are betting on the wrong horse here.
How about $20k if you can find a Fox News article that has said anything positive about any Democrat whatsoever in the last 10 years.
Or maybe he was just an unusually terrible, incompetent, and offensive leader?
> I'll pay $10,000 to anyone that finds me a positive headline about Trump that CNN has ever at any point run.
No, you won’t.
> I'll pay $10,000 to anyone that finds me a positive headline about Trump that CNN has ever at any point run.
No, you won’t.
Here’s a neutral article, published just hours ago: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/midterm-election-resu...
(Since it’s part of their live election coverage, you’ll want to search for the headline “ Trump says he voted for DeSantis, predicts "great night" for GOP”)
Shall I expect a check, or… idk, Venmo or something?
(Since it’s part of their live election coverage, you’ll want to search for the headline “ Trump says he voted for DeSantis, predicts "great night" for GOP”)
Shall I expect a check, or… idk, Venmo or something?
For those who may not want to click, here’s the entire text. It’s short! And neutral:
—————
Former President Donald Trump confirmed Tuesday that he voted for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, predicting a "great night" for Republicans.
"Yes, I did," Trump told reporters when asked if he cast a ballot for DeSantis outside a polling location in Palm Beach where he voted.
"I think we're going to have a very great night and it's exciting," he added.
Trump cast his ballot shortly after 11:30 a.m. ET at the Morton and Barbara Mandel Recreation Center in Palm Beach, just minutes away from his Mar-a-Lago estate where he plans to watch election returns this evening with dozens of aides, allies, and local Republicans. He arrived with former first lady Melania Trump and briefly took questions outside after voting indoors.
The former president's political future may largely depend on Tuesday's midterm outcomes, as he looks for his handpicked and endorsed candidates in key federal and statewide races to prevail. Major losses for Trump-backed candidates could create obstacles for his 2024 presidential campaign, which Trump is eyeing to announce one week from today.
At a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday, Trump referred to the Florida governor as “Ron DeSanctimonious.”
—————
Former President Donald Trump confirmed Tuesday that he voted for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, predicting a "great night" for Republicans.
"Yes, I did," Trump told reporters when asked if he cast a ballot for DeSantis outside a polling location in Palm Beach where he voted.
"I think we're going to have a very great night and it's exciting," he added.
Trump cast his ballot shortly after 11:30 a.m. ET at the Morton and Barbara Mandel Recreation Center in Palm Beach, just minutes away from his Mar-a-Lago estate where he plans to watch election returns this evening with dozens of aides, allies, and local Republicans. He arrived with former first lady Melania Trump and briefly took questions outside after voting indoors.
The former president's political future may largely depend on Tuesday's midterm outcomes, as he looks for his handpicked and endorsed candidates in key federal and statewide races to prevail. Major losses for Trump-backed candidates could create obstacles for his 2024 presidential campaign, which Trump is eyeing to announce one week from today.
At a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday, Trump referred to the Florida governor as “Ron DeSanctimonious.”
if we're looking "at any point," lots of neutral coverage back in the 90s when cable news was boring, and there was Reform Party Candidate-era Trump.
Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.ric...
Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.ric...
I will pay a $1,000 for CNN video coverage of 250,000,000 Indians protesting the terrible conditions of farmers in India. They were communist mostly fighting for the same things American farmers are fighting and economically struggling with. CNN is propaganda. Hey I wanna make 10k but I will low ball people and still get same result.
sn0w_crash(1)
This isn’t flamebait it’s a real topic of discussion for many people. Its even discussed in legislation related articles on HN. Are we to pretend it isn’t?