13 ms·

Agree. With all the anti-democratic practices being rolled out across the states it’s pretty scary to imagine things even a year from now and a long time forwar

by ianai 5y ago

Agree. With all the anti-democratic practices being rolled out across the states it’s pretty scary to imagine things even a year from now and a long time forward. Life threats against election officials and all the way up to Senators. Gerrymandering. Even the SCOTUS is biased. Seems civics in the US are about to be rigged for one party rule.

jtbayly 5y ago
Which party? Presumably the one that has control of the House, Senate, and Oval Office?
- themitigating 5y ago
  He's talking about states
- alistairSH 5y ago
  GOP has the majority of state governors. GOP has the majority of state legislatures. Both of the above are currently drawing Congressional districts based on the latest census data. Both of the above are currently rolling out voting rules that are nominally about preventing fraud (of which there is zero evidence of anything widespread) but will impact the ability of people to vote.
  - scohesc 5y ago
    This is what I don't understand. Why can't legislators be proactive when it comes to protecting voting rights? We don't need to see any evidence of fraud to ensure the safety of voting rights.
    - analog31 5y ago
      Gerrymandering erases any hope that they will take up a genuine interest in voting rights when they can just manipulate the entire system in their own favor.
      - scohesc 5y ago
        I never mentioned gerrymandering at all - not sure why it's being brought up...
    - xenophonf 5y ago
      Because the "protections" end up disenfranchising voters, particularly people who vote for the opposite party.
    - CalChris 5y ago
      No, the State of Florida isn't protecting voting rights, your words. It is attacking voting rights. For example, Florida passed Amendment 4 in 2018 which returned the voting rights of most felons after they'd served their sentences. This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis. The state government wasn't protecting voting rights when it litigated the result. Indeed they are attacking the will of the citizens of Florida as expressed by their votes.
      - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
        I think you are making biased comments. There are good arguments both for, and against tightening, or loosening up a number of processes around voting. Currently in the US, most voting processes are significantly weaker than processes around getting a driver's license, purchasing alcohol, or buying a gun. This encourages participation at the cost of security. On the other hand, having to be at a certain place in a specific time window, or having to produce a strong identity can reduce voting participation to a minor extent. If this was altered such as by mass mail-in voting then this would reduce security at a benefit of accessibility. Part of the penalties for a conviction can be paying a fine to your victims or to the state. A logical example of your argument would be that you'd permit Bernie Madoff to vote after his release (provided he lived) regardless of whether or not he fully compensated the numerous victims of his financial crimes.
        random314 5y ago
        Its basic data science to identify what kind of errors the current system introduces. Is it Type 1 errors or type 2 errors. Type 1 = right people not being able to vote Type 2 = wrong people voting The US has massive type 1 errors by far. So far I have only seen one instance of Type 2 error - a Republican voting twice. When I see people pounding on reducing non existent type 2 errors I have to question their intent.
  - bgorman 5y ago
    Of course there is zero evidence of Voter fraud. States don’t even check for dead voters or voters who moved out of state. Diebold designs black box systems that aren’t audited by hackers. Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.
    - s5300 5y ago
      Not sure what you're talking about, there was definitely evidence of voter fraud. Not on a large scale, but still voter fraud. It just happened to be from the party that complains about voter fraud non-stop, ironically projection, and gets zero media coverage. In the event it does get media coverage, it's typically presented in skewed or twisted way. For example, an Arizona audit found 99 non-counted votes for the current president, and 261 falsified votes for the challenger. Instead of stating this outright, the number one cable news channel in the United States briefly mentioned it as "360 votes found for the current president" - no mention of the falsified votes of the loser. A bit dirty, dont you think? edit: revised numbers I'd incorrectly remembered
      - bgorman 5y ago
        Do you have any direct refutations to my allegations? Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I am willing to change my opinion if there is evidence to suggest credible voter fraud audits happen, but so far I have not been able to find any.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I mean, that's trivial. KY: https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-from-states-rolls/ https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-fro... NC: https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people-removed-from-voter-rolls https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people... CA: https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registration-up-to-date/cancellation-of-deceased-voter/details-about-removal-of-deceased-voters-from-voter-registration-list https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registratio... (this one is particularly detailed on the methods used, including "The Registrar of Voters office checks the obituaries listed in the newspapers daily" and "a list of deceased voters provided by the California Secretary of State’s office multiple times per year") FL: https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-Voter https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-... The Social Security Administration provides a list (https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html), and states check against their own death certificates, bounced mail, and other methods. Sometimes people have trouble proving they're still alive, even. https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-after-living-voters-flagged-dead/ https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-afte... People who try it tend to get caught, because it's harder than it seems to get away with: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohio-faces-charge-voting-twice-november-election-n1271985 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/2...
  - briffle 5y ago
    Oregon just got a new House Rep member, and if you look at the new maps it has created, its pretty obvious this isn't a one party problem.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Gerrrymandering indeed has a long history, and it's a bit like nukes - if the other side is already using them, it's hard to hold off on your side. In 2018, North Carolina saw 50% of the vote go to Republicans, but they received 77% of the Congressional seats. A couple rounds of that is a recipe for a permanent minority for the other party.
      - justaman 5y ago
        Should the region/counties that have a smaller population but different work forces or geographical makeup not have representation? Population alone cannot dictate the house of representatives.
        alistairSH 5y ago
        Why should empty land get a vote? Why should the majority of the populace be beholden to an even-dwindling minority?
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        It's required for keeping the country intact. All the low population states would leave if they had no say at the federal level.
        scelerat 5y ago
        But that is how the House is explicitly defined in the US constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." Part of the problem is that the number of Representatives in the house has been fixed at 435 since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. There would be no "small/rural/unique regions aren't represented without drawing crazy district lines" argument if the number of people represented per US Rep were lower. And, as we see now, the lines of districts are simply not drawn according to regional peculiar needs. They are drawn by party affiliation, by the parties themselves. Which is insane.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    You should look at Democratic states. Illinois looks quite gerrymandered as well. I think Maryland (maybe?) was quite bad as well. This is a bipartisan thing. It just so happens that Republicans have the majority of states.
    - matthewdgreen 5y ago
      At a national level, Senate Democrats have been trying to pass laws that place general limits on the practice. It would be nice for "both sides" arguments if some version of this project enjoyed bipartisan support: unfortunately it does not.
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        I don't think the federal government has the authority to stop states from gerrymandering? Am I mistaken? It seems like the Democrats are just virtue signalling.
        matthewdgreen 5y ago
        I think the "elections clause" (Article 1, Section 4, clause 1) gives Congress broad authority to override state laws regarding how its own representatives are elected. (Note: edited to simplify...) https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4...
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        I am aware of that clause but I am not sure I interpret "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections" as the same thing as drawing district lines. Is there any precedence you are aware of?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Lendal 5y ago
      You can be for reform while at the same time benefiting from the current system. If you don't have power, it doesn't matter what your opinions are. If the playing field isn't level, you still must either play on it or forfeit. If you decide to play, it doesn't mean you want the field to remain as it is.
  - RickJWagner 5y ago
    Conservative voter here. I'll gladly trade you the state-level advantages held by the GOP for the national media machine controlled by the Dems. I think the media is the most powerful over the long haul.
    - larkost 5y ago
      I know that a lot of conservative news outlets have been repeating this over and over, but the facts just simply don't support this statement. The largest TV news organization by viewership is Fox News, and has been for a long time. Fox News was founded to give conservative voices a bigger platform. So it was founded to be a right-leaning (biased) platform. But that does not make everything to the political left of Fox News left-leaning. And if you start to look at talk-radio listenership then the numbers lean hugely to the right, and often far to the right. The left-wing equivalents are tiny. People who lean to the left tend to gravitate towards centrist media like NPR News, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Again, I know that those are often painted as being left-leaning in the conservative media, but they are starting to paint Fox News the same way, and their politics have been tending right for a decade now.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - OGWhales 5y ago
      Conservatives have an extremely powerful media machine too. Some of the most viewed personas on TV and online are conservatives, with the same being true for radio.
- tibbetts 5y ago
  No, the one clinging to power despite support from a shrinking minority of the electorate.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Seems civics in the US are about to be rigged for one party rule. The good news is that it doesn't actually work that way. First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away. Drawing the lines different affects what party platforms need to be in order to get half of the seats, but there will still be two parties and they will still each control the government half of the time. Which isn't to say that it doesn't matter, but the thing it does is different than the thing you think it does. Even the party drawing the lines is reshaping what they'll need their own positions to be in order to win. If you really want to fix it, replace first past the post with range voting. Good luck gerrymandering that. Might even solve polarization by getting rid of the poles.
- mcherm 5y ago
  > First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away. Really? Consider the Democratic party lock on the US southern states for roughly 50 years after reconstruction.[1] A huge portion of the population wasn't permitted to vote (despite laws on the books being racially blind, most blacks were prevented from voting in many of these states up until the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And even among those who DID vote, a single party remained utterly dominant. Does this counterexample mean anything to you? (PS: I agree with you that I'm strongly in favor of changes to our voting system to move away from first-past-the-post and government gerrymandering. But I'm NOT going to claim that single party rule is impossible when there are hundreds of examples of it across the world.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > Consider the Democratic party lock on the US southern states for roughly 50 years after reconstruction. Yet each party still controlled the government around half of the time, because the Republicans took the North. Each party will change the amount necessary to flip the marginal district. The districts in the South were harder for Republicans to flip than some others, so they took ones it was easier for them to get, and didn't take the ones they didn't need. > But I'm NOT going to claim that single party rule is impossible when there are hundreds of examples of it across the world. The rest of the world uses different voting systems (or lack thereof). There was "single party rule" in the USSR and it wasn't because of gerrymandering.
president 5y ago
Serious question, does anyone have any insight into how we got into this mess? It seems like the past few years has seen a whirlwind of anti-democratic rule at almost every level of government - state, local, and federal.
- clairity 5y ago
  as hinted at in my sibling comment, there’s a natural gradient toward the consolidation of power, propelled by individual actions to that end. we’ve reached a tipping point in the past 40–50 years where enough consolidation has happened that politicians no longer need to genuinely care about the populace at large, but rather only the plutocratic class.
- RickJWagner 5y ago
  IMHO, it's been an escalation of tit-for-tat from both sides of the aisle. News sources, 'Community organizers', corporate activists, religious leaders etc. have all been increasingly brazen as they take increasingly polarized positions to counter actions from the other side. What's missing is common decency and sympathy for the other person's point of view. We won't find it by clinging to our own political party or news sources. We're going to have to interact with real, actual people who are different than we are and learn to strike a balance between their needs and our own.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Exactly. It's tit-for-tat. Moderate Democrats won't push back against the "community organizers" when they push highly questionable practices such as ballot harvesting or allowing ballots to be counted that arrive days after election day. Moderate Democrats also never pushed back on two decades of claims about election fraud and stolen elections from the likes of people like Terry McAuliffe and Stacey Abrams: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffe-spreads-another-stolen-election-conspiracy-theory/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffe-sprea... That, in turn, has destroyed trust. Now, moderate Republicans won't push back against Trump's outrageous claims of voter fraud and stolen elections. Nobody trusts each other to act in good faith and do the right thing.
clairity 5y ago
we’ve been oligarchic since at least the 90s, so it doesn’t really matter that there are two major parties. in fact, having two parties has been an effective shield against criticism and activism, keeping us distracted (see every comment on hn and beyond that mentions democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, etc.) from the real roots of our growing inequality and stagnation. consolidation of power, wealth and influence is the enemy of the people, as it’s been for all of human history. we keep failing at understanding this throughout that history to our continued collective misery. we need to (continue to) decentralize governments and markets. we now have the technological means, so it’s largely a matter of popular will at this point.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Your analysis is good. Be careful with your proposed solution. No matter what you do, the powerful and wealthy will always find a way to capture the system. I think the real problem is the sheer amount of wealth and power in a few hands.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > we’ve been oligarchic since at least the 90s You mean the 1890s?
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    1790s But I would say "oligarchic tendencies" rather than a pure oligarchy, which is the natural and default state of the world once you chop off the head of the monarch and no longer have power vested in a single individual -- it devolves to a smaller group of more powerful individuals. But elections and popular movements are still in the mix as well, and occasionally make an impact. Thus it's an oligarchy influenced by popular pressures, which is a pretty good classification of all non-monarchic/non-dictatorial governments.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
We already have one party rule by the super wealthy. The fights between Democrats and Republicans are just show business to distract from the real problems of the country.
rayiner 5y ago
With due respect, the media has worked Democrats up into a froth over nothing. These "anti-democratic practices" are literally just a partial rollback of unprecedented COVID-related loosing of voting rules. E.g. the Florida law at issue here requires voter ID and guarantees a week of early voting: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facts-on-floridas-election-law-11621635890 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facts-on-floridas-election-... Canada also requires voter ID, and Canadian federal elections feature four days of early voting: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=vote&document=index&lang=e https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=vote&d... In many countries, like France, elections are still held (gasp!) entirely in person on election day.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Does France also have two centuries of laws preventing Black people from voting? Context matters.

by ianai 5y ago

jtbayly 5y ago

Which party? Presumably the one that has control of the House, Senate, and Oval Office?

themitigating 5y ago
He's talking about states
alistairSH 5y ago
GOP has the majority of state governors. GOP has the majority of state legislatures. Both of the above are currently drawing Congressional districts based on the latest census data. Both of the above are currently rolling out voting rules that are nominally about preventing fraud (of which there is zero evidence of anything widespread) but will impact the ability of people to vote.
- scohesc 5y ago
  This is what I don't understand. Why can't legislators be proactive when it comes to protecting voting rights? We don't need to see any evidence of fraud to ensure the safety of voting rights.
  - analog31 5y ago
    Gerrymandering erases any hope that they will take up a genuine interest in voting rights when they can just manipulate the entire system in their own favor.
    - scohesc 5y ago
      I never mentioned gerrymandering at all - not sure why it's being brought up...
  - xenophonf 5y ago
    Because the "protections" end up disenfranchising voters, particularly people who vote for the opposite party.
  - CalChris 5y ago
    No, the State of Florida isn't protecting voting rights, your words. It is attacking voting rights. For example, Florida passed Amendment 4 in 2018 which returned the voting rights of most felons after they'd served their sentences. This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis. The state government wasn't protecting voting rights when it litigated the result. Indeed they are attacking the will of the citizens of Florida as expressed by their votes.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      I think you are making biased comments. There are good arguments both for, and against tightening, or loosening up a number of processes around voting. Currently in the US, most voting processes are significantly weaker than processes around getting a driver's license, purchasing alcohol, or buying a gun. This encourages participation at the cost of security. On the other hand, having to be at a certain place in a specific time window, or having to produce a strong identity can reduce voting participation to a minor extent. If this was altered such as by mass mail-in voting then this would reduce security at a benefit of accessibility. Part of the penalties for a conviction can be paying a fine to your victims or to the state. A logical example of your argument would be that you'd permit Bernie Madoff to vote after his release (provided he lived) regardless of whether or not he fully compensated the numerous victims of his financial crimes.
      - random314 5y ago
        Its basic data science to identify what kind of errors the current system introduces. Is it Type 1 errors or type 2 errors. Type 1 = right people not being able to vote Type 2 = wrong people voting The US has massive type 1 errors by far. So far I have only seen one instance of Type 2 error - a Republican voting twice. When I see people pounding on reducing non existent type 2 errors I have to question their intent.
- bgorman 5y ago
  Of course there is zero evidence of Voter fraud. States don’t even check for dead voters or voters who moved out of state. Diebold designs black box systems that aren’t audited by hackers. Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.
  - s5300 5y ago
    Not sure what you're talking about, there was definitely evidence of voter fraud. Not on a large scale, but still voter fraud. It just happened to be from the party that complains about voter fraud non-stop, ironically projection, and gets zero media coverage. In the event it does get media coverage, it's typically presented in skewed or twisted way. For example, an Arizona audit found 99 non-counted votes for the current president, and 261 falsified votes for the challenger. Instead of stating this outright, the number one cable news channel in the United States briefly mentioned it as "360 votes found for the current president" - no mention of the falsified votes of the loser. A bit dirty, dont you think? edit: revised numbers I'd incorrectly remembered
    - bgorman 5y ago
      Do you have any direct refutations to my allegations? Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I am willing to change my opinion if there is evidence to suggest credible voter fraud audits happen, but so far I have not been able to find any.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I mean, that's trivial. KY: https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-from-states-rolls/ https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-fro... NC: https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people-removed-from-voter-rolls https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people... CA: https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registration-up-to-date/cancellation-of-deceased-voter/details-about-removal-of-deceased-voters-from-voter-registration-list https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registratio... (this one is particularly detailed on the methods used, including "The Registrar of Voters office checks the obituaries listed in the newspapers daily" and "a list of deceased voters provided by the California Secretary of State’s office multiple times per year") FL: https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-Voter https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-... The Social Security Administration provides a list (https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html), and states check against their own death certificates, bounced mail, and other methods. Sometimes people have trouble proving they're still alive, even. https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-after-living-voters-flagged-dead/ https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-afte... People who try it tend to get caught, because it's harder than it seems to get away with: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohio-faces-charge-voting-twice-november-election-n1271985 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/2...
- briffle 5y ago
  Oregon just got a new House Rep member, and if you look at the new maps it has created, its pretty obvious this isn't a one party problem.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Gerrrymandering indeed has a long history, and it's a bit like nukes - if the other side is already using them, it's hard to hold off on your side. In 2018, North Carolina saw 50% of the vote go to Republicans, but they received 77% of the Congressional seats. A couple rounds of that is a recipe for a permanent minority for the other party.
    - justaman 5y ago
      Should the region/counties that have a smaller population but different work forces or geographical makeup not have representation? Population alone cannot dictate the house of representatives.
      - alistairSH 5y ago
        Why should empty land get a vote? Why should the majority of the populace be beholden to an even-dwindling minority?
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        It's required for keeping the country intact. All the low population states would leave if they had no say at the federal level.
      - scelerat 5y ago
        But that is how the House is explicitly defined in the US constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." Part of the problem is that the number of Representatives in the house has been fixed at 435 since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. There would be no "small/rural/unique regions aren't represented without drawing crazy district lines" argument if the number of people represented per US Rep were lower. And, as we see now, the lines of districts are simply not drawn according to regional peculiar needs. They are drawn by party affiliation, by the parties themselves. Which is insane.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  You should look at Democratic states. Illinois looks quite gerrymandered as well. I think Maryland (maybe?) was quite bad as well. This is a bipartisan thing. It just so happens that Republicans have the majority of states.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    At a national level, Senate Democrats have been trying to pass laws that place general limits on the practice. It would be nice for "both sides" arguments if some version of this project enjoyed bipartisan support: unfortunately it does not.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      I don't think the federal government has the authority to stop states from gerrymandering? Am I mistaken? It seems like the Democrats are just virtue signalling.
      - matthewdgreen 5y ago
        I think the "elections clause" (Article 1, Section 4, clause 1) gives Congress broad authority to override state laws regarding how its own representatives are elected. (Note: edited to simplify...) https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4...
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        I am aware of that clause but I am not sure I interpret "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections" as the same thing as drawing district lines. Is there any precedence you are aware of?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lendal 5y ago
    You can be for reform while at the same time benefiting from the current system. If you don't have power, it doesn't matter what your opinions are. If the playing field isn't level, you still must either play on it or forfeit. If you decide to play, it doesn't mean you want the field to remain as it is.
- RickJWagner 5y ago
  Conservative voter here. I'll gladly trade you the state-level advantages held by the GOP for the national media machine controlled by the Dems. I think the media is the most powerful over the long haul.
  - larkost 5y ago
    I know that a lot of conservative news outlets have been repeating this over and over, but the facts just simply don't support this statement. The largest TV news organization by viewership is Fox News, and has been for a long time. Fox News was founded to give conservative voices a bigger platform. So it was founded to be a right-leaning (biased) platform. But that does not make everything to the political left of Fox News left-leaning. And if you start to look at talk-radio listenership then the numbers lean hugely to the right, and often far to the right. The left-wing equivalents are tiny. People who lean to the left tend to gravitate towards centrist media like NPR News, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Again, I know that those are often painted as being left-leaning in the conservative media, but they are starting to paint Fox News the same way, and their politics have been tending right for a decade now.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - OGWhales 5y ago
    Conservatives have an extremely powerful media machine too. Some of the most viewed personas on TV and online are conservatives, with the same being true for radio.
tibbetts 5y ago
No, the one clinging to power despite support from a shrinking minority of the electorate.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Seems civics in the US are about to be rigged for one party rule. The good news is that it doesn't actually work that way. First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away. Drawing the lines different affects what party platforms need to be in order to get half of the seats, but there will still be two parties and they will still each control the government half of the time. Which isn't to say that it doesn't matter, but the thing it does is different than the thing you think it does. Even the party drawing the lines is reshaping what they'll need their own positions to be in order to win. If you really want to fix it, replace first past the post with range voting. Good luck gerrymandering that. Might even solve polarization by getting rid of the poles.

mcherm 5y ago
> First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away. Really? Consider the Democratic party lock on the US southern states for roughly 50 years after reconstruction.[1] A huge portion of the population wasn't permitted to vote (despite laws on the books being racially blind, most blacks were prevented from voting in many of these states up until the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And even among those who DID vote, a single party remained utterly dominant. Does this counterexample mean anything to you? (PS: I agree with you that I'm strongly in favor of changes to our voting system to move away from first-past-the-post and government gerrymandering. But I'm NOT going to claim that single party rule is impossible when there are hundreds of examples of it across the world.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > Consider the Democratic party lock on the US southern states for roughly 50 years after reconstruction. Yet each party still controlled the government around half of the time, because the Republicans took the North. Each party will change the amount necessary to flip the marginal district. The districts in the South were harder for Republicans to flip than some others, so they took ones it was easier for them to get, and didn't take the ones they didn't need. > But I'm NOT going to claim that single party rule is impossible when there are hundreds of examples of it across the world. The rest of the world uses different voting systems (or lack thereof). There was "single party rule" in the USSR and it wasn't because of gerrymandering.

president 5y ago

Serious question, does anyone have any insight into how we got into this mess? It seems like the past few years has seen a whirlwind of anti-democratic rule at almost every level of government - state, local, and federal.

clairity 5y ago
as hinted at in my sibling comment, there’s a natural gradient toward the consolidation of power, propelled by individual actions to that end. we’ve reached a tipping point in the past 40–50 years where enough consolidation has happened that politicians no longer need to genuinely care about the populace at large, but rather only the plutocratic class.
RickJWagner 5y ago
IMHO, it's been an escalation of tit-for-tat from both sides of the aisle. News sources, 'Community organizers', corporate activists, religious leaders etc. have all been increasingly brazen as they take increasingly polarized positions to counter actions from the other side. What's missing is common decency and sympathy for the other person's point of view. We won't find it by clinging to our own political party or news sources. We're going to have to interact with real, actual people who are different than we are and learn to strike a balance between their needs and our own.
- rayiner 5y ago
  Exactly. It's tit-for-tat. Moderate Democrats won't push back against the "community organizers" when they push highly questionable practices such as ballot harvesting or allowing ballots to be counted that arrive days after election day. Moderate Democrats also never pushed back on two decades of claims about election fraud and stolen elections from the likes of people like Terry McAuliffe and Stacey Abrams: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffe-spreads-another-stolen-election-conspiracy-theory/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffe-sprea... That, in turn, has destroyed trust. Now, moderate Republicans won't push back against Trump's outrageous claims of voter fraud and stolen elections. Nobody trusts each other to act in good faith and do the right thing.

clairity 5y ago

we’ve been oligarchic since at least the 90s, so it doesn’t really matter that there are two major parties. in fact, having two parties has been an effective shield against criticism and activism, keeping us distracted (see every comment on hn and beyond that mentions democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, etc.) from the real roots of our growing inequality and stagnation. consolidation of power, wealth and influence is the enemy of the people, as it’s been for all of human history. we keep failing at understanding this throughout that history to our continued collective misery. we need to (continue to) decentralize governments and markets. we now have the technological means, so it’s largely a matter of popular will at this point.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
Your analysis is good. Be careful with your proposed solution. No matter what you do, the powerful and wealthy will always find a way to capture the system. I think the real problem is the sheer amount of wealth and power in a few hands.
jhgb 5y ago
> we’ve been oligarchic since at least the 90s You mean the 1890s?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  1790s But I would say "oligarchic tendencies" rather than a pure oligarchy, which is the natural and default state of the world once you chop off the head of the monarch and no longer have power vested in a single individual -- it devolves to a smaller group of more powerful individuals. But elections and popular movements are still in the mix as well, and occasionally make an impact. Thus it's an oligarchy influenced by popular pressures, which is a pretty good classification of all non-monarchic/non-dictatorial governments.

spaetzleesser 5y ago

We already have one party rule by the super wealthy. The fights between Democrats and Republicans are just show business to distract from the real problems of the country.

rayiner 5y ago

With due respect, the media has worked Democrats up into a froth over nothing. These "anti-democratic practices" are literally just a partial rollback of unprecedented COVID-related loosing of voting rules. E.g. the Florida law at issue here requires voter ID and guarantees a week of early voting: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facts-on-floridas-election-law-11621635890 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facts-on-floridas-election-... Canada also requires voter ID, and Canadian federal elections feature four days of early voting: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=vote&document=index&lang=e https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=vote&d... In many countries, like France, elections are still held (gasp!) entirely in person on election day.

alisonkisk 5y ago
Does France also have two centuries of laws preventing Black people from voting? Context matters.