3 ms·

> And given just how fucking fast a dedicated executive can destroy anything it doesn't like, there's literally nothing the Dems could have done to prevent this

> And given just how fucking fast a dedicated executive can destroy anything it doesn't like, there's literally nothing the Dems could have done to prevent this. It doesn't matter what laws they passed when they had control of government, when the current executive simply doesn't follow the law. Oh yes there is. It's just more radical than they were prepared to admit was necessary. It's things like ramming through thousands of new federal judgeships, packing the Supreme Court, passing anti-gerrymandering laws with jail-time penalities for state officials that violate them, and ultimately packing the union (https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-...). The things that needed to be done were not "make things so no president can do this when he gets elected", it's "fix the system so these kinds of people cannot ever be elected".

vkou 2y ago
Yes, I suppose they can be blamed for not doing something like that when they get a 49.8% mandate. It would also alienate half their voter base, because it actually believes in the systems and due process. (We can also blame them for not imprisoning, quicky and fairly trying, and executing Trump for sedition and treason when they could.)
- BrenBarn 2y ago
  The thing is that numbers like 49.8% are meaningless because the current system simply does not result in government that is representative of people's interests. There are large numbers of people who don't vote because they feel their vote doesn't matter, and they're right.
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    An amazing reform that could be achieved is changing to ranked choice voting from the current first-past-the-post. It'll reduce the incentive for politicians to be radical to stand out, and reassures voters that they won't 'waste their vote' if they put an alternative candidate first.
    - marsovo 2y ago
      I once thought this was the solution too, then NYC's ranked-choice mayoral race gave it Eric Adams. Now I don't know. Maybe open primaries?
      - Sabinus 2y ago
        I don't think ranked choice voting particularly helps preventing corrupt politicians. It mostly diminishes the incentive to be an extremist.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        Ranked choice was the error. You want one of the cardinal voting systems like STAR.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
People suggest things like that as if the underlying problem is that Republicans often get into office with 46% of the vote and if they had to get 51% every time everything would be perfect, under the assumption that then they would never win. What do think would really happen in that case? They'd change their platform slightly in a way that allows them to get 5% more of the vote and then still get in half the time. They're one of the parties in a two party system and it's a two party system because it uses first past the post instead of e.g. STAR voting. And the reason court packing doesn't work is obviously that as soon as either party actually did that, it would become the norm and happen every time the party in power switched, and nobody wants the courts to become fully partisan and the number federal judges to double every 4-8 years. If you actually want to stop them from fucking everything up, figure out why they're doing the things they're doing. "They're evil and corrupt and have entirely impure motives" doesn't explain why ~half of voters voted for them. Instead you have to look at the actual reasons and do something about them. Why do they want to expand oil production? Because people want cheap energy. If you don't want to expand oil production then you need to cause energy prices to go down in some other way, e.g. by not actively opposing the construction of nuclear reactors so their costs don't balloon as a result of lawsuits and a capricious regulatory environment, or provide more tax incentives for renewable energy so the transition happens faster and people stop caring about the price of gas sooner. Use diplomacy to e.g. encourage Germany not to shut down their nuclear reactors and raise global energy prices by switching back to fossil fuels. Republicans keep getting elected by saying they're going to do something about burdensome regulations. Maybe consider whether there's something there? Look into what it's like to operate a small business. If you're making $9000/year selling stuff on Etsy and you invest in a postage meter, should you now have to know what MACRS is? If you don't, is it because it's somehow illegal to own one? How does property tax work on unsold business inventory stored in an out of state third party warehouse? If you have a question about any of this, why isn't there anyone in the government who can give you an official answer? Does the law create a good way for you to accept digital payments without getting locked into an overpriced payment gateway that can capriciously disrupt your business by dropping your account at any time? If you get an electric vehicle for your business, can you take the tax credit if you have enough income to be eligible for it personally even though the business didn't make a net profit this year? Why is the tax credit aimed at making it easier to afford one limited to people who make enough money that they already can? What can happen if you get some of these things wrong? People keep voting for Republicans because interacting with the government is slow, frustrating, complicated and dangerous. The best way to take that away from them is to solve those problems yourself instead of insisting that they don't exist.

vkou 2y ago

Yes, I suppose they can be blamed for not doing something like that when they get a 49.8% mandate. It would also alienate half their voter base, because it actually believes in the systems and due process. (We can also blame them for not imprisoning, quicky and fairly trying, and executing Trump for sedition and treason when they could.)

BrenBarn 2y ago
The thing is that numbers like 49.8% are meaningless because the current system simply does not result in government that is representative of people's interests. There are large numbers of people who don't vote because they feel their vote doesn't matter, and they're right.
- Sabinus 2y ago
  An amazing reform that could be achieved is changing to ranked choice voting from the current first-past-the-post. It'll reduce the incentive for politicians to be radical to stand out, and reassures voters that they won't 'waste their vote' if they put an alternative candidate first.
  - marsovo 2y ago
    I once thought this was the solution too, then NYC's ranked-choice mayoral race gave it Eric Adams. Now I don't know. Maybe open primaries?
    - Sabinus 2y ago
      I don't think ranked choice voting particularly helps preventing corrupt politicians. It mostly diminishes the incentive to be an extremist.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      Ranked choice was the error. You want one of the cardinal voting systems like STAR.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

People suggest things like that as if the underlying problem is that Republicans often get into office with 46% of the vote and if they had to get 51% every time everything would be perfect, under the assumption that then they would never win. What do think would really happen in that case? They'd change their platform slightly in a way that allows them to get 5% more of the vote and then still get in half the time. They're one of the parties in a two party system and it's a two party system because it uses first past the post instead of e.g. STAR voting. And the reason court packing doesn't work is obviously that as soon as either party actually did that, it would become the norm and happen every time the party in power switched, and nobody wants the courts to become fully partisan and the number federal judges to double every 4-8 years. If you actually want to stop them from fucking everything up, figure out why they're doing the things they're doing. "They're evil and corrupt and have entirely impure motives" doesn't explain why ~half of voters voted for them. Instead you have to look at the actual reasons and do something about them. Why do they want to expand oil production? Because people want cheap energy. If you don't want to expand oil production then you need to cause energy prices to go down in some other way, e.g. by not actively opposing the construction of nuclear reactors so their costs don't balloon as a result of lawsuits and a capricious regulatory environment, or provide more tax incentives for renewable energy so the transition happens faster and people stop caring about the price of gas sooner. Use diplomacy to e.g. encourage Germany not to shut down their nuclear reactors and raise global energy prices by switching back to fossil fuels. Republicans keep getting elected by saying they're going to do something about burdensome regulations. Maybe consider whether there's something there? Look into what it's like to operate a small business. If you're making $9000/year selling stuff on Etsy and you invest in a postage meter, should you now have to know what MACRS is? If you don't, is it because it's somehow illegal to own one? How does property tax work on unsold business inventory stored in an out of state third party warehouse? If you have a question about any of this, why isn't there anyone in the government who can give you an official answer? Does the law create a good way for you to accept digital payments without getting locked into an overpriced payment gateway that can capriciously disrupt your business by dropping your account at any time? If you get an electric vehicle for your business, can you take the tax credit if you have enough income to be eligible for it personally even though the business didn't make a net profit this year? Why is the tax credit aimed at making it easier to afford one limited to people who make enough money that they already can? What can happen if you get some of these things wrong? People keep voting for Republicans because interacting with the government is slow, frustrating, complicated and dangerous. The best way to take that away from them is to solve those problems yourself instead of insisting that they don't exist.