4 ms·

A plurality of Americans voted for this government, for better or worse. The courts are one of the primary avenues for the minority to express their will, but t

A plurality of Americans voted for this government, for better or worse. The courts are one of the primary avenues for the minority to express their will, but they move slowly, although slightly faster than congress.

MBCook 1y ago
That assumes a fair vote, which is arguable. Between Gerrymandering, purging voter roles, suits over who is allowed on the ballot, ID checks and associated issues I’m not sure it’s so clear cut. He won under the conditions the election was performed under. That’s clear. I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights.
- rayiner 1y ago
  There are no “attacks on people’s voting rights.” It’s a canard Democrats trot out to energize their base, just like Republicans trot out lies about election fraud. For example, studies show voter ID doesn’t reduce turnout (but also doesn’t reduce fraud). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v.... Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the presidential election. But the GOP won the House popular vote by even more than Trump won the Presidential popular vote. Extensive post-election voter surveys showed that if everyone had voted, Trump would’ve won by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-2024-election-democrats-david-shor https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...
  - thomastjeffery 1y ago
    You are so dead wrong I don't even know where to start. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election? Surveys show how everyone would have voted? Do you even hear yourself?
    - trealira 1y ago
      There are attacks on people's voting rights, but gerrymandering actually doesn't affect the presidential election in the US. The electoral votes are chosen by statewide popular vote, except in Maine and Nebraska.
      - boroboro4 1y ago
        > The electoral votes are chosen by statewide popular vote, except in Maine and Nebraska. Which means it does :-) just not by much.
    - deathanatos 1y ago
      He's wrong, yes, but no, gerrymandering does not affect the presidential election, since the gerrymandered borders are congressional district borders. (Unless you've got an argument that the state borders are gerrymandered, in which case, let's hear it!)
      - Brybry 1y ago
        I think, indirectly, gerrymandering might impact the presidential election because a) redistricting can cause polling location changes[1] and b) the voter's knowledge/sentiment of living in a gerrymandered system. If either a) or b) impacts voter turnout then it could impact the presidential election even though the districts themselves don't matter. I found some evidence both for and against voter turnout impacts from redistricting[2] or from gerrymandering[3] but it didn't seem conclusive. [1] https://stateline.org/2022/05/20/check-your-polling-place-redistricting-confused-some-voters/ https://stateline.org/2022/05/20/check-your-polling-place-re... [2] https://da.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/90008864/90008864.pdf https://da.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/90008864/90008864.pdf [3] https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/gerrymandering-turnout-and-lazy-legislators https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/gerrymandering-turnout-...
        MBCook 1y ago
        It could be used electron more of party X, which could be used to get enough votes to make new laws to try to effect voting on a national level. It is more tenuous than the others in the list, but I suspect it could be used. And either way it had the psychological effect of people knowing their vote may not count because they vote for the wrong party in their district and have no chance of their candidate winning.
  - tristan957 1y ago
    Gerrymandering can have an effect, but I'm not sure how to measure it. Gerrymandering contributes to voter disenfranchisement. If you have been disenfranchised for the 3 years before the presidential election, why would you then choose to participate in the elections in the 4th year? To me, that number has to be non-zero, but it isn't obvious if it's anything significant. For instance, how many Democrat supporters just don't show up to the polls in Texas because they feel that their vote doesn't matter due to gerrymandering in the state? I think the issue here is that we are trying to apply logic when the American voter tends to be very emotional.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      I’m a republican in Maryland. Am I “disenfranchised?” That terminology is just activist wordplay. It is insanely easy to vote in America. Also, Trump is the one who performs better among your supposedly “disenfranchised” voters. The folks who didn’t vote in the last 3 elections were more likely to vote for Trump in 2024: https://amac.us/newsline/elections/trump-victory-explained-new-data-sheds-more-light-on-kamala-harriss-2024-collapse https://amac.us/newsline/elections/trump-victory-explained-n.... The only group Harris won were super voters (who voted in all four of the most recent elections).
      - tristan957 1y ago
        I'm not sure how you can call disenfranchisement activist wordplay. It makes me not even want to engage with you. Just because someone didn't vote doesn't immediately mean the reason was disenfranchisement. Given you live in Maryland, how can you claim voting is easy in the the entire US? Are you familiar with voting laws in every state and how elections can be weaponized by the state governments against certain populations? Easy voting would mean drive thru voting, mail in voting, automatic voter registration, not weaponizing polling locations, etc. I think you are taking your lived experiences and applying it to everyone. Are you elderly, disabled, a single parent, or are you living in poverty? Do you have immediate access to your birth certificate or a passport? Do you have a government ID at all? Do you have access to transportation? All these factors play into how easy it is for someone to vote.
- hn_acker 1y ago
  > I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights. Tangent: A new attack on voting rights just succeeded in the Eighth Circuit. An individual citizen or non-governmental group can no longer sue a state government for racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. > Until a few years ago, everyone agreed that private citizens and groups could bring Section 2 lawsuits. ... > The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of voters in Section 2 cases numerous times, including just two years ago in Allen v. Milligan. ... > However, some opponents of the Voting Rights Act have promoted a fringe notion that because Section 2 doesn’t say the words “private right of action” — the legal term for the ability of impacted individuals or groups to sue — such lawsuits cannot be filed. This is part of a pattern of attacking the procedures underlying Voting Rights Act litigation to make it virtually impossible to enforce the law’s important protections in court. ... > The Department of Justice can still bring Section 2 cases, but that alone is not enough to prevent voting discrimination. Individuals and groups have brought nearly 93 percent of Section 2 cases over the last 40 years. Justice Department attorneys have explained that the department relies on citizen-led lawsuits because it doesn’t have the resources to handle all these cases on its own even if it wanted to. > That desire is not present in the current administration’s Justice Department, which shed 70 percent of the Civil Rights Division staff and has already been ordered to dismiss almost all of its Section 2 cases. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/appeals-court-strips-voters-ability-file-voting-rights-act-lawsuits-7 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/appe...
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago
  [dead]
kjkjadksj 1y ago
They voted for an R. To be fair it is hard to argue that they voted for this government when Trump maintained he had nothing to do with these plans outlined in Project 2025 all through the campaign and his approval rating has plummeted as people understand the scope of what has happened.
- TylerE 1y ago
  [flagged]
- andrewflnr 1y ago
  [flagged]
- krapp 1y ago
  To be fair, it's hard to argue that they voted for anything but this government, given that everything in Project 2025 is part of the Trumpist and right-wing agenda, and given the numerous links between Project 2025 and Trump's administration, and given his known history of dishonesty. I mean, we have two options here - one is that voters memory-holed the last eight years and had never even heard of Donald Trump until like a year ago and believed he was an honest an sincere man of character... or they voted for exactly the thing everyone said was going to happen to happen and are only disappointed because the consequences weren't what they expected. They didn't think the leopards would actually eat their faces. And now they're pretending like they're shocked that Trump would do such terrible things, just like they were shocked that Trump would have anything to do with January 6th... after the consequences of that weren't what they expected, either.
- SkipperCat 1y ago
  They voted against inflation. Most people don't care about politics, they only care about their pocketbook. And to your point, Trump hasn't solved inflation, so he's left with only his core supporters now.
lesuorac 1y ago
I mean a plurality of Americans voted for Obama. Should he have been able to ignore the will of congress and appoint supreme court justices to the vacant spots? Nobody is saying that the Republicans in congress cannot set tariffs. We're just saying the _president_ cannot singularly do it. If elected Republicans congress critters want to pass a law establishing the tariff rates and have the elected Republican president sign it; go ahead. Because that's the law ratified by a majority of states which is much more than plurality of Americans.
- koolba 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - rswail 1y ago
    The Constitution said that the appointment required the advice and consent of the Senate. It had nothing to do with him "trying" or being too "weak", it is called following the law. Trump doesn't do that, and the court rulings are showing that his power to rule via EO is not going to be allowed. The Senate deliberately did not go into recess to avoid Obama having the power to appoint Garland via a recess appointment. McConnell is more to blame for the dysfunction of Congress and the misuse of the Senate than anyone else.
    - lesuorac 1y ago
      > McConnell is more to blame for the dysfunction of Congress and the misuse of the Senate than anyone else. McConnell isn't in charge of the Senate anymore and they're doing a pro forma session against Trump. ("Friday, May 30, 2025 Convene for a pro forma session at 7:00 a.m." [1]). [1]: https://www.senate.gov/ https://www.senate.gov/
  - arp242 1y ago
    He didn't try it because it would be anti-democratic and fascist to do so. That's why. Not "weakness". Says a lot about you that you use that word to describe adherence to democracy.
foobarchu 1y ago
The courts are one of the primary avenues when the other two branches don't fully ignore them. Trump has clearly demonstrated that he doesn't care what courts say unless it supports him, both in criminal court and when they rule against his executive actions (see: deporting citizens illegally despite it neing explicitly ruled he can't do that). That is the big reason so many fear that the American democracy is giving its last breaths.

MBCook 1y ago

That assumes a fair vote, which is arguable. Between Gerrymandering, purging voter roles, suits over who is allowed on the ballot, ID checks and associated issues I’m not sure it’s so clear cut. He won under the conditions the election was performed under. That’s clear. I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights.

rayiner 1y ago
There are no “attacks on people’s voting rights.” It’s a canard Democrats trot out to energize their base, just like Republicans trot out lies about election fraud. For example, studies show voter ID doesn’t reduce turnout (but also doesn’t reduce fraud). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v.... Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the presidential election. But the GOP won the House popular vote by even more than Trump won the Presidential popular vote. Extensive post-election voter surveys showed that if everyone had voted, Trump would’ve won by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-2024-election-democrats-david-shor https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...
- thomastjeffery 1y ago
  You are so dead wrong I don't even know where to start. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election? Surveys show how everyone would have voted? Do you even hear yourself?
  - trealira 1y ago
    There are attacks on people's voting rights, but gerrymandering actually doesn't affect the presidential election in the US. The electoral votes are chosen by statewide popular vote, except in Maine and Nebraska.
    - boroboro4 1y ago
      > The electoral votes are chosen by statewide popular vote, except in Maine and Nebraska. Which means it does :-) just not by much.
  - deathanatos 1y ago
    He's wrong, yes, but no, gerrymandering does not affect the presidential election, since the gerrymandered borders are congressional district borders. (Unless you've got an argument that the state borders are gerrymandered, in which case, let's hear it!)
    - Brybry 1y ago
      I think, indirectly, gerrymandering might impact the presidential election because a) redistricting can cause polling location changes[1] and b) the voter's knowledge/sentiment of living in a gerrymandered system. If either a) or b) impacts voter turnout then it could impact the presidential election even though the districts themselves don't matter. I found some evidence both for and against voter turnout impacts from redistricting[2] or from gerrymandering[3] but it didn't seem conclusive. [1] https://stateline.org/2022/05/20/check-your-polling-place-redistricting-confused-some-voters/ https://stateline.org/2022/05/20/check-your-polling-place-re... [2] https://da.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/90008864/90008864.pdf https://da.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/90008864/90008864.pdf [3] https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/gerrymandering-turnout-and-lazy-legislators https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/gerrymandering-turnout-...
      - MBCook 1y ago
        It could be used electron more of party X, which could be used to get enough votes to make new laws to try to effect voting on a national level. It is more tenuous than the others in the list, but I suspect it could be used. And either way it had the psychological effect of people knowing their vote may not count because they vote for the wrong party in their district and have no chance of their candidate winning.
- tristan957 1y ago
  Gerrymandering can have an effect, but I'm not sure how to measure it. Gerrymandering contributes to voter disenfranchisement. If you have been disenfranchised for the 3 years before the presidential election, why would you then choose to participate in the elections in the 4th year? To me, that number has to be non-zero, but it isn't obvious if it's anything significant. For instance, how many Democrat supporters just don't show up to the polls in Texas because they feel that their vote doesn't matter due to gerrymandering in the state? I think the issue here is that we are trying to apply logic when the American voter tends to be very emotional.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    I’m a republican in Maryland. Am I “disenfranchised?” That terminology is just activist wordplay. It is insanely easy to vote in America. Also, Trump is the one who performs better among your supposedly “disenfranchised” voters. The folks who didn’t vote in the last 3 elections were more likely to vote for Trump in 2024: https://amac.us/newsline/elections/trump-victory-explained-new-data-sheds-more-light-on-kamala-harriss-2024-collapse https://amac.us/newsline/elections/trump-victory-explained-n.... The only group Harris won were super voters (who voted in all four of the most recent elections).
    - tristan957 1y ago
      I'm not sure how you can call disenfranchisement activist wordplay. It makes me not even want to engage with you. Just because someone didn't vote doesn't immediately mean the reason was disenfranchisement. Given you live in Maryland, how can you claim voting is easy in the the entire US? Are you familiar with voting laws in every state and how elections can be weaponized by the state governments against certain populations? Easy voting would mean drive thru voting, mail in voting, automatic voter registration, not weaponizing polling locations, etc. I think you are taking your lived experiences and applying it to everyone. Are you elderly, disabled, a single parent, or are you living in poverty? Do you have immediate access to your birth certificate or a passport? Do you have a government ID at all? Do you have access to transportation? All these factors play into how easy it is for someone to vote.
hn_acker 1y ago
> I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights. Tangent: A new attack on voting rights just succeeded in the Eighth Circuit. An individual citizen or non-governmental group can no longer sue a state government for racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. > Until a few years ago, everyone agreed that private citizens and groups could bring Section 2 lawsuits. ... > The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of voters in Section 2 cases numerous times, including just two years ago in Allen v. Milligan. ... > However, some opponents of the Voting Rights Act have promoted a fringe notion that because Section 2 doesn’t say the words “private right of action” — the legal term for the ability of impacted individuals or groups to sue — such lawsuits cannot be filed. This is part of a pattern of attacking the procedures underlying Voting Rights Act litigation to make it virtually impossible to enforce the law’s important protections in court. ... > The Department of Justice can still bring Section 2 cases, but that alone is not enough to prevent voting discrimination. Individuals and groups have brought nearly 93 percent of Section 2 cases over the last 40 years. Justice Department attorneys have explained that the department relies on citizen-led lawsuits because it doesn’t have the resources to handle all these cases on its own even if it wanted to. > That desire is not present in the current administration’s Justice Department, which shed 70 percent of the Civil Rights Division staff and has already been ordered to dismiss almost all of its Section 2 cases. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/appeals-court-strips-voters-ability-file-voting-rights-act-lawsuits-7 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/appe...
Slava_Propanei 1y ago
[dead]

kjkjadksj 1y ago

They voted for an R. To be fair it is hard to argue that they voted for this government when Trump maintained he had nothing to do with these plans outlined in Project 2025 all through the campaign and his approval rating has plummeted as people understand the scope of what has happened.

TylerE 1y ago
[flagged]
andrewflnr 1y ago
[flagged]
krapp 1y ago
To be fair, it's hard to argue that they voted for anything but this government, given that everything in Project 2025 is part of the Trumpist and right-wing agenda, and given the numerous links between Project 2025 and Trump's administration, and given his known history of dishonesty. I mean, we have two options here - one is that voters memory-holed the last eight years and had never even heard of Donald Trump until like a year ago and believed he was an honest an sincere man of character... or they voted for exactly the thing everyone said was going to happen to happen and are only disappointed because the consequences weren't what they expected. They didn't think the leopards would actually eat their faces. And now they're pretending like they're shocked that Trump would do such terrible things, just like they were shocked that Trump would have anything to do with January 6th... after the consequences of that weren't what they expected, either.
SkipperCat 1y ago
They voted against inflation. Most people don't care about politics, they only care about their pocketbook. And to your point, Trump hasn't solved inflation, so he's left with only his core supporters now.

lesuorac 1y ago

I mean a plurality of Americans voted for Obama. Should he have been able to ignore the will of congress and appoint supreme court justices to the vacant spots? Nobody is saying that the Republicans in congress cannot set tariffs. We're just saying the _president_ cannot singularly do it. If elected Republicans congress critters want to pass a law establishing the tariff rates and have the elected Republican president sign it; go ahead. Because that's the law ratified by a majority of states which is much more than plurality of Americans.

koolba 1y ago
[flagged]
- rswail 1y ago
  The Constitution said that the appointment required the advice and consent of the Senate. It had nothing to do with him "trying" or being too "weak", it is called following the law. Trump doesn't do that, and the court rulings are showing that his power to rule via EO is not going to be allowed. The Senate deliberately did not go into recess to avoid Obama having the power to appoint Garland via a recess appointment. McConnell is more to blame for the dysfunction of Congress and the misuse of the Senate than anyone else.
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    > McConnell is more to blame for the dysfunction of Congress and the misuse of the Senate than anyone else. McConnell isn't in charge of the Senate anymore and they're doing a pro forma session against Trump. ("Friday, May 30, 2025 Convene for a pro forma session at 7:00 a.m." [1]). [1]: https://www.senate.gov/ https://www.senate.gov/
- arp242 1y ago
  He didn't try it because it would be anti-democratic and fascist to do so. That's why. Not "weakness". Says a lot about you that you use that word to describe adherence to democracy.

foobarchu 1y ago

The courts are one of the primary avenues when the other two branches don't fully ignore them. Trump has clearly demonstrated that he doesn't care what courts say unless it supports him, both in criminal court and when they rule against his executive actions (see: deporting citizens illegally despite it neing explicitly ruled he can't do that). That is the big reason so many fear that the American democracy is giving its last breaths.