Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?productCode=CN&te=1&nl=on-politics&emc=edit_cn_20220919&uri=nyt://newsletter/7ab3e667-785e-5fe2-a8f6-f2df3c2f0ab2

 

In a sharply written open letter to Congress published on Monday and shared in advance with The New York Times, the scholars tell lawmakers, “It is clear that our winner-take-all system — where each U.S. House district is represented by a single person — is fundamentally broken.” They call on Congress to “adopt inclusive, multimember districts with competitive and responsive proportional representation.”

 

The list of signatories includes nine of the 18 living U.S.-based winners of the Johan Skytte Prize, a prestigious Swedish award that has become a kind of unofficial Nobel for political science: Robert Axelrod, Francis Fukuyama, Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert Keohane, David D. Laitin, Margaret Levi, Arend Lijphart, Philippe C. Schmitter and Rein Taagepera.

 

“Our arcane, single-member districting process divides, polarizes and isolates us from each other,” the professors write. “It has effectively extinguished competitive elections for most Americans, and produced a deeply divided political system that is incapable of responding to changing demands and emerging challenges with necessary legitimacy.”

 

In simple terms, what these professors are proposing is a shift from …

 

Districts where voters in each of the two major parties first choose their representatives through partisan primaries, then select a single winner during the general election

 

… to:

 

A system in which voters choose multiple members to represent the same area, with votes allocated proportionally to the population.

In the United States, changing the federal election system nationwide would require an act of Congress.

 

It would be politically tricky to pull off, to put it mildly. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution grants states the authority to set “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” But it also gives Congress the power to “at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”

 

That ambiguity means there’s ample room for dispute about whether Congress or the states are the appropriate decision maker.

[kenberg]

I read the letter. Consider:

 

The effects would be far-reaching and salutary. Proportional representation would render gerrymandering obsolete and help ensure that a political party’s share of votes in an election actually determines how many seats it holds in the House.

Maybe just a technicality, but I vote for a person, not a party. Ok, that person belongs to a party. Well, sometimes. People do run as independents. If we have a conservative independent running and a liberal independent running and, taken together, they get a good number of votes do we then somehow say that "independents" got enough votes so one or the other of these very opposing guys gets a seat based on the combined vote total for independents? Or maybe a Democratic Socialist gets a lot of votes from Democrats and a Democrat gets a lot of votes from Democrats. Maybe this all works out, maybe not? Also, the Constitution, afaik, doesn't envision people voting for parties.

I'm thinking that this plan might need a little more work. I'm not dismissing it, but I am having trouble seeing just how it would work.

[pilowsky]

Any proposal that has the support of Francis Fukuyama is worth opposing.

The 'multi-member system' is a recipe for a lawyers picnic where everyone gets a sandwich with nothing in it.

[Winstonm]

It sounds to me as if the idea is to change the US to a quasi-parliamentary system. It will never happen. The US is too broken.

The US is not so very different in 2022 as it was in 1922 or 1862.

[Gilithin]

I'm thinking that this plan might need a little more work. I'm not dismissing it, but I am having trouble seeing just how it would work.

Consider the German system then, where you have a certain number of Representatives based around physical areas/seats and a top up pool that can be fine-tuned to make sure that each party winning at least 5% of the vote ends up with a number of seats proportional to their vote share. The result is more or less the best of both FPTP and PR systems in one tidy package. Probably the best nation-building the US has ever implemented in its entire history.

[cherdano]

I like chatting with those whose views are more conservative than mine.

That would really add to the discussion, but many of the conservatives on here turned out rather implicitly or explicitly r*ist.

And I think that's really the issue. So much of the conservative movement has turned into either pure identity politics ("Look how much I deplore Nancy Pelosi!! Do I need to say anything else?") or "own the libs"-for-its-own-sake politics that it takes someone genuinely independent to advocate a conservative vision with dignity, judgement and intellectual coherence. And Ben Shapiro-style shallow talking points to win you a timed debate won't fly in here when people have time to draft a response or cite, uhm, facts.

 

I follow a bit of politicsy accounts on twitter. In the US, I'd find it difficult to follow conservative accounts. In the UK, there are quite a few that I do follow. Sometimes they irk me, sometimes I think they are wrong, sometimes I think they are right. Much more interesting following them then someone whose opinions I can predict, or that I automatically discount.

[thepossum]

I don't think racism has much of a political orientation, Maybe it does. I wonder who some of the worst are?

[pilowsky]

Here's an interesting article on the long history and development of racist politics in America by Princeton Professor Douglas Massey.

[y66]

It was a scheme that by its very nature became more profitable over time, and it is all in stark violation of the law.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09/21/nyregion/trump-fraud-lawsuit-ny-james

[pilowsky]

So, suppose one or more of the three Mr Trump's +- Mrs Kushner have to go to prison.

Does that mean they get a Secret Service detail in the cells with them?

[Winstonm]

A shout out to Ken:

 

https://www.politico...nation-00057736

 

 

 

 

 

Fully 61 percent of Republicans supported declaring the United States a Christian nation. In other words, even though over half of Republicans previously said such a move would be unconstitutional, a majority of GOP voters would still support this declaration.

[johnu]

So, suppose one or more of the three Mr Trump's +- Mrs Kushner have to go to prison.

Does that mean they get a Secret Service detail in the cells with them?

Secret Service protection for children of the president after the end of the presidency continues until the children are 16. Trump had no problem ordering 6 months of additional protection for his adult children at taxpayer expense when he left office.

 

So only the Manchurian President will have Secret Service protection in prison. Presumably the Secret Service will set up an office in the cell next to Trump's cell, and will have to take off their shoes when they enter Trump's cell.

[Chas_P]

I vote for a person, not a party.

[Winstonm]

A PROCLAMATION

 

WE, THE CHRISTIAN NATION OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERCA, IN ORDER TO KEEP US AS WE IMAGINE US TO BE, AND BY THE POWER VESTED IN US BY THE 7OO CLUB AND CPAC DO HEREBY PROCLAIM:

 

ARTICLE 1: IF YOU--NON-WHITE AND IN NEED OF A CHANCE TO LIVE A PEACEFUL AND HELPFUL LIFE--TRY TO MIGRATE TO THIS CHRISTIAN NATION, YOU ARE WELL AND TRULY *****ED.

 

 

THANK YOU. AMEN

 

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN FORMER GUY

[Chas_P]

A PROCLAMATION

 

WE, THE CHRISTIAN NATION OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERCA, IN ORDER TO KEEP US AS WE IMAGINE US TO BE, AND BY THE POWER VESTED IN US BY THE 7OO CLUB AND CPAC DO HEREBY PROCLAIM:

 

ARTICLE 1: IF YOU--NON-WHITE AND IN NEED OF A CHANCE TO LIVE A PEACEFUL AND HELPFUL LIFE--TRY TO MIGRATE TO THIS CHRISTIAN NATION, YOU ARE WELL AND TRULY *****ED.

 

 

THANK YOU. AMEN

 

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN FORMER GUY

 

I had the best time this afternoon playing in a team match at our local club with two teams from the Georgia Tech bridge club participating. They were such nice young people....four Orientals, one mid-Easterner, two "Americans", and one Italian (the faculty advisor). We didn't talk politics. We just enjoyed life...such as it is nowadays. You should try it Winston.

[Gilithin]

What does "Americans" mean?

[pilowsky]

What does "Americans" mean?

 

As opposed to the Orientals maybe?

[Gilithin]

As opposed to the Orientals maybe?

Oriental is a term that can be used in the same way as Caucasian. Maybe Chas never spoke to them and did not discover their true nationalities. It can be used in a racist way but it does not need to be.

 

"Americans" on the other hand is nebulous. The obvious meaning would be a US subject who is not a Native American, someone like Chas himself. Given that we have 8 people for a bridge match, it is perfectly possible that Chas is one of the 2 "Americans". A second possible meaning is akin to the use of 'mid-Easterner'. Maybe the 2 "American" individuals are from the American continent but not US nationals, Canucks perhaps. And of course, terms like "American" are frequently used in racist circles for US nationals that the writer does not consider to be a true American. It just seems logical to clarify what is actually meant here.

[Chas_P]

Oriental is a term that can be used in the same way as Caucasian. Maybe Chas never spoke to them and did not discover their true nationalities. It can be used in a racist way but it does not need to be.

 

"Americans" on the other hand is nebulous. The obvious meaning would be a US subject who is not a Native American, someone like Chas himself. Given that we have 8 people for a bridge match, it is perfectly possible that Chas is one of the 2 "Americans". A second possible meaning is akin to the use of 'mid-Easterner'. Maybe the 2 "American" individuals are from the American continent but not US nationals, Canucks perhaps. And of course, terms like "American" are frequently used in racist circles for US nationals that the writer does not consider to be a true American. It just seems logical to clarify what is actually meant here.

What I meant is that there were seven young people with different eye slants, different skin tones who were graciously welcomed by people who did not share their eye slants and skin tones. They were bright young people looking to enjoy a happy life. They were not looking to sit around every day whacking out bullshit on a computer keyboard. We were glad to have them, and they are invited back anytime they'd like to come. There is only one race....the human race. But you guys love to cast everyone who doesn't share your worldview as "racist". If that makes you happy, please carry on. I wish you happiness. And just for the record.....I was not one of the two "Americans". There was a young woman who gave me a hug and all of the others gave me a handshake.

[hrothgar]

Oriental is a term that can be used in the same way as Caucasian.

 

"Oriental" is a very loaded term.

 

Is it necessarily racist? Probably not.

 

Does using it show that one's world view is at best dated and pretty ignorant?

Absolutely.

 

When I was in undergrad, Edward Said was required reading for my history classes, with good reason.

[kenberg]

Maryland has a yearly designated One Maryland One Book, generally chosen to improve us all. Last year they offered free copies to high schools so they could read it and form discussions, afaik not a single Board of Ed took them up on it. I also thought it was a lousy book. But this year it is What's Mine and Yours, which I like a great deal. I belong to a book club and we will discuss it on the second Saturday of October. It is complex and interesting, but I also see it as an extremely sad story. The blurb on the front of my copy speaks of "tender and sharp moments". More than once I was asking "When do we get to the tender?" A high school girl with a White mother and a Latino father becomes pregnant by an irresponsible White boy. Her father is now out of jail but still on drugs, she is estranged from her mother so she seeks help from a nurse, she gets her abortion, encounters a Black nurse at the hospital whose son goes to the same high school by bussing. She realizes that this Black nurse and her White mother were the two mothers at odds over bussing, so she takes up with the Black son, as near as I can see primarily to spite her mother. And so on Later in life, but earlier in this hop-around book, this girl is now an adult and her mother has brain cancer. The younger of her two sisters is trying to get the older two to at least be in contact with their mother. Etc.

 

Believe it or not, I regard this as a very worthwhile read. Lots of topics. Interracial marriage, family dysfunction cruelty, and ok, maybe some tenderness. The good part is that I found the characters very believable. Tender it is not. I recommend it, not because it will improve anyone, I just found it a very good read.

 

Playing bridge with someone with slanted eyes, or dark skin, or whatever, is not remotely the same sort of issue. It's not any sort of issue. Ok, it could be an issue sometimes somewhere maybe. God help us.

[Winstonm]

Maryland has a yearly designated One Maryland One Book, generally chosen to improve us all. Last year they offered free copies to high schools so they could read it and form discussions, afaik not a single Board of Ed took them up on it. I also thought it was a lousy book. But this year it is What's Mine and Yours, which I like a great deal. I belong to a book club and we will discuss it on the second Saturday of October. It is complex and interesting, but I also see it as an extremely sad story. The blurb on the front of my copy speaks of "tender and sharp moments". More than once I was asking "When do we get to the tender?" A high school girl with a White mother and a Latino father becomes pregnant by an irresponsible White boy. Her father is now out of jail but still on drugs, she is estranged from her mother so she seeks help from a nurse, she gets her abortion, encounters a Black nurse at the hospital whose son goes to the same high school by bussing. She realizes that this Black nurse and her White mother were the two mothers at odds over bussing, so she takes up with the Black son, as near as I can see primarily to spite her mother. And so on Later in life, but earlier in this hop-around book, this girl is now an adult and her mother has brain cancer. The younger of her two sisters is trying to get the older two to at least be in contact with their mother. Etc.

 

Believe it or not, I regard this as a very worthwhile read. Lots of topics. Interracial marriage, family dysfunction cruelty, and ok, maybe some tenderness. The good part is that I found the characters very believable. Tender it is not. I recommend it, not because it will improve anyone, I just found it a very good read.

 

Playing bridge with someone with slanted eyes, or dark skin, or whatever, is not remotely the same sort of issue. It's not any sort of issue. Ok, it could be an issue sometimes somewhere maybe. God help us.

 

Sounds like a candidate for the brown shirt book burning barbecue.

[Gilithin]

I was not one of the two "Americans".

So were these two people American nationals of North European origin, Canucks, non-white American nationals, or something else?

[Gilithin]

"Oriental" is a very loaded term.

 

Is it necessarily racist? Probably not.

 

Does using it show that one's world view is at best dated and pretty ignorant?

Absolutely.

 

When I was in undergrad, Edward Said was required reading for my history classes, with good reason.

Indeed it is loaded enough that police forces stopped using it and replaced it with the code IC5. But if I witnessed a crime I would be much more likely to say Oriental than IC5, in just the same way as describing a North European as white or caucasian rather than IC1. The trouble here is that American (and Italian) does not describe an ethnic origin but rather a nationality. If the description was 4 orientals, 1 mid-easterner, 2 latinos and 1 south european, it would clearly be using outdated terminology but at least it would be internally consistent. If, as is more common, oriental is used to separate out children from East-Asian immigrant families out from children of European immigrant families, it is usually (but not always) done for racist purposes. Context matters.

 

It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that all 8 of the described individuals are actually American nationals. That would make usage of the term "Americans" particularly noteworthy and difficult to contextualise. I genuinely find it difficult to explain other than my definition #1 (native American context) or #3 (racist terminology). If Chas again refuses to answer, BBF readers will just have to make up their own minds as to which explanation is the more likely.

[Winstonm]

I don't remember seeing Quotation American on the census form. Is that new?