General politics

[gunnarthor]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/27/msnbc-fox-cable-ratings-number-one-1075872

 

People aren't watching FOX News as much.

[PseudoSABR]

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/27/msnbc-fox-cable-ratings-number-one-1075872

 

People aren't watching FOX News as much.

Those rating show how tribal the American viewers are.  1.5M viewers for each of MSNBC and Fox, and then 1M for CNN. 

[gunnarthor]

Anyone wanna get angry again?  https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/30/us/arizona-migrant-child-abuse-allegations/index.html

[PseudoSABR]

The Suffocation of Democracy

 

If the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell. He stoked the hyperpolarization of American politics to make the Obama presidency as dysfunctional and paralyzed as he possibly could. As with parliamentary gridlock in Weimar, congressional gridlock in the US has diminished respect for democratic norms, allowing McConnell to trample them even more. Nowhere is this vicious circle clearer than in the obliteration of traditional precedents concerning judicial appointments. Systematic obstruction of nominations in Obama’s first term provoked Democrats to scrap the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominations. Then McConnell’s unprecedented blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination required him in turn to scrap the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in order to complete the “steal” of Antonin Scalia’s seat and confirm Neil Gorsuch. The extreme politicization of the judicial nomination process is once again on display in the current Kavanaugh hearings.

 

This was published in October, but I recently came across it; an insightful and foreboding analysis.

[Mr. Brooks]

An interesting letter to the editor from this morning's online STrib, that is a topic that has been discussed in this forum often:

 

Even though the majority of Americans want to end the shutdown, in Thursday’s votes in the U.S. Senate, Republican senators from red states with relatively small populations in which President Donald Trump still polls positively voted against ending the shutdown. This reflects the problem that, given the ratio of senators representing states with small populations relative to the larger U.S. population, on this and other issues, the Senate does not represent the opinions of the American public.

 

While many Democrats representing states with large populations such as California, New York or Illinois support ending the shutdown, they are outvoted by senators representing states with smaller populations. As noted in a Washington Post column by Philip Bump (https://goo.gl/ziGm1c), since 1790, “the most-populous states making up half of the country’s population have always been represented by only about a fifth of the available Senate seats.” Bump also notes that the problem will only worsen in the future, citing a report by the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib “that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. … They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them.”

 

RICHARD BEACH, MINNEAPOLIS

[Mike Sixel]

Yup. The Senate needs to be changed. Going to keep saying it to my grave. Not totally proportional, but closer. Tyranny of the minority in full force right now.

[LaBombo]

 

Yup. The Senate needs to be changed. Going to keep saying it to my grave. Not totally proportional, but closer. Tyranny of the minority in full force right now.

 

Two out of three is a minority?

 

And a vote that doesn't go your way is "tyranny"?

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Two out of three is a minority?

 

And a vote that doesn't go your way is "tyranny"?

30% is the minority (although representing 2/3rds of the states).  It's tyranny because it overrides the majority's will.  Democracy and all that.

[Mr. Brooks]

The Dakotas having twice as much power as California is complete nonsense to me.

It's an outdated allocation of power.

This laughable border wall nonsense wouldn't even be a thing without it, the overwhelming majority of people don't want the wall.

71% of people are now for Medicare for all, yet that has no chance anytime soon.

A strong majority are also for federal legalization, or at least decriminalization of marijuana, which also likely has no chance anytime soon.

I understand the original desired balance of checking the majority. But, i don't think anyone could have predicted the population shifts we've undergone. It's now swung too far in the desired direction, IMO.

 

Tyranny is a very strong word. But, considering the effects that the above mentioned issues are having on people, it might be appropriate.

[LaBombo]

 

30% is the minority (although representing 2/3rds of the states).  It's tyranny because it overrides the majority's will.  Democracy and all that.

 

So now we're doing away with the concept of states in order to arrive at a desired agenda?

 

[LaBombo]

 

The Dakotas having twice as much power as California is complete nonsense to me.
It's an outdated allocation of power.

I understand the original desired balance of checking the majority. But, i don't think anyone could have predicted the population shifts we've undergone. It's now swung too far in the desired direction, IMO.

Tyranny is a very strong word. But, considering the effects that the above mentioned issues are having on people, it might be appropriate.

 

And I understand that you understand it, as do all the regulars here, I assume. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I'm not aware of any conclusive, non-partisan proof that the fundamental concept of states' rights in the form of a Senate and electoral college has been or will be a major impediment to democracy.

 

Marijuana, since you mentioned it, is a good example of an issue that shows the value of state statues as opposed to a federally dominated democracy.  Individual states have been able to make various provisions for legalization well in advance of anything resembling the national mandate that it will take, as a practical legislative matter, to approve federal laws.

 

In any case, political theory aside, if Democrats are serious about helping rural voters find their way back to them in 2020 it might be a bad plan to promote the idea of reducing the aforementioned Dakotan voters and millions like them to electoral irrelevance.

 

Maybe that's a battle worth fighting now, but my guess is that there's understandably waaaaaaaaaaay more focus on creating the best possible odds of defeating Trump in 2020.

[Mr. Brooks]

It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I'm not aware of any conclusive, non-partisan proof that the fundamental concept of states' rights in the form of a Senate and electoral college has been or will be a major impediment to democracy.

 

Political theory aside, if Democrats are serious about helping rural voters find their way back to them in 2020 it might be a bad plan to promote the idea of reducing the aforementioned Dakotan voters and millions like them to electoral irrelevance.

Conclusive, non partisan proof? No. But, this is an opinion forum here. Some of us share the opinion that the pendulum has begun to swing too far in this direction.

Would you agree that it's at least possible for that to happen, at some point?

 

I'd argue that standing in the way of issues that upwards of 70 % of the population agrees on is bordering on an impediment to democracy.

Again, this could be a disagreement in where the line is. Do you agree that at some point that could be the case? What if the number on an issue was 90%? What if it was 99%?

 

I can't speak for everyone, I'm sure for some, maybe even many, it's agenda based. For me it's not. It's principled. I think the wall is stupid and does nothing to solve any problems. But, if 70% of the population wanted the wall, I'd be arguing that the government should fund the stupid wall.

 

I also think there is plenty of room between making common sense adjustments, and rendering smaller states irrelevant. I don't know where that balance is, or how to find it, I'll admit. But, I do think that we are currently past that point.

[TheLeviathan]

I think blaming the issue on the structuring of the Senate entirely misses the point.  I don't think anyone needs a lecture on democracy vs. democratic republic, but there is a reason that was done.  

 

The issue with healthcare is not two senators per state.  Nor is that the case with really any issue.  The problem is in the way the two parties have decided to carve out power and how neither seeks to govern all.  If our institutions are threatened, it's because we've allowed the parties to represent stark dividing lines and they have happily obliged.

 

And here's the thing about that realization:  Once you see that, you'll realize restructuring the Senate doesn't really fix the problem.

[PseudoSABR]

 

So now we're doing away with the concept of states in order to arrive at a desired agenda?

Are you kidding me?  A democracy is made of people not of states.   Are you willing to give up democracy to get your desired result? 

 

Maybe we should go back to only property owners should have the right to vote!

[Mr. Brooks]

I think blaming the issue on the structuring of the Senate entirely misses the point. I don't think anyone needs a lecture on democracy vs. democratic republic, but there is a reason that was done.

 

The issue with healthcare is not two senators per state. Nor is that the case with really any issue. The problem is in the way the two parties have decided to carve out power and how neither seeks to govern all. If our institutions are threatened, it's because we've allowed the parties to represent stark dividing lines and they have happily obliged.

 

And here's the thing about that realization: Once you see that, you'll realize restructuring the Senate doesn't really fix the problem.

I'm aware there is a reason this was done.

With all due respect to the founding fathers, we owe them a lot, they couldn't have foreseen some things (population shifts, assault weapons, etc), and some things they were flat out wrong on (slavery, women's rights, etc).

 

I would respectfully submit that the issue is both things (skewed power representation AND the way those in power choose to govern), as well as a slough of others.

 

If 350 million people lived in one state, and 2 people each in the other 49 states, would you still think Senate allocation wasn't an issue?

Yes, I know it's an unrealistically extreme example. But, again, we may agree a line exists, while simply disagreeing on whether we've already crossed that line or not.

[TheLeviathan]

 

If 350 million people lived in one state, and 2 people each in the other 49 states, would you still think Senate allocation wasn't an issue?
Yes, I know it's an unrealistically extreme example. But, again, we may agree a line exists, while simply disagreeing on whether we've already crossed that line or not.

 

Yes, there would be a point at which a straight democracy would be a better path, I agree.  But I don't think we're at that point.  I'm not beholden to the founding fathers, btw, I just don't think the structure of government is the problem here.  

 

I'm also opposed to laying the blame on this because I think it's something of a cop-out.  Essentially, the argument is that it's impossible to get a majority in the Senate for Democrats.  But we have pretty extensive, and recent, examples to the contrary.  

 

Lastly, I'm only worried about the near future, long term projections that predict those sorts of population clusters will result in a cascade of changes in other factors.  Trying to wedge that possible future into the current context is sorta silly.  In a country that looked like that, the dynamics in the context around it would also change extensively.  It's not apples to apples.  

[Mike Sixel]

So now we're doing away with the concept of states in order to arrive at a desired agenda?

Did anyone say that? I suggested it needed better balance. And, it isn't about my agenda, it's about democracy. And representative government, both of which I believe in rather strongly. Right now, the Senate isn't representative at all, and it's only going to get worse.

[LaBombo]

 

Are you kidding me?  A democracy is made of people not of states.   Are you willing to give up democracy to get your desired result? 

 

Maybe we should go back to only property owners should have the right to vote!

 

As much as you might want to conflate my reluctance to s#!tcan 200 years of relative success by our current democratic republic with a return to slavery, the issue isn't a cartoonish battle of good vs. evil.

 

And since one of the key purposes of the republic-oriented facets of our government is to protect the rights of the voting minority, it seems to me that the burden of proof to vastly weaken or end that protection has not been met yet.

[PseudoSABR]

 

As much as you might want to conflate my reluctance to s#!tcan 200 years of relative success by our current democratic republic with a return to slavery, the issue isn't a cartoonish battle of good vs. evil.

 

And since one of the key purposes of the republic-oriented facets of our government is to protect the rights of the voting minority, it seems to me that the burden of proof to vastly weaken or end that protection has not been met yet.

Sure.  However, there's a significant distinction between protecting a minority and allowing that minority to rule adversely to a significant majority.   The founding father's didn't anticipate 50 states, the majority of which are rural, so we shouldn't impute their initial motives onto our current, disparate state-make-up. 

[Badsmerf]

Texas shifting blue will change this conversation a bit. I doubt the red state Democrat senators will last another election. In the current structure, the Senate is absolutely a tyranny. Just wait until democrats own the house and Whitehouse again. I'm not sure they'll win the Senate back unless things change.

 

When Texas goes blue, Republicans will be in trouble with the electoral college. Things might start to change after that happens.

[LaBombo]

 

Did anyone say that? I suggested it needed better balance. And, it isn't about my agenda, it's about democracy. And representative government, both of which I believe in rather strongly. Right now, the Senate isn't representative at all, and it's only going to get worse.

 

No, you didn't, but that outcome is an implicit and undeniable potential danger of diminishing a fundamental factor in the balance of state and federal powers.

 

As much as I want to believe that everyone's passion on the subject goes beyond partisanship and current events, they are inextricably linked in virtually every discussion on the matter.

 

And yes, that argument of partisanship's heavy hand in structural matters of government absolutely cuts both ways, as conservatives invariably dig in to defend the ramparts of the Electoral College like a constitutional Alamo.

 

In the face of an argument that at least coincides with political expediency, all I can do is draw on my terribly limited knowledge of political history and look to the impetus for change in the last major structural overhaul of the Senate, way back in 1913.

 

The 17th Amendment shifted the power to elect senators from state legislatures to voters not because a particular issue, demographic, or party. It happened primarily because of a simple and inarguable logistical failure of multiple state legislatures to break deadlocks and do their job of putting senators' butts in their seats on time.

 

I'm not saying that you can ever hope to keep partisanship out of a discussion about remaking the Senate, or that such a discussion should never take place because of that. I'm just saying that at the moment, we're at a very different point than we were the last time such a drastic change was made, when it was more an agreement that 'This isn't working' than an argument that 'This isn't working the way we want'.

 

[LaBombo]

 

Texas shifting blue will change this conversation a bit. I doubt the red state Democrat senators will last another election. In the current structure, the Senate is absolutely a tyranny. Just wait until democrats own the house and Whitehouse again. I'm not sure they'll win the Senate back unless things change.

When Texas goes blue, Republicans will be in trouble with the electoral college. Things might start to change after that happens.

 

Maybe we should save the nuclear options in our political vocabulary for the most extreme necessities? The far left, for example, might be getting more traction with its efforts to ascribe fascism to the Trump administration if it hadn't spent most of the 00's screaming "Bush = Hitler!!!".

[TheLeviathan]

Texas moving blue (along with a few other states) is going to shift a lot of factors.  Let's face it, if Texas shifts blue, it'll be nearly impossible for the Republicans to ever elect a President again.

 

But that's projecting.....and I've mistakenly bought into that before.  After Obama won and the demographic shifts were plastered everywhere I had doubts the Republicans could ever win again then too.  Well, didn't take long for me to look like a dope.  Projections fail to account for the context that shifts with the hypothetical and the devil is very much in those details.  

 

Did we forget Obama started his Presidency with a majority in the Senate and House?  It's not like that was ancient history. 

[Mr. Brooks]

No, you didn't, but that outcome is an implicit and undeniable potential danger of diminishing a fundamental factor in the balance of state and federal powers.

 

As much as I want to believe that everyone's passion on the subject goes beyond partisanship and current events, they are inextricably linked in virtually every discussion on the matter.

 

And yes, that argument of partisanship's heavy hand in structural matters of government absolutely cuts both ways, as conservatives invariably dig in to defend the ramparts of the Electoral College like a constitutional Alamo.

 

In the face of an argument that at least coincides with political expediency, all I can do is draw on my terribly limited knowledge of political history and look to the impetus for change in the last major structural overhaul of the Senate, way back in 1913.

 

The 17th Amendment shifted the power to elect senators from state legislatures to voters not because a particular issue, demographic, or party. It happened primarily because of a simple and inarguable logistical failure of multiple state legislatures to break deadlocks and do their job of putting senators' butts in their seats on time.

 

I'm not saying that you can ever hope to keep partisanship out of a discussion about remaking the Senate, or that such a discussion should never take place because of that. I'm just saying that at the moment, we're at a very different point than we were the last time such a drastic change was made, when it was more an agreement that 'This isn't working' than an argument that 'This isn't working the way we want'.

When the government shuts down for 35 days for something the people don't want, something Trump said Mexico would pay for when he was campaigning, then to me no, it's not working.

[Mr. Brooks]

Texas moving blue (along with a few other states) is going to shift a lot of factors. Let's face it, if Texas shifts blue, it'll be nearly impossible for the Republicans to ever elect a President again.

 

But that's projecting.....and I've mistakenly bought into that before. After Obama won and the demographic shifts were plastered everywhere I had doubts the Republicans could ever win again then too. Well, didn't take long for me to look like a dope. Projections fail to account for the context that shifts with the hypothetical and the devil is very much in those details.

 

Did we forget Obama started his Presidency with a majority in the Senate and House? It's not like that was ancient history.

But this is another argument that frames it as agenda based.

I'll say it again, even if I won't be believed, for me it's the principle, not because Dems aren't getting what they want.

 

To me, it's not fair for so few people to wield so much power.

[LaBombo]

 

71% of people are now for Medicare for all, yet that has no chance anytime soon.
 

 

I hope you don't mind that I broke this out from your post about structural government imbalance.

 

If you were citing the KFF poll with the 71% approval figure of Medicare-For-All, then the discussion should include the rest of that poll's findings. If not, maybe these numbers are worth looking at anyway.

 

When KFF's poll asked if they would favor or oppose MFA "if they heard that it would do the following" (their words, and I'm not ready to debate the likelihood of the unintended potential outcomes):

 

If it "Eliminated private health insurance companies": 37%

If it "Required most Americans to pay more taxes": 37%

If it "Threatened the current Medicare program": 32%

If it "Lead to delays in getting some tests and treatments": 26%

 

 As it stands today, the Bernie model of MFA is the frontrunner on Dem wish lists, and it would eliminate most major coverage components of private insurance within 4 years. So based on just that one intended result of MFA, the polling inverts from two thirds approving into two thirds disapproving of MFA.

 

In other words, even in an example you cite of the majority getting hosed, their wishes are in fact being served by our present system, at least in this one poll. If nothing else I would say that's at least win for the law of unintended consequences in the argument against overhauling the senate to include proportional representation.

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

I hope you don't mind that I broke this out from your post about structural government imbalance.

 

If you were citing the KFF poll with the 71% approval figure of Medicare-For-All, then the discussion should include the rest of that poll's findings. If not, maybe these numbers are worth looking at anyway.

 

When KFF's poll asked if they would favor or oppose MFA "if they heard that it would do the following" (their words, and I've little interest in debating the likelihood of unintended potential outcomes):

 

If it "Eliminated private health insurance companies": 37%

If it "Required most Americans to pay more taxes": 37%

If it "Threatened the current Medicare program": 32%

If it "Lead to delays in getting some tests and treatments": 26%

 

As it stands today, the Bernie model of MFA is the frontrunner on Dem wish lists, and it would eliminate most major coverage components of private insurance within 4 years. So based on just that one intended result of MFA, the polling inverts from two thirds approving into two thirds disapproving of MFA.

 

In other words, even in an example you cite of the majority getting hosed, their wishes are in fact being served by our present system, at least in this one poll. If nothing else I would say that's at least win for the law of unintended consequences in the argument against overhauling the senate to include proportional representation.

That's fair. But those are still fairly strong numbers for something that has 0% chance of happening, IMO, under our current system.

[LaBombo]

 

30% is the minority (although representing 2/3rds of the states).  It's tyranny because it overrides the majority's will.  Democracy and all that.

 

My question about the math of 2/3rds being a minority was regarding the current R/R/D makeup of the White House and the three chambers of Congress. And all that.

[TheLeviathan]

 

But this is another argument that frames it as agenda based.
I'll say it again, even if I won't be believed, for me it's the principle, not because Dems aren't getting what they want.

To me, it's not fair for so few people to wield so much power.

 

I question the phrase "so much power".  Most of your argument depends on removing the larger context and only looking at power disparities in an isolated form.  The truth is, if it went the other way the majority would have overwhelming power.  The majority, by and large, get what they want in the long run already. 

 

I know your post wasn't agenda driven, sorry it's tough to separate how one usually hear this concern brought up.  Typically, it's in the cop-out form.  So what system are you proposing that would solve the problem you brought up, but also wouldn't turn our form of government into a tyrannical majority?

[LaBombo]

 

That's fair. But those are still fairly strong numbers for something that has 0% chance of happening, IMO, under our current system.

 

Agreed, and as I mentioned in a reply to someone else whose name escapes me as I make the rounds to the different chess boards, I'm not dead set against restructuring the Senate to somehow reflect voting populations of the states, if/when the time comes.

 

And I make no claim to be somehow above the partisan nature of the battle as it applies to the issues in play that frequently serve as the spark (detonator?) for discussion. Even my caution regarding change is more of a high regard for the law of unintended consequences than it is an unflinching belief that the founding fathers put together a timeless blueprint back in the day.