Mediaboss Marketing

Still, Shapiro and many other experts believe political parties have suffered a major loss in clout, which in turn has been a loss for democracy in general.

"Political parties are the core institution of democratic accountability because parties, not the individuals who support or comprise them, can offer competing visions of the public good," write Shapiro and his Yale colleague, Frances Rosenbluth, in a2018 opinion piece. Voters, they argue, have neither the time nor the background to research costs and benefits of policies and weigh their personal interests against what's best for the majority in the long run.

To show what can go wrong with single-issue voting that lacks party guidance, Shapiro and Rosenbluth point to California's notorious Proposition 13, a 1978 ballot initiative that sharply restricted increases in property taxes. At first, the measure seemed like a win to many voters. Yet over the years, the new rule also decimated local budgets to the point where California's per-pupil school spending now ranks near the bottom of a list of the 50 states.

Parties serve many other important roles, including facilitating compromise, says Russell Muirhead, a political scientist at Dartmouth University and Rosenblum's co-author. As an example, Muirhead points to theUS Farm Bill, which the two parties renegotiate roughly every five years. Each time they sit down, "the Democrats want food support for urban people and Republicans want support for farmers, and somehow, they always come to an agreement," Muirhead says. "The alternative is favouring one side or simply passing nothing at all."

Perhaps most important, the US's two main parties have traditionally cooperated in acknowledging their opponents' legitimacy, as Rosenblum and Muirhead write. Other nations, such as Thailand, Turkey and Germany, have banned political parties that their governments have seen as too destabilising to democracy. American parties' cooperation has helped keep the peace by reassuring US voters that even if they lose today, they may well win tomorrow. Now, however, this fundamental rule is being broken, say Rosenblum, Muirhead and others, with some party leaders even accusing their opponents of treason.

Read the original post:
Can we have democracy without political parties? - BBC News

"Our entire democracy is now at risk." Those are the unvarnished words of more than 100 scholars with expertise in the history of democratic breakdown around the world.

Now, they're warning the U.S. could transform into a political system that doesn't meet even "minimum conditions" for free and fair elections. We'll hear their warnings, and solutions.

Susan Stokes, professor of political science and director of the Chicago Center on Democracy at the University of Chicago.Co-director of Bright Line Watch, an academic initiative to monitor democratic practices in the U.S. and call attention to threats to American democracy.

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst. (@JackBeattyNPR)

Anna Grzymala-Busse, professor of international studies and director of The Europe Center at Stanford University. Senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institution for International Studies and the Hoover Institution. (@AnnaGBusse)

Steven Levitsky, professor of government and director of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University.

New America: "Statement of Concern" "We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm."

Democratic Erosion: "Civil Society and Democratic Decline: A Look at Poland" "Poland was once seen as a model post-Soviet transition to democracy. Between 1989 and 2014, Poland built democratic institutions, joined the EU, NATO, and the OSCE, and experienced significant economic growth."

The Guardian: "American democracy is at risk from Trump and the Republicans. What can be done?" "Academics rarely agree about the big issues, and generally hesitate to enter the political fray by signing collective public statements."

Read this article:
Democracy At Risk: Scholars Offer Warnings And What Can Be Done - WBUR

Despite consistent economic growth rates over the past two decades, Peru remains a deeply unequal and divided nation, with the wealthier and whiter population in its cities reaping most of the benefits of a neoliberal economic model put in place in the 1990s by Ms. Fujimoris father.

When the pandemic ripped through Peru, it exacerbated those social and economic gaps, hitting hardest those who could not afford to stop working, who lived in cramped conditions, or who had limited access to health care in a country with a weak safety net.

The elections played along the same economic, racial and class lines, with Ms. Fujimori drawing most of her support from urban areas, and Mr. Castillo finding his base in the rural highlands, home to more mixed-race and Indigenous Peruvians.

Mr. Zavaleta, the political scientist, said he thought the chaos of the election, including Ms. Fujimoris attempts to overturn votes, had deepened the differences between Peruvians.

And I believe that it will have relatively long-lasting effects, he went on.

Outside the election authority on Thursday, Max Aguilar, 63, said he had traveled hours by bus, from the northern city of Chimbote, to defend Mr. Castillo.

We believe that the far right has already had enough time to show us that things can be better and they havent done it, he said.

So we, the people, are saying no, that is enough. And we are betting on a change. We have a lot of confidence in Professor Castillo.

Sofa Villamil contributed reporting from Bogot, Colombia.

Read this article:
Peruvian Election, Still Undecided, Pushes a Democracy to Its Brink - The New York Times

When Sen. Joe Manchin announced he would oppose the For the People Act, Steve Benen of MSNBC spoke for many Democrats when he declared that Joe Manchin is prepared to be remembered by history as the senator who did little more than hope as his countrys democracy unraveled.

One can share Democrats alarm about the state of our democracy without concluding that the For the People Act was the answer.

H.R. 1 is a mashup of sound ideas (requiring a paper record of each vote) with outdated and arguably unconstitutional measures banning so-called dark money at a time when small-dollar donations are more important; and limiting speech, which the American Civil Liberties Union, among others, opposes.

Some are now saying the Democrats should turn to the John Lewis Act as a response to Republican efforts to curtail voting rights in the states. But the Lewis Act is off-point, too.

Look, Republican efforts to limit early and absentee voting are destructive because they ratify the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. These laws deserve the strongest condemnation, and Democrats would be justified in running ads reminding voters that Republicans were acting in bad faith.

But not all of the measures in these laws are objectionable. Requiring an ID strikes many people as simple common sense. An Economist/YouGov poll in April found that 64% of Americans agreed with the statement: Photo ID should be required to vote in person. Among African Americans, 60% agreed. Democrats should not die on this hill.

Moreover, the far more pressing emergency is the Republican Partys loosening attachment to democratic procedures and to truth itself. As we saw in the aftermath of 2020, 147 Republican officeholders were willing to decertify the Electoral College count. A few brave local Republican officials resisted tremendous pressure to alter or misreport the results of elections. They demonstrated integrity. For their trouble, instead of being lauded and celebrated as heroes of democracy, they have been censured by GOP committees across the country as the legend of the Big Lie has seized the minds of rank-and-file Republicans.

The Republican Party is barreling toward disregarding the actual vote count in a presidential contest. The John Lewis Act does not address this.

There is something Democrats can do at the federal level to respond to the threat: They can amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Republicans would be unlikely to filibuster this law, so Democrats can pass it with a simple majority vote.

This law was passed following the contentious Hayes-Tilden election in 1876 a contest that was so close it threatened to tear the country apart just 11 years after Appomattox. Here is a sample of its brilliant draftsmanship:

If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made.

It goes on and on like that. Laws should not be written to obscure but to clarify.

The law directs governors to certify their states results and the slate of electors chosen by the voters. But it also specifies that in a case of a failed election (not defined) in which the voters have not made a choice, the state legislature can step in to appoint electors.

As the votes were being counted in 2020, Republican influencers like radio host Mark Levin were suggesting that state legislatures had a constitutional duty to reverse the will of the voters and name their own slate of Trump electors. When Sen. Lindsey Graham was asked by Sean Hannity about possibly invalidating votes, he said, Everything should be on the table.

The Electoral Count Act decrees that if one representative and one senator object, in writing, to the counting of any states electoral votes, the bodies must adjourn to their chambers to debate the matter.

As Ed Kilgore has recommended, Congress should amend the Electoral Count Act to clarify that only electoral votes certified by individual states will be counted and that the vice presidents role is purely ceremonial. Further, the threshold for objections to state electoral vote counts should be much higher than two.

I would add that a supermajority should be required to decertify any states electoral votes, not just a simple majority as the law now permits. Additionally, the law should be amended to eliminate the failed election section that empowers legislatures to substitute their preference for that of the voters. There are armies of law professors who can provide relevant language and good ideas for other changes.

Forget H.R. 1. Forget campaign finance. Dont perseverate on whether poll watchers can distribute water to voters waiting in line. Its not the vote casting but the vote counting that needs attention. Now.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the Beg to Differ podcast.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.

Read the original here:
The real threat to democracy is how your vote is counted | Charen - Chicago Sun-Times

To political scientists and many election experts and administrators, the wave of recently passed or proposed state laws sweeping the nation in the wake of former President Donald Trumps attempts to overturn his loss is deeply concerning.

Its not just the provisions in these bills that in some instances would make it harder to vote. Its that many of the bills also target election administration in ways that might make it easier for a losing candidate to jam a stick in the wheels of democratic processes.

One of the main lessons of the 2020 presidential election was that ordinary officials, partisans themselves, can be among American democracys most powerful protectors. Will new election laws prevent that from happening in the future?

It is a very scary moment to see this trend, says Adam Ambrogi, director of the Elections and Voting Program at Democracy Fund, a nonpartisan foundation that focuses on American democracys challenges.

Is it possible to defend against the risk of election interference or manipulation?

Last week, Democratic lawyer Bob Bauer and Republican lawyer Jack Goldsmith, who together headed the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, announced that they would organize the legal defense of any election official who may come under siege from the new laws.

The defense of the electoral process is not a partisan cause, even where there may be reasonable disagreements between the parties about specific voting rules and procedures, they wrote in The New York Times.

Its November 2024. The U.S. presidential election is over. The battle over who won is just beginning.

Ballot totals show the incumbent leading the national vote by a few percentage points. His margin in the Electoral College is smaller than in 2020, but seems clear.

Still, the challenger and his supporters are mounting a furious challenge to an election they say was close enough to have been tipped by fraud.

One of the main lessons of the 2020 presidential election was that ordinary officials, partisans themselves, can be among American democracys most powerful protectors. Will new election laws prevent that from happening in the future?

In Michigan, counting is in chaos. Local officials in conservative rural counties are refusing to certify vote totals. State legislators are suing the secretary of state, claiming she posted a link to an absentee ballot application on her website, which is illegal under a new law passed via a highly unusual voter petition procedure.

In Wisconsin, the challengers campaign is desperately trying to close the presidents 15,000-vote winning margin. The challengers lawyers are methodically combing the states nursing homes and residential care facilities, looking for instances where staff reminded residents to apply for absentee ballots, or helped fill them out. Both actions are now subject to criminal penalties.

Nationwide, an organized corps of partisan poll watchers, taking advantage of laws passed since 2020 that allow them greater access, have filed hundreds of affidavits claiming suspicious voter behavior. Georgia is an epicenter of this dispute. The State Election Board, with all members appointed by the Republican-controlled legislature, issues a statement saying populous Fulton County was rife with fraud.

Finally, Georgias new governor takes a momentous step. Given everything happening in the nation, he says, it seems clear that the challenger won a big victory. He asks state lawmakers to simply overturn the presidents narrow Georgia victory, sayinghes been assured that such a move is legal under the U.S. Constitution.

Is this scenario far-fetched? Maybe. It rests in part on both new 2021 laws and bills introduced that havent passed state legislatures yet, and the results of yet un-run governors races. It cherry-picks provisions to put together a worst-case scenario.

Crucially, it involves hypothetical decisions by dozens, if not hundreds of state officials who might swing either way. One of the main lessons of the 2020 presidential election was that ordinary officials, partisans themselves, can be among American democracys most powerful protectors.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announces an audit of presidential election results triggering a full hand recount Nov. 11, 2020. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary Raffensperger won wide praise last fall for firmly rejecting then-President Donald Trumps false claims of voter fraud. The state then passed a raft of new voting laws, one of 14 so far to do so.

But to political scientists and many election experts and administrators, the wave of recently passed or proposed state laws sweeping the nation in the wake of former President Donald Trumps attempts to overturn his loss is deeply concerning.

Its not just the provisions in these bills that in some instances would make it harder to vote. Its that many of the bills also target election administration in ways that might make it easier for a losing candidate to jam a stick in the wheels of democratic processes.

Aspects of these laws may also implicitly reinforce the former presidents continued false claims that 2020 was stolen.

It is a very scary moment to see this trend, says Adam Ambrogi, director of the Elections and Voting Program at Democracy Fund, a nonpartisan foundation that focuses on American democracys challenges.

The spate of new laws also points out how unusual the American system of elections is.

Most advanced democracies run elections via a national-level, nonpartisan agency. Voting machines look the same everywhere, and so do ballots. The procedures for counting and certifying dont vary.

But in the United States, elections are decentralized all the way down to county and local levels. A U.S. presidential election is in essence 10,000 individual elections run at the same time.

One of the downsides of this dispersion of power and responsibility is that it opens up opportunities for litigation, partisan and otherwise. Since 2000, election litigation has nearly tripled compared with pre-2000 levels, according to Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine. That year, the Supreme Court ended the Florida recount and the election when it decided Bush v. Gore in favor of President George W. Bush.

Enter Mr. Trump and his unprecedented attack on the election results. His false claims of fraud sufficient to overturn the vote have created pressure for litigation and new laws on two fronts, according to Professor Hasen. Ordinary Republican voters convinced the White House was stolen are clamoring for action from below. From above Mr. Trump and his allies continue to push state lawmakers for action.

Election auditors Harri Hursti (right) and Mark Lindeman catalog ballot boxes in Pembroke, New Hampshire, during a forensic audit of the 2020 New Hampshire legislative election May 11, 2021. Auditors have found no evidence of fraud or political bias.

So-called forensic audits are the latest item of contention. Republican state senators in Arizona subpoenaed ballots from Maricopa County and hired a little-known firm named Cyber Ninjas to examine the ballots in ways experienced election officials find unprofessional at best. The Department of Justice says it may also violate federal election law. The former president is now pressing for lawmakers in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other states to take a similar step, reportedly seeing it as a possible path to return to the Oval Office within months. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that would make that possible.

As for new state election laws, Georgias sweeping legislation passed in April. Florida followed suit, enacting somewhat narrower new laws. Texas was set to pass an expansive bill late last month, but Democrats stalled the bill by walking out and denying the Republican majority a quorum. Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott has vowed to call a special session to reconsider election legislation later this summer.

Between Jan. 1 and May 14, at least 14 states enacted 22 new bills that restrict access to the vote, according to figures compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Sixty-one bills continue to progress through 18 other state legislatures.

Overall lawmakers have introduced almost 400 restrictive bills in virtually every state in the union, according to Brennan. One of the most unusual situations is in Michigan, where Republicans control the Legislature but Democrat Gretchen Whitmer is governor. To avoid a certain veto from Governor Whitmer, GOP lawmakers may use an obscure provision of the state constitution that prevents the governor from striking down laws begun as citizen petition drives.

Provisions of these bills that alter how elections are administered, or give legislatures more control over the appointment and removal of election officials, may have received less attention than moves that affect the act of voting. But they are just as important, if not more so, according to a States United Democracy Center summary of the current spate of election legislation.

These are substantial changes that, if enacted, could make elections unworkable, render results far more difficult to finalize, and in the worst-case scenario, allow state legislatures to substitute their preferred candidates for those chosen by the voters, says the report.

In Arizona, Missouri, and Nevada, for instance, bills would allow state legislatures to take charge of certifying election results giving them the opportunity to reverse results they dont like, according to the report.

In Georgia, the just-passed legislation strips the secretary of state of a role on the State Election Board. This could be a personal affront Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger stood up to then-President Trump in a phone call and declined to overturn the states election results.

In Iowa, election officials are now subject to fines of $10,000 and suspension for actions that disregard or hinder the object of the law, and could be hit with criminal penalties for trying to calm disruptive poll watcher activity.

Adam Ambrogi of the Democracy Fund says that many of the new bills seem aimed directly at Mr. Trumps electoral concerns.

There is a clear attempt to defend the big lie that the election was poorly run, he says.

They also appear designed to put pressure on election officials from the top of the ladder to the bottom rung.

Weve never seen this type of threat in the modern era, says Mr. Ambrogi.

Is it possible to defend against the risk of election interference or manipulation?

Last week, Democratic lawyer Bob Bauer and Republican lawyer Jack Goldsmith, who together headed the Presidential Commission on Election Administration in 2013-14, announced that they would organize the legal defense of any election official who may come under siege from the new laws.

The defense of the electoral process is not a partisan cause, even where there may be reasonable disagreements between the parties about specific voting rules and procedures, the pair wrote in The New York Times.

Professor Hasen suggests strengthening intermediaries that help with truth-telling as a means of building overall trust in elections and strengthening democracy. What is required is a kind of bipartisan cross-discipline strengthening of institutions that have been attacked and degraded during the Trump era, he says.

Im talking about things like courts, law enforcement, academia, political parties, the school system, and civics organizations, he emails in response to a reporter inquiry.

Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

Mr. Ambrogi suggests urging people and organizations that have generally stayed out of politics, such as corporations and business groups, to stand up and say enough is enough. Companies based in Georgia, such as Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola, did this following the passage of the states election law earlier this year.

They need to say this is dangerous for our country, he says.

Original post:
Election laws, 2024, and the future of democracy - The Christian Science Monitor