Mediaboss Marketing

REUTERS/Bryan Woolston

Just one U.S. House race, in Utah, was decided by less than 1 percent of the vote. The two closest of the Senate races, the reelection of Democrat Gary Peters of Michigan by 1.35 points and Republican Thom Tillis of North Carolina by 1.7, could certainly be called very close but not exactly historic squeakers.

The closest among Minnesotas eight U.S. House races were likewise small-but-not-squeakily-small wins by incumbent Democrat Angie Craig in the 2nd Congressional District (by 2.2 percentage points) over challenger Kyle Kistner, and by incumbent Republican Jim Hagedorn in his rematch reelection (by 3 percentage points) over Dan Feehan in the 1st Congressional District. They were close enough to make the Ballotpedia list, but not recount-worthy.

Sen. Tina Smiths victory margin of 5.37 percentage points over challenger and former Republican Congressman Jason Lewis will give Smith her first full term. She had won a special election in 2018 to serve the unexpired portion of Al Frankens term. While all the races above made Ballotpedias list of close races, Im more impressed with the large-ish size of the margins.

Article continues after advertisement

To clarify what a squeaker looks like, see Frankens 2008 victory over Norm Coleman by 312 votes (thats one one-hundredth of one percent of the ballots), requiring an extended recount that I helped cover for MinnPost, and preventing the declaration of a winner for seven months while the recount was agonizingly conducted, without any partisan bias by those involved. ( I love Minnesota.)

But back to this years races: Of all 470 House and Senate races on the ballot, just 76 were decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points. If you take a win of 10 points as a blowout, as I do, that means 84 percent of all House and Senate races were deeply uncompetitive. If you consider a winning margin above 5 percentage points as a fairly solid win, that would describe all but 35 of the races, although I gather there are a few that, for various reasons, are still being counted.

Were so accustomed to our U.S. system of politics and government, and perhaps some of us are used to assuming that we are a model of democracy, that we dont think much about other ways of doing democracy, including ways that would end the two-party duopoly.

The most different form from ours may be the Israeli model, which kind of appeals to me even though it seems to produce a fair bit of its own craziness. Ive mentioned it before, but just to help you think outside the box, heres how that one works:

There are no districts. Voters dont vote for an individual but indicate their preference for a party. All members of the Knesset, or parliament, are chosen at large, according to the percentage of the total vote their party received. In the most recent election, 11 different parties reached the threshold to get at least some of the 120 seats in the Knesset. If no party gets a majority (and no party ever does) the two biggest parties often try to form a coalition that constitutes a governing majority of 61.

It sounds crazy, and maybe it is. But in America, a party could get 25 or more percent of the vote and get zero seats in Congress and zero power in government. To me, thats a little crazy, or maybe I should say a little undemocratic. The result, of course, is that both major parties are themselves less-formal coalitions.

Article continues after advertisement

We now have two parties that find it extremely difficult to compromise. Since in the U.S. system, it requires a majority of both houses of Congress to pass a bill and a president to sign it, we have devolved into semi-permanent gridlock.

That, most recently, has led to the following: A president (Donald Trump), chosen by neither a majority nor even a plurality of the electorate, expanding executive power on the fly to do a great many things that are opposed by a significant majority of the electorate and do not command majority support in the legislative branch.

If all goes sanely in January, we will inaugurate a less ignorant and megalomaniacal president. But he will still face a Congress divided across party lines which will have to govern by bipartisan agreements, or not at all.

The Israeli system is a fairly extreme example of parliamentarianism. But even the more common forms, like the British model, are designed to have a prime minister and a cabinet that leads a party or a coalition that represents a governing majority. When it cant govern, there is a mechanism to call an election and assemble a government that can.

Crazy, right?

One more comparative government point, which seems extremely relevant at the moment. In the typical parliamentary system, as soon after the election as a government, commanding a majority in Parliament, can be formed, the old prime minister leaves and the new prime minister moves in.

The two-plus months in our system, during which the losing president remains in office and in possession of full (and now recently expanded) powers, leaves a divided Congress to deal with a president who in this case has declared that the Constitution gives him the power to do whatever I want as president.

The Constitution says no such thing. Not even slightly. But lets see what the current incumbent tries to pull under his belief in the whatever I want as president doctrine.

Originally posted here:
A reminder: There are other ways of doing democracy - MinnPost

In 1999, the year it returned to civilian rule, Nigeria adopted a democratic system of governance. It also publicly proclaimed an adherence to democracy.

The new turn was widely embraced by Nigerians. It was viewed as key to promoting legitimacy, changing cultures of exclusion and ensuring better decision making. Such goals were unattainable under the military regime.

But, despite over two decades of civilian democracy, inequalities in distribution of power and resources have continued to impact the peoples right to equal protection and due process. This state of affairs disproportionately affects Nigerias poorest people.

One reason why these inequalities are sustained lies in the countrys failure to integrate in its governance democratic principles which guarantee the publics right to know, participate in decision making and access justice.

In my earlier research, I examined the role of the principles of democracy embedded in the rights of access to information, participation in decision making and access to justice. I looked at these three principles in relation to environmental impact assessments in Nigeria.

I considered whether these pillars of environmental democracy were integrated into the environmental impact assessment process. I concluded that they were not. Nigerians do not have access to information about development projects, do not effectively participate in the making of decisions relating to these projects, and have little or no access to the courts (and justice).

This means that they will continually be imperilled by the adverse effects of development projects.

These three rights matter because transparency and impartiality in governance enable people to be informed, to influence the outcome of decisions and to hold the government accountable for its actions and inactions.

Recent events in particular the #EndSARS protests have necessitated revisiting these three principles as a lens through which to review the state of Nigerias democracy.

In response to long-standing incidents of human rights abuses, particularly by a specialised unit of the Nigeria Police - the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, otherwise known as SARS, the #EndSARS social movement emerged. Young Nigerians took to the streets seeking an end to police brutality, harassment, and extortion.

The response to the protests pointed to violations of the three principles of access to information, participation in decision making and access to justice.

Access to information was denied in a number of ways. In the aftermath of the attack, rather than meaningfully address the demands made by the people, the government imposed fines on television stations which aired the protests. It also ensured that members of the Panel of Enquiry set up to look into the excesses of the now disbanded police unit swore to an oath of secrecy.

Participation in decision making was also denied. Backed by the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and association, the protesters made several demands on the government. These ranged from a reform of the police to good governance. Instead of listening to their demands, the government ordered the Nigerian Army to confront them. At least 12 unarmed protesters were shot and killed.

This situation showed that Nigerians are often denied the right to participate in the making of decisions that affect them.

This is just as they are denied access to justice. For instance, a 2018 Presidential Panel on Reform of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad recommended the dismissal of 37 members of the notorious police unit, and the prosecution of 24 others for professional misconducts. President Muhammadu Buhari received the panels report in June 2019, but nothing has happened to the implicated officers. This remains the case, even after the End SARS protests.

Due to the huge cost of litigation, delay in the disposal of court cases and the unavailability of adequate and effective remedies, Nigerians are often unable to obtain redress in court, in such situations. Without access to justice, the procedural gateway for the enforcement of fundamental rights is lacking.

The protests are a wake-up call for all Nigerians.

The recent developments compel a revisiting of a 2005 report commissioned by the United States National Intelligence Council, which discussed the likely trends in sub-Saharan Africa over a 15-year period.

The report concluded that some African countries would, despite holding multiparty elections, remain democratic aspirers in other words, they would not achieve true democracy.

The report also predicted the outright collapse of Nigeria.

As expected, the report became a media sensation. It triggered varied reactions and sparked debate about the assertions it made.

The Nigerian government was quick to condemn the report.

From the vantage point of 2020, how accurate were the predictions?

In my view, despite its failure to deliver democracy to its citizens, Nigeria is not a failed, collapsed and disintegrated entity. Rather, it is in principle, a weak state that has failed to deliver basic public goods to its citizens.

Its flawed system of governance has had serious implications for its social and political development, economic growth, peace and unity.

States exist to deliver certain public goods to people within their territories. The most crucial of these are the provision of human security and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. A flawed system of governance is an impediment to social and political development, economic growth, peace and unity. Governments and their institutions must be transparent, responsive and accountable to the people.

Opportunities for participation in decision making processes must also be made available to young people in the same way as other members of society. The cultural assumption that elders cannot be challenged or corrected must be done away with.

Having firmly resolved to live in unity and harmony as an indivisible and indissoluble nation, the current situation offers Nigeria an opportunity to retrace its steps.

See the original post here:
Nigeria is not a failed state, but it has not delivered democracy for its people - The Conversation CA

Democracies can die with a coup dtat, a quick seizure of power or they can die a little at a time.

It happens most gradually and deceptively with the election of an authoritarian leader, enablers who abuse governmental power, and finally, the complete repression of the opposition.

Perhaps the canary in the coal mine indicating a nation is slipping toward the death of democracy is when a minority group seizes power and keeps it by any means necessary.

James Madison in Federalist #51 worried about the tyranny of the majority, but what we have witnessed is tyranny of the minority.

The Republicans have won the popular vote for president only once in the last 20 years but have controlled the presidency for 12 years of those two decades.

The fact is that minority rule, whether Republican or Democrat, is bad for our American experiment.

Daniel Ziblatt, professor of political science at Harvard offers this: While our nations founders sought to protect small states, they didnt want to empower a smaller group at the expense of a larger one.

A recent example is the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was nominated by a minority president (Trump) who lost the national popular vote by 3 million ballots, confirmed by a narrow majority of the Senate representing just 44 percent of all Americans, aligned with four other conservative justices including one nominated by the same minority president (Trump) and two others by a president (Bush 43), who also entered the White House with minority support.

According to a New York Times article, Democrats easily won more overall votes for the U.S. Senate in 2016 and 2018, and yet the Republicans hold 53 of 100 seats. The 45 Democratic and two independent senators represent many more people than the 53 Republicans.

The Senate was designed to protect small states, but the population of the four biggest states California, Texas, Florida and New York grew by a combined 8.2 million over the past decade. The combined population of the four smallest Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota grew by 124,000. That is a serious design flaw in representation.

The House of Representatives does represent by population, but the number of representatives was capped at 435 in 1929 when the population of the U.S was one-third the current size. Each congressperson should represent 708,000 citizens. Instead each serves anywhere from 989,000 to 526,000.

And then theres the Electoral College.

The number of electors in each state is equal to the sum of the states membership in the Senate and the House. This gives an advantage to smaller population states. Again, North Dakota has about one electoral vote per 224,000 people, while California gets about one vote per 677,000 people.

So, our winner-takes-all (except Maine and Nebraska) Electoral College model dramatically enables minority rule. No other established democracy has an electoral college.

Remedy? Instead of winner takes all, some other electoral methods that could be used: straight popular vote, proportional popular vote, proportional electoral vote, or weighted vote (1st, 2nd, 3rd) (see 270towin.com)

Tyranny by the minority goes against Republicans core principles of supporting free markets.

Dr. Ziblatt, explains: The Republican party is (like) a protected firm in a marketplace, artificially benefiting from the political system that allows it to win even when it doesnt win a majority. If we had competition of ideas, it would have to change its strategy. When Republicans cannot win a majority of votes nationally and still retain power, the free market is diminished.

If we continue down this path, this leads us from permanent tyranny of the minority to one party rule. (See Kentucky). That is not what the founders intended.

When there is no competition of ideas in local, state, and federal elections, intelligent progress becomes impossible. Research and compromise disappear, and decisions are made on ideology only.

Autocratic principles creep into the system from the likes of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and the Republican party.

Levitsky and Ziblatt, in How Democracies Die, lay out the principle in simple yet stark terms:

A political system that allows tyranny of the minority to control the most powerful offices is not legitimate.

Without some semblance of majority rule, there can be no democracy.

Originally posted here:
What happens to our democracy with 'tyranny of the minority'? - Murray Ledger and Times

Believe it or not, the world did not stop turning on its axis because of the US election and ensuing, self-indulgent disputes in the land of the free-for-all. In the age of Donald Trump, narcissism spreads like the plague.

But the longer the wrangling in Washington continues, the greater the collateral damage to Americas global reputation and to less fortunate states and peoples who rely on the US and the western allies to fly the flag for democracy and freedom.

Consider, for example, the implications of the Israeli armys operation, on US election day, to raze the homes of 74 Palestinians, mostly women and children, in the occupied West Bank village of Khirbet Humsa. The pace of West Bank demolitions has increased this year, possibly in preparation for Israeli annexation of the Jordan Valley a plan backed in principle by Trump.

Appealing for international intervention, the Palestinian prime minister, Mohammed Shtayyeh, claimed Israel had acted while attention is focused on the US election. Yet worse may be to come.

Trumps absurdly lopsided Middle East peace plan gave Benjamin Netanyahu, Israels rightwing leader, virtual carte blanche to expand settlements and seize Palestinian land. Joe Biden has promised to revive the two-state solution. But while the power struggle rages in Washington, analysts warn, Netanyahu may continue to arbitrarily create new facts on the ground with Trumps blessing.

Over the next 11 weeks, we are likely to see a major uptick in Israeli demolitions, evictions, settlement announcements, and perhaps even formal annexation of parts of the occupied territories, as Netanyahu and his allies in the settler movement seek to make the most of Trumps remaining time in office, Khaled Elgindy of Washingtons Middle East Institute predicted.

The Khirbet Humsa incident gained widespread media attention. The same cannot be said of a football pitch massacre in northern Mozambique that also coincided with US polling. While Americans were counting votes, villagers in Cabo Delgado province were counting bodies after Islamic State-affiliated extremists decapitated more than 50 victims.

Nearly 450,000 people have been displaced, and up to 2,000 killed, in an escalating insurgency in the mainly Muslim province where extreme poverty exists alongside valuable, western-controlled gas and mineral riches. Chinese, US and British energy companies are all involved there. Mozambiques government has appealed for help, saying its forces cannot cope.

Trumps man of the people myth of resisting a liberal conspiracy is the ultra-toxic element of his poisonous legacy

Biden vows to maintain the fight against Isis. But its unclear if he is willing to look beyond Syria-Iraq and expand US involvement in the new Islamist killing grounds of the Sahel, west Africa and the Mozambique-Tanzania border.

As for Trump, he claimed credit last year for defeating 100% of the Isis caliphate. The fool thinks its all over. In any case, he has shown zero interest in what he calls shithole African countries.

Afghanistan is another conflict zone where the cost of US paralysis is counted in civilian lives. Its a war Trump claims to be ending but which is currently escalating fast.

While all eyes were supposedly on Pennsylvania, Kabul university was devastated when gunmen stormed classrooms, killing 22 students. Another four people were killed last week by a suicide bomber in Kandahar.

Overall, violence has soared in recent months as the US and the Taliban (which denied responsibility for the Kabul atrocity) argue in Qatar. Trump plainly wants US troops out at any price. Biden is more circumspect about abandoning Afghanistan, but theres little he can do right now .

The Biden-Trump stand-off encourages uncertainty and instability, inhibiting the progress of international cooperation on a multitude of issues such as the climate crisis and the global pandemic. It also facilitates regression by malign actors.

Chinas opportunistic move to debilitate Hong Kongs legislative assembly last week by expelling opposition politicians was a stark warning to Democrats and Republicans alike. Beijing just gave notice it will not tolerate democratic ideas, open societies and free speech, there or anywhere.

Chinas leaders apparently calculated, correctly, that the US was so distracted by its presidential melodrama that it would be incapable of reacting in any meaningful way.

Taiwans people have cause to worry. The renegade island is next on Chinese president Xi Jinpings reunification wish-list. Who would bet money on the US riding to Taipeis rescue if Beijing takes aim?

Much has been said about the negative domestic ramifications of Trumps spiteful disruption of the presidential transition his lawsuits, his refusal to share daily intelligence briefings with Biden, and his appointment of loyalists to key Pentagon posts. He hopes to turn Januarys two Senate election re-runs in Georgia into a referendum on him.

But not enough attention is being paid to how this constitutional chaos affects Americas influence and leadership position in the world or to the risk Trump might take last-minute, punitive unilateral action against, say, Iran or Venezuela. Like Xi, Vladimir Putin undoubtedly relishes US confusion. He may find ways to take advantage, as with last weeks Moscow-imposed Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal. Authoritarian, ultra-nationalist and rightwing populist leaders everywhere take comfort from Americas perceived democratic nervous breakdown.

This is the worst of it. By casting doubt on the elections legitimacy, Trump nurtures and instructs anti-democratic rogues the world over. The Belarus-style myth he peddles, and will perpetuate, of a strong man of the people resisting a conspiracy plotted by corrupt liberal elites, is the final, toxic element of his profoundly poisonous legacy.Farmers in Palestine, fishermen in Mozambique, and students in Kabul all pay a heavy price for his unprincipled lies and puerile irresponsibility. So, too, does the cause of global democracy.

The rest is here:
US poll chaos is a boon for the enemies of democracy the whole world over - The Guardian

Californias ballot measure system has provided a vital check on the state legislatures big government ideology. The defeat of Prop. 15, which would have dramatically raised taxes on businesses, and the passage of Prop. 22, which keeps hundreds of thousands of contracting jobs legal, are great grassroots victories for economic freedom.

Yet at the end of this long proposition season, a brief look at the dangers of this direct democracy system is warranted.

Prop. 15s outcome may amount to little more than a stay of tax execution. Tax-increase proponents will almost certainly be back with another referendum in 2022 to try their luck again. Given how close the results were this year, it seems like only a matter of time before they succeed. With unlimited at-bats, almost anyone can hit a home run.

It seems unfair that voters can reject several efforts to overturn Proposition 13s tax protections, only to see them disappear from an especially well-funded or lucky ballot measure victory in the years to come. If voters pass a version of Prop. 15 in 2022, shouldnt there be some sort of rubber match to determine whether the will of the voters is fleeting or lasting?

Proponents of the status quo would likely say that opponents are welcome to challenge a new tax in a future election with a ballot measure of their own. Yet is this whipsaw back-and-forth really the best way to govern?

Majority rules, cloaked in popular appeals for democracy, is a core tenet of the lefts governing philosophy. But should a simple majority be enough to tax away the property of a minority of Californians? Pure democracy is little more than two hungry sharks and a surfer deciding what to do in the water. At what point are individual rights to property and liberty more important than the will of the majority?

The Founders recognized the threat of pure democracy to foster populist passions and violate inalienable rights. As a result, they created a republic. They made changing the U.S. Constitution exceedingly difficult, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress or the support of three-quarters of state legislatures. Yet in California, the state constitution can change with just 50 percent plus one of the votes.

Even the majority rules justification for the ballot measure status quo fails on its own merits. Prop 15received7.7 million Yes votes and 8.3 million No votes. If it received the bare majority of votes needed to pass, that only represents 33 percent just one-third! of the states25.1 millioneligible voters. Majority rule in theory is almost always minority rule in practice.

This minority rule is especially problematic when you consider that a tiny number of government union bosses are initiating and funding many of these ballot efforts that infringe on Californians liberties. Two union giants, the California Teachers Association and the SEIU,spenta combined $30 million to try to pass Prop 15. (Mark Zuckerberg chipped in a further $12 million.)

Changing the ballot measure threshold to successfully pass tax hikes to a two-thirds majority (as whats required in the state legislature) or even 50 percent of alleligiblevoters seems like a commonsense protection from the tyranny of the well-funded union minority. In fact, this reform sounds like a great idea for a future ballot measure. To pass, it would only need the votes of about one-third of eligible voters!

Jordan Bruneau is the communications director at the California Policy Center.

Originally posted here:
The risks and benefits of Californias direct democracy - OCRegister