Mediaboss Marketing

The Constitution includes mechanisms meant to water down the popular willlike the Electoral College. (Lynn Grieveson / Newsroom via Getty Images)

Join the Nation Festival for four days of essential conversation and commentary in the wake of the 2020 election.

Join the Nation Festival for four days of essential conversation and commentary in the wake of the 2020 election.

If the United States were a democracy, this election wouldnt have been close. The fate of the world wouldnt depend on a handful of suburban precincts. The winner would have been known immediately. With a comfortable lead well into the millions, the president-elect and his party could have moved on to crafting and passing the program that gained them an undeniable mandate.

But we do not have a democracy, and not because Trump undermined it but because the framers of the Constitution did not create one. They felt the Articles of Confederation left too much power in the hands of economic populists in the states, and so they constructed a system meant to serve and protect the rich. The Constitution was designed specifically to prevent, as James Madison put it in the Federalist Papers, an abolition of debts or an equal distribution of property from passing into law.

Nearly two and a half centuries on, the antidemocratic provisions of the Constitution are still working as the framers intended. Even in an era of global capital, the wealthy benefit from a sclerotic, dysfunctional government. When early election results suggested a Joe Biden presidency with Republicans maintaining their grip on the Senate, the Associated Press reported that stocks rallied on Wall Street as investors embraced the upside of more gridlock in Washington. Divided government, these investors seem to think, will derail what Madison called wicked or improper projects: the abolition of student debt, higher taxes on the wealthy, the Green New Deal.

More than progressive economic measures, however, democracy itself is being thwarted by the Constitution. In the summer of 1787, opposition to rule by the people was one of the few things the delegates in Philadelphia could agree upon. They spent the first few days of the convention reassuring one another of their antidemocratic credentials. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was typical in deeming democracy the worst of all political evils.

The Constitution they designed included provisions and mechanisms meant to water down the popular will and block a more equal distribution of wealth. The president would be selected not by the people but by an Electoral College whose members would be appointed by the state legislatures. The Senate, with equal votes for every state, large and small, would ensure that citizens of large, populous states had far less influence over legislation and judicial appointments than those in smaller ones. Alexander Hamilton wanted its members to serve lifetime terms, for nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Though he opposed giving each state equal votes, James Madison thought the upper house should serve as a check on the democracy, a way to impede the influence of those who labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.Related Article

Far from resolving a decade of paralysis and crisis, the 2020 election has only confirmed doubts about the stability of American democracy, institutions, and the constitutional order. The Democrats apparent failure to recapture the Senateassuming anything less than a miracle in Georgia this Januaryremoves the possibility, for the foreseeable future, of steps the party might have taken to offset its structural disadvantages, such as expanding the courts and admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states.

Merely ousting Trump is not enough without addressing more fundamental weaknesses in our political system, especially an outdated Constitution that continues to serve a minority of wealthy and white citizens and to curb any movements that might threaten their wealth and power. The antidemocratic Senate, for example, is the main obstacle to passing serious legislation on climate change. Without a practical plan for revising the Constitution, Democrats will be condemned to play by rigged rules.

This is a 1780s-like moment in which the existing Constitution seems incapable of responding to crises yet is too difficult to amend. The choice Americans faced then, between national rupture or national renewal, is the one we face now. We can still choose the latter, but it will require devising new institutions that empower the many instead of the few. A constitutional convention may be required to fix some of the flaws of the original charter. The Senate has to be abolished or otherwise deprived of its veto over national affairs. Term limits on the Supreme Court should be instituted so that each presidential term sees the same number of vacancies. The House of Representatives has to be expanded, as it has not been since 1911, when the country had less than one-third of its present population.

To be sure, even a constitutional convention may not be enough to reverse the countrys descent into dysfunction, perhaps even dissolution. It could itself trigger a breakdown of the political order. Yet that might be a risk worth taking if the United States is to survive for any kind of worthy purpose, such as leading a global effort to avert climate catastrophe. More than a new president, we need a radical reimagining of what this country can and must becomenothing less than a full-scale attempt at national renewal.

Read the rest here:
American Democracy Was Never Supposed to Work - The Nation

GettyImages-901868142

By David M. Greenwald

When I warned people over the summer of the threat to democracy, there were usually two responsesa lot of partisan agreements and a lot of independent and conservative denials. Indeed, when Trump at the first debate refused to commit to accepting the election results, a lot of people still did not see a true threat.

The only real parallel the US has had in our history was the 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. But that election was legitimately in disputeboth sides agreed that there was no clear winner in the three states that would ultimately decide the election, and ultimately there was a deal cut by Hayes to be seated as President basically in exchange for ending Reconstruction.

In some ways this is worse. The New York Times today quoted Presidential historian and author Michael Beschloss, who pointed out, In the case of Hayes, both sides agreed that the outcome in at least three states was in dispute. In this case, no serious person thinks enough votes are in dispute that Donald Trump could have been elected on Election Day.

This is a manufactured crisis. It is a president abusing his huge powers in order to stay in office after the voters clearly rejected him for re-election.

Some have suggested to let this play out. It is playing outbut in most ways it already has played out. The legal avenues have largely been exhausted. The courts have pretty much thrown out every single challenge by the President.

Georgia held a recount. They did find a few uncounted ballots. It did close the gap by a few hundred votes. But it left the result intact.

We are left pretty much with madness.

Anyone who actually watched Rudy Giulianis press conference had to leave shaking their head. Remember when to a lot of Americans this guy was a hero? That was just under 20 years ago. Now he delivered a 90-minute briefing that overflowed with falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

At no point has Trumps legal team offered proof of their allegations for widespread fraud. One official did say that this was an introductory statement and they would be striking at claims about a conspiracy involving Venezuela and George Soros interfering with the US election.

Even before they were made, most of the specific claims have been refuted whether by federal election experts or bipartisan election officials.

This was not an individual idea of 10 or 12 Democrat bosses. This was a plan. You would have to be a fool not to realize that, Giuliani said, pointing to legal challenges in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and elsewhere.

Attorney Sidney Powell also alleged that Dominion Voting Systems used technology developed by Hugo Chavez, the late-Venezuelan dictator, to manipulate votes tabulated overseas to favor Joe Biden.

Of course the company has disputed the assertions, and Department of Homeland Securitys Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has said there is no evidence of foreign adversaries changing vote tallies. Moreover, thats not how they count votes anyway.

The Wall Street Journal in an editorial explained there were some errors, but they point out that the errors in Michigan actually didnt affect the totals and, In any case, the Michigan Secretary of States office said the error would have been identified during the county canvass, when Democrats and Republicans review the printed totals tape from each tabulator.

Antrim County Clerk Sheryl Guy told the Associated Press: There was no malice, no fraud here, just human error. Shes a Republican, the WSJ points out.

Princeton Computer Science Professor Andrew Appel said that voting machines could theoretically be hacked. Wheres the proof they actually were in 2020?

Vulnerabilities, Appel wrote in a blog post Friday, are not the same as rigged elections, especially when we have paper ballots in almost all the states.

Trump went further in a tweet: REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED.

Dominion responds thats impossible, noting that Dominion only serves 14 counties in Pennsylvania, and it could not have deleted a million Trump votes. Moreover, the WSJ points out, With turnout at 76%, it adds, those counties registered 1.3 million votes.

George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who has actually been critical of the medias dismissal of the Trump claims of fraud before evidence has come out, believes that the Trump team could face a defamation suit from Dominion.

He writes, If the Trump team does not put forward this evidence in its case challenging the election, it could now be forced to produce it in a case brought by Dominion or its officers.

With the legal ploys going nowhere and devolving into bizarre conspiracy theories, the other move seems to be election nullification.

This is an interesting test for just how strong our democracy isI suppose.

The NY Times lists the chances as somewhere between remote and impossible.

In Michigan, the bizarre machinations in Detroit where Republican canvassers at first refused to certify the results, then did so, now are claiming threats and pressure and want to withdraw their certification, but apparently have no mechanism to do so.

Now he is attempting to get the Michigan Legislature to overturn the Biden victory and seat a Republican slate of electors. He invited the delegation to the White House to attempt to persuade them to ignore the popular vote outcome.

Not going to happen We are going to follow the law and follow the process, said Mike Shirkey, the Republican majority leader of the Michigan Senate. Of course he said it before the meeting and, as we know, the President can be quite persuasive.

Michigan alone would not be enough to overturn the resultshe would need two other states to follow suit, and the NY Times suggests Georgia and Arizona as most likely.

But what happens if he succeeds? What happens if he can convince a few key people to overturn the results of a popular election?

This really isnt that close of an election. The close election was the 2000 race where it came down to one stateFlorida and a 500-point margin. There were legitimate concerns about the ballots. There were legitimate legal challenges. I think a lot of Democrats were angry at the result then as it was a 5-4 decision on partisan lines by the Supreme Court to halt the counting and, in that case, I think the result was legitimately within the margins for error.

Florida also took a lot of steps to recognize the shortcomings of their process and improve the system after that.

This is different. Biden won: Michigan by nearly 160,000 but there were much closer margins in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona and Georgiabut none less than 10,000 votes.

If Trump succeeds in throwing this one, Im not sure how our democracy recovers. But the good news, I suppose, is, so far, it still seems like an extreme longshot to actually succeed.

What he has done is throw a lot of his supportersmany already inclined toward bizarre conspiraciesinto a lather over this and that will make it much harder to bring this nation together again. Maybe ever.

Part of the problem here is the way that votes were counted fueled peoples misunderstanding of the fundamental fact: Republicans voted on election day, Democrats voted early and by mail. That made for large vote swings depending on which ballots were counted last.

As New York Times reporter Nate Cohn tweeted this morning, The thing thats most dispiriting about the vote dump charts (which purport to show irregularities, but just show large Dem. cities reporting), is that its in such complete bad faith that theres no way the electoral process could be reformed to guard against it going forward.

Giuliani alleged on Thursday that Donald Trump won by a landslide.

Christopher Krebs, the Election Cybersecurity Official fired earlier this week, tweeted in response: That press conference was the most dangerous 1hr 45 minutes of television in American history. And possibly the craziest.

Many election systems would have simply folded under the strain of this. Ours has at least so far not really buckled.

It remains to be seen at one point the kind of mainstream Republican leaders say enough. Will they wait until December 14? Another three weeks of this?

Two Republican Senators spoke out yesterday.

One was 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, now a Utah Senator, and the other Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse. Both have been more independent and critical of Trump.

Having failed to make even a plausible case of widespread fraud or conspiracy before any court of law, the President has now resorted to overt pressure on state and local officials to subvert the will of the people and overturn the election, Romney said in a statement posted to Twitter. It is difficult to imagine a worse, more undemocratic action by a sitting American President.

It is worth pointing out that Romney and Sasse may have some leverage here, particularly if they could gain the support of a third senator like Murkowski or Collins. They could threaten to bolt the Republican caucus, effectively losing control of the Senate for the Republicans regardless of the outcome in Georgia.

But for now we will watch how this plays out.

David M. Greenwald reporting

Support our work to become a sustaining at $5 $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Continued here:
Commentary: Are We Seeing the End of Our Democracy or Its Resilience? - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Yes, Donald Trump has been defeated by the largest popular vote (79 million) in any presidential election in the history of our democracy. This defeat has hopefully saved our democracy and our lives can return to some semblance of normalcy. Thereby ending the rampant toxic conspiracies that has turned families, friends, races, religious and parties into adversaries.

Conspiracies and distrust in our government is nothing new. When I was a high school student in the late-1950s, conspiracies about government control, interfering in our lives, taking of freedoms, arms ownership, taxation, etc. were plentiful.

With the advent of the internet, social media and cable news programs, individuals and groups were able to make their grievances public to millions without regard to fact. More often it was just an opinion founded in phrases such as, I hear or They said without facts based in truth or identifying the source.

Our political parties became obsessed with power and control of our legislatures and courts. It became evident that was easier to get our courts to do what the legislative process of passing laws was unable to do. These are but a few of the internal issues that have divided our nation.

Donald Trump, being media-wise, seized on this division and used it to create more division. He openly defied long-standing norms, refuted investigative controls, separation of power, etc.

Its time all the voters resolve their differences and unite to save our democracy.

Gary Schetrompf

Portage

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View original post here:
Letter to the editor | Let's come together to save democracy - TribDem.com

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