Mediaboss Marketing

Around the world, authoritarianism is ascendant and democracy is in decline.

A 2022 report from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance found that over the past six years, the number of countries moving toward authoritarianism is more than double the number moving toward democracy and that nearly half of the 173 countries assessed were experiencing declines in at least one metric of democracy.

The United States wasnt impervious to this trend. The report found that America was moderately backsliding on its democracy.

But I fear that were now on the precipice of fully turning away from democracy and toward a full embrace of authoritarianism. The country seems thirsty for it; many Americans appear to be inviting it.

Confidence in many of our major institutions including schools, big business, the news media is at or near its lowest point in the past half-century, in part because of the Donald Trump-led right-wing project to depress it. Indeed, according to a July Gallup report, Republicans confidence in 10 of the 16 institutions measured was lower than Democrats. Three institutions in which Republicans confidence exceeded Democrats were the Supreme Court, organized religion and the police.

And as people lose faith in these institutions many being central to maintaining the social contract that democracies offer they can lose faith in democracy itself. People then lose their fear of a candidate like Trump who tried to overturn the previous presidential election and recently said that if hes elected next time, he wont be a dictator, except for Day 1 when they believe democracy is already broken.

In fact, some welcome the prospect of breaking it completely and starting anew with something different, possibly a version of our political system from a time when it was less democratic before we expanded the pool of participants.

In Tim Albertas new book, The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory, he explains that many evangelical Christians have developed, in the words of the rightist Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress, an under siege mentality that has allowed them to embrace Trump, whose decadent curriculum vitae runs counter to many of their stated values. It allows them to employ Trump as muscle in their battle against a changing America.

This kind of thinking gives license or turns a blind eye to Trumps authoritarian impulses.

And while these authoritarian inklings may be more visible on the political right, they can also sneak in on the left.

You could also argue that President Biden, whose approval numbers are languishing, is being punished by some because he isnt an authoritarian and therefore isnt able to govern by fiat: Many of his initiatives voter protections, police reform, student loan forgiveness were blocked by conservatives. Could he have fought harder in some of these cases? I believe so. But in the end, legislation is the province of Congress; presidents are bound by constitutional constraints.

Trump surely appeals to those who want a president wholl simply bulldoze through that bureaucracy, or at least expresses contempt for it and is willing to threaten it.

Furthermore, Trumps chances will probably be helped by the portion of the electorate misjudging the very utility of voting. There are still too many citizens who think of a vote, particularly for president, as something to throw to a person they like rather than being cast for the candidate and party more likely to advance the policies they need.

And there are too many who think that a vote should be withheld from a more preferable candidate as punishment for not delivering every single thing on their wish lists that choosing not to vote at all is a sensible act of political protest rather than a relinquishing of control to others. Abstinence doesnt empower; it neuters.

If you want a democracy to thrive, the idea that voting is a choice is itself an illusion. Voting is about survival, and survival isnt a choice. Its an imperative. Its an instinct.

Its a tool one uses for self-advancement and self-preservation. Its an instrument you use to decrease chances of harm and increase chances of betterment. It is nave to use it solely to cosign an individuals character; not to say that character doesnt count it does but rather that its primacy is a fallacy.

Voting isnt just an expression of your worldview but also a manifestation of your insistence on safety and security.

And to top it off, as Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California told me over the weekend, the Obama coalition that Biden will rely on in 2024 is under a lot of stress with the issue of the Israel-Hamas war, and that coalition can be mended by a foreign policy that is rooted in the recognition of human rights, which includes taking seriously the calls for a neutral cease-fire and the end to violence.

On Tuesday, Biden warned that Israel risks losing international support because of indiscriminate bombing, but he has yet to endorse a cease-fire.

With Republicans beaconing authoritarianism, and without an intact Obama coalition to thwart it, our democracy hangs by a thread.

Read more:
Opinion | America's Thirst for Authoritarianism - The New York Times

A clerk hands a ballot to a voter on Election Day, Nov. 8, 2022, in Lewiston, Maine. The state is one of 50 American voting jurisdictions to have moved to a ranked choice voting system, and more places may follow next year. Robert F. Bukaty/AP hide caption

A clerk hands a ballot to a voter on Election Day, Nov. 8, 2022, in Lewiston, Maine. The state is one of 50 American voting jurisdictions to have moved to a ranked choice voting system, and more places may follow next year.

Most Americans are worried about the state of U.S. democracy.

Polls over the past year have consistently found 80% or more of Americans are concerned or feel there's a threat to the U.S. democratic system.

That has many people searching for a solution. And lately one proposed reform seems to be rising to the top.

"Ranked choice voting is the hot reform," said Larry Jacobs, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota. "It's being driven by deep, almost existential panic about the demise of American democracy. People are looking around what's going to respond to this. And ranked choice voting is the 'it' reform at this moment."

Roughly 50 American voting jurisdictions from small cities to states have now moved to a ranked choice voting system, according to tracking by the advocacy group FairVote, and it's shaping up to be one of the political subplots of 2024.

Advocates say ranked choice voting could help take some of the toxicity out of American politics while giving voters access to a broader swath of ideas. Skeptics worry it makes voting more confusing, which could especially harm voters from marginalized communities.

Here are answers to some commonly asked questions about ranked choice voting:

In an election that features more than two candidates, most voters are used to picking their favorite and moving on.

But in a ranked choice system, the voter has the opportunity to instead rank the candidates on the ballot from favorite to least favorite.

If one candidate has more than half of the first place votes, the election is over and that candidate wins.

If not, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and that candidate's voters are moved to their second choice.

That keeps going until someone gets majority support.

Advocates argue that the system incentivizes politicians to find middle ground in their districts, to try to be voters' second and third choices even if they initially like someone more. That should, in theory, lead to less ideologically extreme lawmakers.

"A lot of voters are frustrated with the status quo in politics, and this method is not a huge change," said Deb Otis, who oversees research and policy at FairVote. "But in the places that use it, it has brought positive impacts."

In Alaska last year, Otis says, the system worked.

Voters there approved a move to a ranked choice voting system in 2020, and the state used it in 2022 for its statewide races. Voters reelected Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection.

"While similar Republicans Republicans who maybe bucked their party or appeared bipartisan or moderate like Liz Cheney were getting knocked out in primaries," Otis said. "[Alaska voters] also elected Mary Peltola to the House, who is considered one of the most moderate Democrats in the House in a race that included a couple of real hardliners who would not be considered moderate by any definition."

Another benefit to ranked choice is allowing voters to voice their true preferences, as opposed to settling.

Take the presidential race. Generally there's a Democratic and a Republican, and whenever someone notable considers running as a third-party candidate, there's a huge amount of hand-wringing over whether it'll have the unintended consequence of helping one candidate or the other by siphoning off votes.

But in a ranked choice system, theoretically it should allow more candidates to run who represent a wider swath of viewpoints, since voters can feel free to support them without fear of inadvertently helping a candidate they definitely don't want to win.

In Alaska and Maine, currently the only states that will use ranked choice voting next year in 2024, even if there's a third-party challenger, Otis says voters will be able to just vote for who they want to be president, without trying to game the system.

"Neighbors won't be telling their neighbors, 'Oh, you're wasting your vote if you vote for so-and-so,' " Otis said. "If a legitimate third-party challenge happens this year, all of the other voters in all the other states are going to have a really hard time with that, trying to navigate what to do, trying to play the strategist and figure out how to make our votes most impactful without harming our own side."

Advocates also say ranked choice voting can replace costly and complicated runoff voting systems, like the ones in Georgia among other places, because a ranked choice system is its own form of contained runoff election.

Alaska and Maine are currently the only states to use ranked choice voting in statewide races, but more could soon join them.

Voters in Nevada will vote in 2024 on whether to approve a constitutional amendment that would bring the voting method to the state's congressional and state elections, after clearing the first hurdle to passage in last year's midterms. In Oregon, the legislature this year passed a law to bring the question of ranked choice voting to voters next year too. Ballot measures have also been proposed in other states.

Close to four dozen cities, notably including New York City, have now moved to the voting system for local races as well.

And while momentum toward ranked choice has heated up recently, it's not actually new. Cambridge, Mass., adopted the voting method for its city council elections in 1941, and San Francisco has been voting that way since the early 2000s.

"It tends to start around one or two cities and then a lot of other cities in that region opt in," Otis said. "The Bay Area of California is one of those where they've had new adoptions on the heels of success in San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland. Minnesota is another area. Minneapolis and Saint Paul have had it for years, and then several new Minnesota cities have opted in just over the last four years."

But changing how elections work always brings pushback too.

Five states, all controlled by Republicans, have now banned ranked choice voting in the last two years: Tennessee, Florida, Idaho, Montana and South Dakota.

Resistance to the reform hasn't been strictly along party lines, Otis says, but lately conservatives have started to push back more forcefully.

"It's really regional," Otis said. "In Virginia, the Virginia Republican Party is leading the way on ranked choice voting. But then in Alaska, Republicans have come out against it. In Nevada, both parties opposed their ballot measure [in 2022]. In other places, we've had both parties supporting it."

Generally, ranked choice voting is thought to somewhat dilute the power of the two major political parties in the U.S.

Alaska Division of Elections officials are shown during an Aug. 31, 2022, livestream of the results of a U.S. House special election. The contest won by Democrat Mary Peltola was the first statewide ranked choice vote election in Alaska under an initiative passed by voters in 2020. Becky Bohrer/AP hide caption

Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Honest Elections Project argue that ranked choice voting is a way to "manipulate elections outcomes" as a way to "ensure left-leaning politicians get elected to office."

There's no evidence the voting system actually favors candidates from one political party over the other, however.

But Jason Snead, of the Honest Elections Project, also told NPR that ranked choice makes voting more confusing, which isn't what the U.S. needs at a time when many voters are already sitting out of the democratic process.

"I think that we need to be careful about trying to address problems like divisiveness in politics by simply changing the system that we use to elect candidates," Snead said. "Many of the issues that we are experiencing, the bitterness and the division in our politics, are symptoms of other problems. And I don't know that we have to solve something at some sort of system level."

Even some experts who are more open-minded to the reform are skeptical it can bring about the sort of transformational change advocates promise.

Jacobs, of the University of Minnesota, co-wrote a paper poking holes in a number of claims ranked choice advocates have made about the voting system.

Most notably, he says, there isn't much evidence at this point that it decreases polarization. He does concede, though, it's possible the system just hasn't been in place long enough for the politics to change around it.

"We need some caution, because in America, we have a tendency going back a century or more to latch on to the new kind of quick fix to what ails us in our democracy," he said. "Some of those things have not worked out well."

He pointed to primary elections, which when they were first implemented were seen by advocates as a change to include more people in the decision-making process. They would take power away from party elites and put it into the hands of voters.

"Instead, what we see is, it tends to be a fairly small number [of voters participating]," Jacobs said. "They tend to be quite ideological, and not representative of the people."

With ranked choice voting, "there's a logic to it that makes it almost irrefutable," Jacobs said.

But in practice, research has found that the voters who actually take advantage of the ranking opportunities tend to be white voters, and affluent voters with more education.

"So it's kind of continuing and appearing to multiply the disparities in our current democracy," Jacobs said. "We need to be clear when we say 'democracy' that we mean a system in which there is equal participation."

Andrea Benjamin, an expert on race and voting behavior at the University of Oklahoma, agrees. She's optimistic about the potential of ranked choice voting to improve representation in the U.S., but at the end of the day, any real transformative change to the political system will only come from higher voter turnout. You can change vote-tallying methods all you want, she said, but it's still just a snapshot of the most motivated sliver of the population.

"The only accountability mechanism is that we agree to turn out and that we agree to chime in," Benjamin said. "When we're talking about primaries [that have] 15, 12% turnout ... we are not keeping our end of the bargain."

Visit link:
Ranked choice voting: what it is and where it might be next - NPR

December 15, 2023

Confidence in U.S. democracy remains low. Most of the public think democracy could be at risk depending on who wins the presidential election next year, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans.

The public has lacked confidence how democracy is working for several years. Fifty-one percent say its not working well, 40% think it is working somewhat well, and just 8% feel its working very or extremely well. These results were similar when the question was asked previously, including October 2022, when 9% said democracy is working very or extremely well and October 2020, when 14% said it was working well.

People feel the stakes are high for the next election. Sixty-two percent of adults think democracy could be at risk depending on who wins the presidency in November. About equal shares feel democracy is already so broken that the election doesnt matter (19%) and that democracy is strong enough to withstand the outcome (18%).

Fifty-five percent of Republicans think democracy could be at risk depending on the 2024 winner, as do 72% of Democrats. Republicans are more likely to think democracy is already broken than Democrats (23% vs. 10%).

Partisans on both sides feel that each partys front-runner poses a risk to the health of the democracy. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats believe that if Trump is elected again in 2024 he will weaken democracy, and 82% of Republicans say the same about Biden. However, Republicans are more likely to believe that if Trump wins reelection in 2024, democracy would be strengthened compared with Democrats view of a Biden reelection.

People think the outcome of the 2024 election will have serious stakes for a range of issues as well. Three quarters of adults say the outcome of the election will be important for the economy, and about two-thirds think it will have important consequences for government spending, the future of democracy in the U.S., and immigration.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to regard the 2024 election as extremely or very important to the future of climate change (65% vs. 24%), issues around race and ethnicity (64% vs. 33%), abortion policy (76% vs. 47%), the future of democracy (76% vs. 61%), health care (67% vs. 55%), and gun policy (62% vs. 51%). Republicans are more likely compared with Democrats to expect the election to have an important impact on border security (78% vs. 53%), crime (68% vs. 47%), government spending (77% vs. 63%), immigration (76% vs. 63%), and the economy (82% vs. 73%).

The nationwide poll was conducted November 30-December 4, 2023 using the AmeriSpeak Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones were conducted with 1,074 adults. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.0 percentage points.

Read more:
Widespread feeling that the 2024 presidential election carries serious stakes for the country. - AP-NORC

by Hannele Ottschoffski | 14 December 2023 | I have often wondered why we do not learn from our history.

Then I realized that many people do not know our history. Even as a person who has lived more than 75 years on this earth, there are lots of things I dont know, just because I wasnt an eyewitness and didnt experience it myself. That is why we need monuments and museums to transmit information to succeeding generations.

Our German constitution, the Grundgesetz, is based on democracy and equality. No matter what political parties make up the government, that is one thing that the parliament agrees on.The never again to anti-semitism is echoed repeatedly. However, the surge in extremism is a source of concern to all responsible people. That is one reason why it is so important to transmit to the population a sound knowledge of history and information about how democracy works.

We need information now more than ever. The last survivors of the Shoah are old and will soon be gone. We need to hear their stories. The generation born after the fall of communism needs to hear what life was like for people who lived without freedom. The same could be applied to the whole world with its various experiences of suppression and discrimination.

East Germany

Recently we joined a group on a trip to Berlin. We visited the Reichstag, Germanys seat of the parliament. We also visited the Jewish Museum, the Topography of Terror (the documentation center for crimes of the Nazi regime), memorials of the Berlin Wall, and the prison of the Stasithe East German secret police. These left impressions that are hard to digestbut it is good to get first-hand information.

Not having lived in Berlin, east or west, the division of the city and the isolation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) is something I have heard and read about but not experienced. I had seen the wall, and we even once visited East Germany and experienced harassment at the border. But still, our visit to the Trnenpalast (Palace of Tears) at the former border crossing at the Friedrichstrasse train station made a deep impression on me. It helped me to catch a glimpse of the emotional side of living under a dictatorship, in a country without freedom.

After the uprising on June 17, 1953, was repressed by Soviet tanks and the arrest of thousands of demonstrators, many East Germans tried to leave the country. The government attempted to stop the mass migration to West Germany. From 1949 to its end in 1990, the GDR population fell from 18.79 million people to around 16.43 million people, in spite of a high birth rate. With thousands crossing over to West Berlin each week, closing the border and building a wallstarting on August 13, 1961seemed to be the only way to keep the nation from bleeding out.

While the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) was founded in 1948 under democratic principles, the GDR was democratic only in name. It was a dictatorship hiding behind a farce of democracy, with a one-party system and threats and retribution for any opposition. It was intended to be a communist bulwark against the West during the Cold War.

The older generation still remembers what it was like to live in that restrictive community, where political prisoners could also be stripped of their citizenship, expelled, and exchanged for Western currencies.

A bleeding church

I hardly dare suggest the comparison that comes to mind with the world church I belong to. Maybe you see the similarities, too.

Church leadership is proud of the increasing numbers in, claiming thousands, sometimes millions, of accessions through baptism. But at the same time, the statistics show a constant bleeding of members leaving the church. Instead of considering why people are leaving, the church is tightening its rules about membership and taking a hard line toward those that disagree with them.

We know that our church, in its early years, was more open and egalitarian. Those early believers understood unity in diversity.

Today, the church is ruled by fear: fear that everything will fall apart if freedom of thought and change is permitted. The church structure is a sham democracy with hierarchical tendencies. Yet according to his address at Annual Council in 2023, its leader wants us to believe that its every decision is divinely inspired.

Opposition is not welcome. Workers who do not agree 100% with the leader, suggested the president, should resign. He speaks approvingly in his sermons of the shaking to justify the loss of members brought, at least partially, by his constant disapproval. In its efforts to enforce compliance, the leaders in Silver Spring have become very manipulative.

It is no wonder that many are leaving the organized church. Staying might be a better solution if there were any hope of change coming. But many have given up hope. They would rather escape outside its unwelcome walls.

Recently the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Narges Mohammadi, in absentia. She said from her Iranian prison, I gave up everything for my commitment. Her motto is: Woman Life Freedom. She has fought for change in her country all her life. She is not the only one subjected to imprisonment in various countries for their commitment to freedom and democracy.

We could learn a lot from political and social activists who fight for change.

Hannele Ottschofski writes from Hechingen, Germany. She is the author ofTired of Waiting: Women in Church and Society.

Follow this link:
Democracy, Freedom and My Church Adventist Today - Adventist Today

The United States stands with those seeking to safeguard democracy and rule of law in Guatemalaand ensure that the will of the Guatemalan people is respected. Under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, we are taking steps to impose visa restrictions on nearly 300 Guatemalan nationals, including over 100 members of the Guatemalan congress, as well as private sector representatives and their family members for undermining democracy and the rule of law. The United States will continue to take steps to impose such restrictions on any individuals who undermine Guatemalas democracy.

The United States strongly condemns ongoing anti-democratic actions by Guatemalas Public Ministry and other malign actors who undermine Guatemalas rule of law. Most recently, the Public Ministrys announcement of arrest warrants for electoral workers and party representatives, its request to remove the immunity of President-elect Arvalo, and its attempts to annul electoral results constitute evidence of its clear intent to delegitimize Guatemalas free and fair elections and prevent the peaceful transition of power. These actions are plainly inconsistent with the Inter American Democratic Charter.

These brazen measures follow a long list of other anti-democratic actions including: the lifting of immunity of electoral magistrates, the political targeting of opposition members, the intimidation of peaceful protestors, raids on storage facilities housing election result records, and the opening of ballot boxes.

Todays actions reinforce previous measures by the U.S. government to promote accountability for corrupt and undemocratic actors in Guatemala and to support the will of the Guatemalan people. The Guatemalan people have spoken. Their voices must be respected.

Continued here:
Additional Steps Taken to Impose Visa Restrictions in Response to Anti-Democratic Actions in Guatemala - United ... - Department of State