Skip to main content

View Diary: If it is not stopped, the Republican war on democracy will tear this nation apart (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Also add in, in Michigan for starters, systematic (36+ / 0-)

    disenfrancisement of all local voters in basically any town the State Republicans select in order that they may be run dictatorially by Republicans who void contracts and sell off city assets and such and bar the action of any local elected official of the jurisdiction, until they are ready if ever to surrender that power. IIRC, a substantial number of communities with large numbers of minorities have been selected for this treatment.  So in Mich,  the gerrymandering counts as more dangerous because there are fewer alternatives for residents' voices to be heard. The claim is that all of the towns are insolvent, but the acts of the Republican governor and legislature are no small part of any such condition.

    •  Why has the Constitutionality of this been (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sarenth

      challenged in Federal Court?

      Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

      by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:55:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  oops...add "NOT" been challenged in Federal court? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coral, walkshills

        Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

        by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:56:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because it isn't un-Constitutional (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sarenth

          The Constitution leave it up to states to determine their own rules for governing and elections, with the exception, I believe, of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which cover only federal elections.

          Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

          by coral on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:58:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If there is an intent to deny civil rights (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            abarefootboy

            to a portion of the population, doesn't it violate the voting rights act and the civil rights act? Perhaps it even violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The larger goal though is to make Federal elections a Federal responsibility and get the States out of drawing up Federal districts. Doubling the size of the House would also make gerrymandering much harder to accomplish.

            For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

            by Anne Elk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:10:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I question the constitutionality of taking over (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Zinman

            elected local government bodies and implementing rule by a "manager."

            Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

            by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:25:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, I think all states should award (0+ / 0-)

              by congressional district.  I have no problem with this in principle.  The reality is that there are a lot of Democrats in Georgia who's votes are never heard, just as there are a lot of Republicans in MI, PA, NJ, and CA who's votes are not heard either.

              This is actually more democratic than winner take all.  If we aren't going to do it by national popular vote, which actually is unconstitutional, then this is a better system than we have now.  If we're honest, then we have to admit that the current system is rigged for Democrats.  There is no reason that you should win a state like Florida by less than 1% and win the EV total by 27-0.

              If you look at the map of the US by congressional district, republicans would argue that it's unfair for a few large cities along both coasts to be able to dictate elections and resultant policy to the rest of the entire geography of the nation.

              LIke it or not, this representative republic was never intended to be about direct democracy, or a bare majority's unfettered will over everybody else.

              •  So, it's unfair for majorities to win in the USA (5+ / 0-)

                So, "it's unfair for a few large cities along both coasts to be able to dictate elections and resultant policy to the rest of the entire geography of the nation"? Your point seems to be that votes of a disproportionately inferior number of voters from sparcely poplulated areas should count more than the votes of people who live in large cities. That is indeed the strategy and talking points of the Rethugs, because that is how they intend to cheat democracy.

                Eradicate magical thinking

                by Zinman on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:24:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly. Talk about being unfairly represented. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RightHeaded

                  CA has more people then all the states west of the Mississippi except Texas yet they only have the same number of senators.  (heck they have small cities in CA bigger then Wyoming. So those low population states now want to elevate themselves in thier efforts to impose thier religious beliefs, thier belief that the gun is the answer, thier racism, thier unrelenting rejection of any inconvenient science, thier form of morality which seems based on power struggles more then decency, thier lack of understanding of anything more complex then racing ... now want to impose thier beliefs on all the rest of the country through BS.

                  But as I have been told repeatedly if they do this, that it is legal. So we could end up with presidents who lose by millions of votes packing a supreme court to give them new laws to force the rest of us to continue supporting thier failing states while stripping many of us of rights... If this happens we truly have lost our democracy to the jingoist flag waving faux patriots, the "real" americans like the rest of us are just some pretend humans.  Geesh the AHs don't even need a SCOTUS to give the presidency to a loser who goes onto to destroy us in the name of making the rich richer.  

                  It is legal and so what the hell can we do with a congress owned by republicans or regressives determined to diminish our country to third world status or maybe a country of warlords. You will have a lot of people who in thier apathy will accept that judgnment unless we can come up with an answer. We need answers to counter this or we will end up like Michigan as a country with the pigs aided and abetted by the self-righteous claimants of a morality that only exists in thier minds (the little they actually use for anything but taking more then they need).

                   

                  Fear is the Mind Killer...

                  by boophus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 05:16:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The problem with the congressional district method (0+ / 0-)

                is gerrymandering, because entire groups vanish when their districts are so arranged that either they are never a majority in any one district, or they are all jammed into one district when they could form a voice to be reckoned with in several if that were not done. Either way, the voice of a third of some states vanishes entirely, and the congressional district system makes those voices equally unheard in the Presidential election. That is how Jim Crow II works, now that minorities cannot simply be forbidden to vote.

                This is one way the parliamentary system works better since the seats are allocated among parties based on their percentage of the vote, so every constituency which meets the baseline number for one seat, gets a place at the table. In the recent Israeli election, which uses this method, the minimum for a seat was 2%, and every party which got more than that got at least one seat.

                As to the fairness to large cities, those cities have voters, and the proper question is fairness to those voters, since voters are by definition citizens who must be treated equally. Is it equally fair or unfair to you that rural areas control everything, where there are few voters per square mile?

              •  Ridiculous! (0+ / 0-)

                The only equitable method of distributing votes, if you don't want to use winner-take-all, is to distribute based on the percentage of the popular vote--i.e., a state has 30 EV, you win 60% of the votes in the state, you get 18 EV. Anything else makes some people's votes count more than others and plays right into the hands of gerrymanders.

          •  There may be recourse in the courts. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coral

            Lots of people are assuming there is no recourse, but the decisions I cite here are interesting. All are the "one man, one vote" precedents and just could be a lever. Where the clear intent is to give rural voters clear advantage over urban voters the courts just might be a firewall.

            At least in Virginia that does not seem now necessary. Maybe the potential anger of the "urban 800 pound gorilla" in statewide office elections, where statewide popular vote governs, was in the back of the mind of some of the Republicans that may oppose the measure. In any state in which that "urban" vote can swing a popular vote in-state the potential of an intense campaign issue being effective disenfranchisement is a powerful threat to anyone with state office ambitions.

            The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

            by pelagicray on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:48:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site