I'm too cynical to believe that these aren't favored in part because they would help their chances are re-election, but it's also not necessary, as a republican government and a majority of republican state legislatures could not stop the entire federal government flipping democrat.
1. The democratic platform endorses "restructuring" (packing) of the lower courts.
2. A large number of democrats including Kamala Harris have endorsed court packing or other schemes to change the balance of the supreme court. Joe Biden refused to tell the american public what he thinks about court packing. He later promised to create a commission to study court packing.
3. Chuck Schumer has made it a priority to eliminate the legislative filibuster so they can pass laws with 51 votes instead of 60.
4. Democrats believe the senate unfairly benefits republicans. They want to make D.C. and Puerto Rico into states to give them an advantage. Some democrats want to make states out of every american territory. This would lock republicans out of the senate permanently.
They will do all of these things given the opportunity. Republicans are already pretty fucked due to demographic change, but democrats very openly want a one party state.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/09/19/regardless-of-what-trum...
It's highly unlikely that the US becomes a one party state, but instead, the politics of the two parties changes. The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists? They can easily draw more votes from minority conservatives if they drop the racism
>The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists?
Democrats are the party of anti-white and anti-asian racists.
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/202...
Also, my question wasn’t whether you believe that’s what the Democrats want. Of course the Democrats want it to be a one party state. Everyone wants their side to win.
My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc. Because that is GP’s point. That this election is not an existential threat to either party.
>My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc.
It's a simple matter of whether they have the votes to do it. All they need is a simple majority to accomplish all of the things I listed. You said it yourself - everybody wants to have a one party state, right? So who, besides Joe Manchin and perhaps Kyrsten Sinema stands in the way of adding new states, abolishing the filibuster, packing the courts, or any other part of the democrat agenda?
There are no shortage of voices for these things. Where are the voices against them?
If Joe Biden, who is supposed to be some kind of moderate, can't tell the American public whether he's for or against packing the supreme court, what does that say about the state of the democratic party?
It's not like we would really end up with a one party Democratic state, to begin with the party isn't cohesive enough for that to be terribly meaningful, and then you'd also get explicit divisions around issues, not more and more agreement.
(abolishing the Senate would make the Federal government a lot spicier, but the Senate is much more sclerotic and ossified than it is staid)
Republicans are very popular. Maybe not quite as popular as the Democrats. Does that give the Democrats a license to take over the federal government? I don't think so. And it wouldn't matter how many votes the democrats get, all people have a right to self determination first and foremost. Living as a permanent political minority is tyranny.
Political parties were quite literally decried by the founders and as we have now almost completely been polarized in a two-party system we have reached this level of disfunction.
This is unacceptable and both parties have been responsible for shutting out third-party candidates.
All people are subject to the rule of law of the land, whether you think it is just or unjust. You have the right to vote for whoever you want but you don't have a right to do whatever you want. Democrats haven't taken over the federal government. They were voted into office, just as several republicans/whigs/federalists/anti-federalists/literally whoever.
This is the process. This is the reality. This is America.
Choosing to reject both the facts and reality doesn't change this.
When I talking about democrats taking over the federal government, I am talking about court packing, senate packing (by adding states), and other tactics to establish they will use to establish a permanent majority. I am not talking about the recent election.
The person I replied to seems to think that all those things are justified because the democrats are more popular than the republicans.
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to political parties or choosing to reject facts. I assume you didn't actually read the thread so you took what I said out of context.
All of these things are pure partisan powergrabs - and many democratic commentators aren't shy about it either.
> You are quite clearly advocating not just against the rule of law but also against the democratic process.
You are quite clearly immersed in the state cult and our "sacred democracy", ignoring keep ideas like balance of power that our nation was built on.
As for the cult comment, the visible cult is quite literally the group who is incapable of accepting reality and I'm not going bother trying to engage with someone who is incapable of engaging in reality.
Yes, it literally does.
Both Democrat and Republican Parties have consistently agreed that it does, via the constitution and law-setting, even where it is against the best interests of most people.
You can't make this argument against Democrats, unless you are making it against the Republicans in 2017-2019. Neither of the two political parties are as yet a permanent minority.
If that does happen, such that the Democrats start to consistently get 2/3 of the vote or 2/3 of each chamber (which doesn't look likely), then the dominating Democrats will likely split into two parties.
The choice of electoral system entrenches a two-party state; but, it doesn't say that one of those two parties necessarily has to be the Republicans.
It is an open secret that they will do all of these things given the opportunity. There's probably one or two D senators in the way of that right now.