If you truly feel those are the most pressing issues in your mind/spheres, I would urge you to remember that social media is largely an echo chamber designed to distract from the actual issues, like the aforementioned sustained assault on the very basis of American society.
How are they attacked? From what I've seen, all the "voter suppression" stories coming from the US are all things we have in place in other modern democracies like in Canada. We have voter ID, we have to make sure we are registered, we can only ask for mail ballots for certain circumstances, voting machines are banned and we have move of the results before midnight.
Multi-pronged attacks which try to ensure only 'your' people get to participate.
As an Australian resident and a British citizen, it seems outrageous to me - I've never had to take more than about fifteen minutes out of my day to vote in the UK, and in Australia voting is fast, mandatory and always run on a weekend so that most people can get to it. They even usually have a charity barbecue outside the polling place!
Other, indirect attacks on the system include Trump's big lie, the stated intention of the republican candidate for the secretary of state of Arizona to return the state to republican control because he thinks it's what the people really want regardless of the outcome of the actual vote (because clearly the vote is rigged!), the various "alternative electors" that republicans attempted to send to congress during the aftermath of the last presidential election etc etc. The US right is currently mounting an attack on US democracy itself in various ways, to try and work around the system and usurp democratic mandate.
My generation in the UK grew up with America being this shiny, free, wonderful, aspirational land over the sea, the land of Baywatch and Miami Vice and Disneyland and CocaCola all the other things. It really did appear to be the mythical shining light on the hill. I love visiting the US and have spent over a year there now, on and off. It is a varied land of contradictions and of very different values and lifestyles, a land of opulence, but also of left behind little places. But the politics ... it seems to have become pathological, and the population increasingly cynical about politicians, about the media and sources of information, to the extent that most trust seems gone and consensus reality seems to be frequently called into question (I'm not claiming this is unreasonable! Just observing).
These tropes are definitely present in the two countries I've called home, but to a much lesser extent, the poison doesn't seem to have permeated quite so far.
You do see stuff get thrown around on social media like "Make sure to take a pen to the voting booth so that they can't change your vote!" but it's fringe whackos. Even if the politicians themselves are disliked, the mechanics of democracy are usually pretty well trusted. IIRC in the last general election here one of the tiny right-wing parties tried some voter-fraud type rabble-rousing ahead of the poll, but they were largely ignored and pretty quickly contradicted by the Australian Election Commission.
Texas reduces polling places - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin...
Bans on distributing food and water - https://www.ajc.com/politics/food-and-water-ban-at-the-polls...
Summary of a few things including that republicans in Iowa have shortened the early voting window and the hours of voting on election day - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-erect-voting-ba...
Mark Finchem, republican candidate for secretary of state in Arizona, backing fake electors - https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/...
Finchem promotes the big lie and says he will use his prospective position (which AFAICT includes responsibility for administering the election) to "make sure that Arizona is the Red State it REALLY is!" - https://twitter.com/derekwillis/status/1403143345132781569
It's true, that last one is perhaps not as cut-and-dried as it could be, there's some wiggle room in there, but to me the intention looks clear. It's fecking crazy to me that a partisan, elected official has anything to do with running the elections in the first place... but there we are.
I'm sure you can find more stuff like this if you look. Of course I'm sure that there are all sorts of excuses and justifications out there for why this is all totally reasonable, or why the 'other side' are just as bad. It's not clear to me they are though, at least, not when it comes to trying to actually undermine democracy itself.
If you would like to understand more about what I’m talking about, which goes far beyond the things like voter ID that you have mentioned, I would suggest beginning with stolen ballots in North Carolina during the 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as gerrymandering policies during the same.
I would then go and examine the statements given by the leadership of each side when such criminal acts are discovered. How do they respond? That can often give you an idea of what a party’s intentions truly are.
Be advised: there is a strong conservative media push to keep the conversation centered around things like voter ID laws, which I agree with you are entirely acceptable. In the same way that they seek to focus on bathroom policies instead of focusing on women dying for their religious beliefs, they hope to muddy the voting issue until it is too late.
I appreciate your interest in understanding what’s going on, and I hope you will add your voice to mine in the future!
For example here’s a great summation of the facts/reporting/criminal acts I mentioned re: election fraud in 2016 (as part of a long running scheme): https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/07/understandi...
If you would like me to do the work of providing you with additional sources addressing any of the other events, please let me know specifically which events you're curious about. I am happy to inform, but do prefer such requests to present in slightly more limited scope, given that I’m doing a favor. Thank you!
I’m interested to hear your take on how voting machines are “less secure” than by-hand tallying. I’m unfamiliar with the process, so this goes contrary to what my intuition would tell me goes on
A better question is: “what do digital only voting machines do BETTER than paper ballots?” I’m interested to hear your take!
Don’t really have one, I’m more interested in a study of which protocol is more secure, higher integrity. Gut instinct is that voting machines have a longer/stronger audit chain, are automated & don’t get tired. But of course, auditors get tired and aren’t automated, then again, is voting software “really that hard?”. But then again that audit chain could be stupid and expensive and outweigh the benefit.
In either case, machine or human, I hope that there is some kind of consensus algorithm at play.
The system functions ideally like a scantron system for tests — that is , a standardized bubble form (like a ballot), is read by a machine, which tallies the results automatically.
Crucially, however: if the programming or capability of the tallying machine is ever called into question, a paper ballot allows for referencing a physical, inked record of the voter’s original intent, far more immutably than any *purely* digital record could ever be.
Part of this equation is the fact that current systems are all fractured, with control spread across private industry at the state level, and levels of oversight varying wildly (often from election cycle to election cycle). A paper record is helpful to avoid rogue counties/townships/states etc from simply rewriting history as they see fit. On paper? A significant effort to conceal and alter. Digitally? One script. It just depends on who is in control at any given time.
Also: the trouble with a centralized, verifiable database of voter records is that unsavory entities will inevitably figure out how to look people up themselves, leading also inevitably to voter intimidation and suppression, not to mention violence.
So your points are all correct, but the need for a paper record remains, in my opinion. Testing as you suggest would be nice, but I’m also uncertain what it would further prove, given what to me appears to be an obvious logical extrapolation based on present realities.
Thank you for engaging so rigorously, I really do appreciate you taking the time and hope you feel respected in this conversation. I recognize that this is a contentious arena of issues and I have no wish to batter anyone, although I feel strongly about my position.
EDIT: the point I was trying to make (somewhat glibly) with my prior comment was this: paper ballots work, have worked, and will continue to work for the foreseeable future, unchanged. And it’s critical they function as unimpeachably as possible. So why change the system without a clear, significant benefit for doing so? My understanding is that critical programs like nuclear weaponry don’t generally run on modern, connected platforms — older, offline tech is fully known, and often inherently presents less attack surface in a modern world. The same would seem to be true of individual paper ballots, to me.
Gerrymandering? Just look at some of the district designs in New York.
I might remind you that all the things that are criticized in Republican states for suppressing the vote, exist as rules in certain Democratic states as well.
It's easy, I might point out to you as well, to live in an echo chamber where issues get inflated in perceived importance, only because they hurt your side. Yet those same issues happening where it doesn't hurt the side, somehow fall from being a problem.
That's no way to come to what should be an amendment to our basic document.
Nobody said that this was a republican-led-state problem only. That doesn't stop it from being a major threat to democracy, nor does it a priori mean that the Democrats do it as much or to the extent that Republicans do.
> I might remind you that all the things that are criticized in Republican states for suppressing the vote, exist as rules in certain Democratic states as well.
Do tell. No food or drink supplies allowed while standing outside in line for hours? Where's that in the Democratic states?
And when every objectively proven, convicted case is perpetrated by that SAME side, yet never condemned by said side, the only possible conclusion is that said side is operating in bad faith.
When one entire half of the political equation is no longer operating in good faith, it has a cascading effect throughout society. Civilization exists because the majority believe in it, no more, no less. All of recorded history would seem to support this theory.
And to put your mind at ease, I assure you I speak from my life experience rather than any internet talking points.
For a simple example, take gerrymandering in my home state of NC. A complex issue, but if one does the work to understand what’s going on, everything I’m saying is clear.
Research is required because the party in power would prefer it NOT be easy to comprehend the big picture — thus my patience with your high-handed-while-largely-misinformed statement of your understanding.
I am curious: how do you explain away the most recent former president demanding votes from Georgia? To continue to treat/request support from such an individual is, to me, an absolute signifier that one does not consider the right to vote to be a fundamental issue, in my opinion.
Not to mention the tomfoolery with ballots going missing, again in NC, due to the actions of an entrenched conservative “deep state” (for lack of a better term).
Nevertheless, I support your right to your opinion! I do wish conservative leadership felt the same way.
I hope this comment leaves you feeling more fully informed of the issues, so you don’t feel the need to bring up bathrooms in the context of rebellion again :).
Until we give everyone an ID card, yes that is voter suppression because it prevents many citizens from voting.
> That drop boxes for ballots were reduced in number?
Drop boxes and polling locations. It's hard enough that voting day isn't a paid holiday. If it takes hours and hours or goes outside of the range someone can easily travel, that's a big problem.
Gridlock, over an >extended< period of time, indicates there is a problem. Its like an engine seizing.
A change to the Constitution isn't going to save you from people fundamentally disagreeing on things.
The US system has little d democratic aspects but it is not a democracy. It was intentionally setup to protect the minority from the majority in critical respects like constitutional amendments. Also, population shifts are ongoing and the coastal blue populations are the most rapidly aging in the country and the increasingly red US born Hispanic populations are the most rapidly growing. The future may contain some surprises.
...of the opulent, is the quote.
But they also have longer lifespans by a couple of years.
> increasingly red US born Hispanic populations are the most rapidly growing.
A lot of those US born Hispanics are in California and very blue (thanks to Pete Wilson).
No, they aren’t. [0]
> the increasingly red US born Hispanic populations are the most rapidly growing.
The Hispanic population isn’t clearly “increasingly red”. [1] It is also growing slower (between the 2010 and 2020 censuses, 23%) than the Asian (35.5%), American Indian (27.1%), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (27.8%) groups, as well as various multiracial groups. [2]
[0] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/populati...
[1] https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/389093/hispa...
[2] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race...
You're own link seems to indicate that Hispanics are shifting to the away from the Democratic party. (In the article, it says they follow a muted version of national trajectory). While that's not the same as saying they are becoming "increasingly red", it is important to note they may be "increasingly less blue."
Further, the objections of the population have nothing to do with the judicial branch and everything to do with the legislative branch. The courts are not and have never been democratically elected entities.
P.S. minorities here could mean anything i.e the mega rich, the “legal” cartels, etc.
Abusing any population, is abusing a population. What you just argued is akin to walking into a room full of pregnant high school girls, and declaring one to be the "most" virgin.
Besides, the point of the Constitution, is to make it difficult for such things to happen in one direction or another in the political dimension. Which it does pretty well. If you want it to provide protections in the dimension of private economic activity, you can do that, just make an amendment and build a consensus.
If this new amendment which you draft to ostensibly protect this "majority", can't build the requisite consensus, then not only is it doubtful that it actually protects a majority, but it also shouldn't be an amendment. That's just democracy since the "majority" you claim to be serving doesn't seem to want the amendment.
But then I saw Samuel Alito commenting just today about how the first amendment does not give Americans, and college students specifically, the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. The fire in a crowded theatre standard was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). So it’s a little odd to hear that the Schenck interpretation from fifty years earlier is back on the menu.
I find myself wondering how that happened. What’s the fine distinction between interpreting the law differently to precedent and ignoring settled law?
According to Wikipedia that standard was explicitly upheld as the example of speech that would be prosecuted.
Alito claimed* that the 'fire in a crowded theatre' standard should be applied to today's college campuses, essentially because he has strong views on how free speech should/shouldn't be regulated at college. It seems to me that he's taking issue specifically with the right of students to engage in political speech and protest. The current court seems to have a particular distaste for case law from the civil rights era. I think he's deciding to bring this exact issue up because he wants to signal to any prospective plaintiff what rulings and precedents the court is likely to focus on in a hypothetical case. But he did that by deliberately misapplying the relevance of a widely-known and easily-misunderstood civil rights-era standard. It feels like he's doing that to taunt his political opponents and signal his preference for an earlier legal regime.
My point is that it's fair to question whether the court is actually behaving like a legislature: it's concentrating on case law that specifically affects social policy and it's doing that because it has a majority's muscle. As a foreigner, I can't explain how insane this looks from outside. Judges don't get to just show up to cocktail parties or speeches and single out the precedents they'd prefer to ignore or dispense with. That's a politician's job.
* https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/justice-alito-takes-di...
I think they were more worried about entire _states_ going into rebellion and not factions of populations spread across them.
> These are dark times for US democracy.
I don't think that's warranted. I would say these are the growing pains of a country now fully entering the age of always available connectivity with a founding document created when horse travel was the only credible way to travel across it.
> There’s no evidence things are working as intended.
You could say this of many things. The highly monopolized state of our media in the face of this new era is definitely a baffling outcome, and I definitely spend a lot of time thinking about the connection between this and the previous statement.
SCOTUS can be overruled by the states themselves via amendments. They’re not ignoring law at all.
I for one would fear living in a country where the courts were swayed by public sentiment.
For example, Amy Barrett was confirmed by a vote of 55-43, including 3 Democrats.
I'm not sure why you mention "a national majority". It was never a popularity contest. States elect senators, senators confirm Supreme Court justices.
The voters elect senators, who nominate candidates and then vote.
The senate judiciary committee will vote, then the candidate is voted on by the entire senate.
Regardless, the confirmation process is conducted by elected representatives. There is no "this party chose them".
Which has happened quite often?
Now, it causes a political circus.
In fact, the more we demand that it match that profile, the less independent it’s likely to become.
You can't really make that claim, objectively.
US elections aren't decided by national majority, so you can't use them as a measure of national majority.
If the game was different, people would play it differently.
And courts should be "swayed by public sentiment". A judge's job is "to judge", and general societal attitudes play part of that. This is why SCOTUS rulings from 1910 are not the same as today. Otherwise we might as well replace all courts with some AI that would interpret the law to the letter.
That's problematic.
Part of the function of courts and judges is to convince people not to "take the law into their own hands", and mete-out punishment by mob. That incentivizes courts to hand-down more severe sentences, especially in scandalous cases. Another part is to interpret the law fairly (Justice as Fairness), a function that is often at odds with the former function.
I don't think it's at all the business of courts to try to appease the mob; that leads inevitably to trial-by-tabloid, which is no kind of justice.
In 1986 the SCOTUS rules that consensual homosexual sex in private could be banned (Bowers v. Hardwick). Such a ruling would be almost unthinkable today, and was already overturned in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas). All the arguments used in 1986 and 2003 could still be used today because the constitution hasn't changed, but what is and isn't societally acceptable on this front very much has.
I'm not talking about whatever was in the papers this week, or the opinion polls this year, or whatever Biden or Trump or whomever said last week, I'm talking about broad and general shifts in attitudes that take place over years and decades.
Suffice to say, both parties' presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices that never made it past confirmation. Despite the voting procedure, both parties need to find nominees that are at least palatable to some portion of both parties. Extremes in either direction are generally dropped pretty quickly.
And courts are swayed by public sentiment, but it generally takes a long time for such social sentiment to filter up to the courts. And that's a good thing. The last thing we need is a court that decides cases on the whim's and fancies of the average voter.
Constitutional amendments were supposed to be easier than right to rebellion. That’s not really the case any more. At the same time, the supreme court is just ignoring the law, over the objections of 66-75% of the population (depending on the ruling).
These are dark times for US democracy. There’s no evidence things are working as intended.