Mediaboss Marketing

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

Democracies can die with a coup dtat, a quick seizure of power or they can die a little at a time.

It happens most gradually and deceptively with the election of an authoritarian leader, enablers who abuse governmental power, and finally, the complete repression of the opposition.

Perhaps the canary in the coal mine indicating a nation is slipping toward the death of democracy is when a minority group seizes power and keeps it by any means necessary.

James Madison in Federalist #51 worried about the tyranny of the majority, but what we have witnessed is tyranny of the minority.

The Republicans have won the popular vote for president only once in the last 20 years but have controlled the presidency for 12 years of those two decades.

The fact is that minority rule, whether Republican or Democrat, is bad for our American experiment.

Daniel Ziblatt, professor of political science at Harvard offers this: While our nations founders sought to protect small states, they didnt want to empower a smaller group at the expense of a larger one.

A recent example is the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was nominated by a minority president (Trump) who lost the national popular vote by 3 million ballots, confirmed by a narrow majority of the Senate representing just 44 percent of all Americans, aligned with four other conservative justices including one nominated by the same minority president (Trump) and two others by a president (Bush 43), who also entered the White House with minority support.

According to a New York Times article, Democrats easily won more overall votes for the U.S. Senate in 2016 and 2018, and yet the Republicans hold 53 of 100 seats. The 45 Democratic and two independent senators represent many more people than the 53 Republicans.

The Senate was designed to protect small states, but the population of the four biggest states California, Texas, Florida and New York grew by a combined 8.2 million over the past decade. The combined population of the four smallest Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota grew by 124,000. That is a serious design flaw in representation.

The House of Representatives does represent by population, but the number of representatives was capped at 435 in 1929 when the population of the U.S was one-third the current size. Each congressperson should represent 708,000 citizens. Instead each serves anywhere from 989,000 to 526,000.

And then theres the Electoral College.

The number of electors in each state is equal to the sum of the states membership in the Senate and the House. This gives an advantage to smaller population states. Again, North Dakota has about one electoral vote per 224,000 people, while California gets about one vote per 677,000 people.

So, our winner-takes-all (except Maine and Nebraska) Electoral College model dramatically enables minority rule. No other established democracy has an electoral college.

Remedy? Instead of winner takes all, some other electoral methods that could be used: straight popular vote, proportional popular vote, proportional electoral vote, or weighted vote (1st, 2nd, 3rd) (see 270towin.com)

Tyranny by the minority goes against Republicans core principles of supporting free markets.

Dr. Ziblatt, explains: The Republican party is (like) a protected firm in a marketplace, artificially benefiting from the political system that allows it to win even when it doesnt win a majority. If we had competition of ideas, it would have to change its strategy. When Republicans cannot win a majority of votes nationally and still retain power, the free market is diminished.

If we continue down this path, this leads us from permanent tyranny of the minority to one party rule. (See Kentucky). That is not what the founders intended.

When there is no competition of ideas in local, state, and federal elections, intelligent progress becomes impossible. Research and compromise disappear, and decisions are made on ideology only.

Autocratic principles creep into the system from the likes of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and the Republican party.

Levitsky and Ziblatt, in How Democracies Die, lay out the principle in simple yet stark terms:

A political system that allows tyranny of the minority to control the most powerful offices is not legitimate.

Without some semblance of majority rule, there can be no democracy.

Originally posted here:
What happens to our democracy with 'tyranny of the minority'? - Murray Ledger and Times

The formal end of the apartheid government in South Africa was hard-won. It took decades of activism from both inside and outside the country, as well as international economic pressure, to end the regime that allowed the countrys white minority to subjugate its Black majority. This work culminated in the dismantling of apartheid between 1990 and 1994. On April 27, 1994, the country elected Nelson Mandela, an activist who had spent 27 years in prison for his opposition to apartheid, in its first free presidential election.

The white minority who controlled the apartheid government were Afrikaanersdescendants of mostly Dutch colonists who had invaded South Africa starting in the 17th century. Although Afrikaaner oppression of Black South Africans predates the formal establishment of apartheid in 1948, apartheid legalized and enforced a specific racial ideology that separated South Africans into legally distinct racial groups: white, African, coloured (i.e., multiracial) and Indian. The apartheid government used violence to enforce segregation between these groups, and forcibly separated many families containing people assigned to different racial categories.

Black South Africans resisted apartheid from the very beginning. In the early 1950s, the African National Congress, or ANC, launched a Defiance Campaign. The purpose of this campaign was for Black South Africans to break apartheid laws by entering white areas, using white facilities and refusing to carry passesdomestic passports the government used to restrict the movements of Black South Africans in their own country. In response, the government banned the ANC in 1960, and arrested the prominent ANC activist Nelson Mandela in August 1962.

The banning of the ANC and the incarceration of its leaders forced many ANC members into exile. But it did not stop resistance within South Africa, says Wessel Visser, a history lecturer at Stellenbosch University in South Africa.

What many dissidents started to do inside the country was to form a kind of an alternativeresistance movement called the United Democratic Front, he says. The UDF, formed in 1983, was a [collaboration] of church leaders and political leaders who were not banned at that stage, community leaders, trade unionists, etc., he says.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Reverend Allan Boesak, two of the UDFs main leaders, started to organize marches to parliament, in Cape Town, in Pretoria, Johannesburgcrowds of 50 to 80,000 people, so there was definitely a groundswell of resistance against apartheid, he says. And around the world, this activism drew attention.

Ronald Reagan delivers a speech regarding South Africa, July 1986.

Dirck Halstead/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images

One of the big moments for international awareness of apartheid was in 1976, when thousands of Black children in the Soweto township protested a government policy mandating that all classes be taught in Afrikaans. Police responded to the protests with violence, killing at least 176 people and injuring over 1,000 more. The massacre drew more attention to activists calls to divest from South Africa, something the United Nations General Assembly had first called on member states to do back in 1962.

Campaigns for economic sanctions against South Africa gained steam in the 1980s, but faced considerable resistance from two important heads of state: United States President Ronald Reagan and United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Both Reagan and Thatcher condemned Mandela and the ANC as communists and terrorists at a time when the apartheid government promoted itself as a Cold War ally against communism.

Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, but the U.S. Congress overrode his decision with a two-thirds majority, passing the act to impose sanctions on South Africa. The U.K. also imposed limited sanctions despite Thatchers objections. The combination of international sanctions placed significant economic pressure on South Africa, which was then at war with the present-day nations of Namibia, Zambia and Angola.

Anti-apartheid activism also drew international attention to Mandela. International advocates urged South Africa to release him and other imprisoned ANC members and allow exiled members back into the country.

As early as 1984 there were attempts by national intelligence inside the government structures and also by some of the ministers to make contact with the ANC and sound out the waters of a possibility of a negotiated settlement, says Anton Ehlers, a history lecturer at Stellenbosch University.

Anti-apartheid leader and African National Congress member Nelson Mandela and his wife anti-apartheid campaigner Winnie raise fists upon Mandela's release from prison on February 11, 1990.

Alexander Joe/AFP/Getty Images

Visser speculates that the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 helped speed the process of ending apartheid along because it took away one of the governments main defenses of itself among Western allies: that it needed to remain in place to fight communism. The argument that the ANC are only the puppets of the Reds couldnt be used anymore, Visser says, both because the Cold War was ending and because the ANC now had a lot more support in Europe and the U.S.

Mandela finally walked free on February 11, 1990, and negotiations to end apartheid formally began that year. These negotiations lasted for four years, ending with the election of Mandela as president. In 1996, the country initiated a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in an attempt to reckon with the gross human rights violations during apartheid.

View post:
Key Steps That Led to End of Apartheid - History