Mediaboss Marketing

Our democracy is dying of internal rot

So many of our politicians are willing to corrupt the checks and balances aspects of our democracy to benefit themselves and their political party. Tactics include gerrymandering, voter suppression, even efforts to limit the courts' capacity to proclaim their laws unconstitutional.

What's more, former President Trump has revealed his intentions for a second term.

First, and perhaps most daunting, he and his closest allies have promised sweeping transformations of the federal government. They envision a presidency that would be endowed with new and unprecedented powers.

There is a plan to purge the federal workforce of anyone deemed disloyal.

The plan also includes the capacity to wield the power of federal law enforcement against political enemies.

The former president even went so far as to state that former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley should be executed.

Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy. Not only are his plans reminiscent of the tactics used by numerous dictators, but he has also repeatedly praised the likes of Russias Vladimir Putin and North Koreas Kim Jong Un, saying they are very smart.

We cannot allow a second Trump presidency because he plans an autocracy instead of a representative republic guided by voters.

And the sad irony is that because authoritarians cant afford to have a populations of gun owners, almost immediately many of the day-to-day gun-owning MAGA boosters will lose their guns, their freedom or even their lives.

There will be no more voter rights. The free press will disappear. The right to free assembly to protest will be ripped away. We just must realize that what we are all headed toward is a full-fledged dictatorship.

Some, of course, will become the minions of the emerging fascist regime. They will be the white supremacists who followed the instructions to stand down and stand by.

Are you not interested in the dictatorship they are planning? Then, the time to act is now. The 2024 election is the crucial end point of our opportunity to end the current slide toward a Trump-led autocracy.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

The rest is here:
Our democracy is dying of internal rot - The Montana Standard

WASHINGTON, D.C. A Minnesota judge on Wednesday dismissed a right-wing lawsuit seeking to invalidate legislation that restores voting rights to over 55,000 Minnesotans on parole, probation or community release due to a felony conviction.

The conservative group behind the legal challenge Minnesota Voters Alliance sought to roll back the progress made by the historic rights restoration bill that was signed into law in March 2023.

Prior to the enactment of the legislation by the states Democratic-controlled Legislature, Minnesotans with felony convictions were permitted to regain their voting rights only after the completion of their entire sentences which often include years- or decades-long periods of probation.

Under the new legislation, Minnesotans voting rights are restored immediately after release from incarceration a practice that the Minnesota Voters Alliance lawsuit argued stood in direct violation of the Minnesota Constitution. According to the lawsuit, individuals on supervised release, probation, or work release because of a felony conviction have not been restored to all civil rights and are therefore ineligible to regain voting rights until they are fully discharged from their sentences.

In Wednesdays 11-page order, the judge presiding over the case rejected the conservative plaintiffs arguments. In addition to holding that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their lawsuit, the judge flatly rebuffed the plaintiffs notion that individuals must regain all civil rights as a prerequisite to having their voting rights restored: The major premise of this argument is fundamentally flawedContrary to Petitioners argument, [the Minnesota Constitution], does not say restored to all civil rights. Instead, it says restored to civil rights.

The judge cited a February 2023 Minnesota Supreme Court opinion in which the majority upheld the states then-limited rights restoration scheme, but explicitly held that the Legislature has broad, general discretion to choose a mechanism for restoring the entitlement and permission to vote to persons convicted of a felony.

In response to Wednesdays decision, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) wrote in a statement yesterday that he is extremely pleased that yet another effort to undermine the voting rights of Minnesotans has been soundly rejected.

Ellisons statement continued: The legislature has the ability to decide when voting rights are restored to Minnesotans, and todays ruling reaffirms that right and reaffirms the constitutionality of the Restore the Vote Act. This is a good day for the 55,000 Minnesotans whove had their voting rights restored. Today is also a victory for democracy here in Minnesota because our democracy is always made stronger when more people participate.

The attorneys for the Minnesota Voters Alliance have already stated that they intend to appeal Wednesdays decision.

Read the opinion here.

Learn more about the case here.

Follow this link:
Minnesota Judge Dismisses Right-Wing Challenge to Voting Rights Restoration Law - Democracy Docket

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