Not really sure where this goes but anyway. These are the guys who wrote ‘How Democracies Die.’
In 2018, when we wrote How Democracies Die , we knew that Donald Trump was an authoritarian figure, and we held the Republican Party responsible for abdicating its role as democratic gatekeeper. But we did not consider the GOP to be an antidemocratic party. Four years later, however, the bulk of the Republican Party is behaving in an antidemocratic manner. Solving this problem requires that we address both the acute crisis and the underlying long-term conditions that give rise to it.
As we argued in How Democracies Die , our constitutional system relies heavily on forbearance. Whether it is the filibuster, funding the government, impeachment, or judicial nominations, our system of checks and balances works best when politicians on both sides of the aisle deploy their institutional prerogatives with restraint. In other words, when they avoid applying the letter of the law in ways contrary to the spirit of the law—what’s sometimes called constitutional hardball. When contemporary democracies die, they usually do so via constitutional hardball. Democracy’s primary assailants today are not generals or armed revolutionaries, but rather politicians—Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan—who eviscerate democracy’s substance behind a carefully crafted veneer of legality and constitutionality.
This is precisely what could happen in the next U.S. presidential race. Elections require forbearance. For elections to be democratic, all adult citizens must be equally able to cast a ballot and have that vote count. Using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of this principle is strikingly easy. Election officials can legally throw out large numbers of ballots on the basis of the most minor technicalities (e.g., the oval on the ballot is not entirely penciled in, or the mail-in ballot form contains a typo or spelling mistake). Large-scale ballot disqualification accords with the letter of the law, but it is inherently antidemocratic, for it denies suffrage to many voters. Crucially, if hardball criteria are applied unevenly, such that many ballots are disqualified in one party’s stronghold but not in other areas, they can turn an election.
tomchick
Split this topic
11067
61 posts were merged into an existing topic: Deep, Esoteric Theological Debate
Crazy but totally believable.
milo
11069
It’s not fleeing the scene if you bring the accident with you. (taps temple while nodding)
You’re allowed to run them over if they’re blocking traffic now, right?
Don’t know if it was in PA, but just last year wasn’t there a case where a politician fooling around with his cell phone while driving hit a dude with his car and killed him? And since the state has no negligent homicide statute they couldn’t prosecute him?
vyshka
11073
That was the South Dakota AG
None
11074
The SD AG claimed he thought he’d hit a deer, prompting this quote from an investigator:
"His face was in your windshield, Jason, think about that.”
He also supported the TX AG’s election fraud case filed in December of last year, just a few months after killing a man and driving away.
There’s something weird about SD politicians & driving, witness Bill Janklow.
Timex
11076
You guys act like rich people aren’t allowed to run over other folks. What’s the point of even being rich then?
Thrag
11078
Tom Barrak declares he’s innocent because the Statue of Liberty makes him hard or something, I didn’t quite follow.
“Your Honor: 'MURICA. I rest my case.”
And yet, he would be better than Paxton.
Kind of sad.
That is not at all clear. Paxton is very bad, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t see any reason to suppose that Bush couldn’t be worse. Certainly he’s a characterless, spineless groveler, which is hardly a promising start.
Not under indictment for fraud, AFAIK.
That just means he’s rested and ready lol.
The party of ideas. Sigh.
