For anyone who thinks it can't happen in the U.S.

[RavenSky]

... it IS happening. Chip by chip, step by step...

In the just released EIP report, North Carolina’s overall electoral integrity score of 58/100 for the 2016 election places us alongside authoritarian states and pseudo-democracies like Cuba, Indonesia and Sierra Leone. If it were a nation state, North Carolina would rank right in the middle of the global league table – a deeply flawed, partly free democracy that is only slightly ahead of the failed democracies that constitute much of the developing world.

Indeed, North Carolina does so poorly on the measures of legal framework and voter registration, that on those indicators we rank alongside Iran and Venezuela. When it comes to the integrity of the voting district boundaries no country has ever received as low a score as the 7/100 North Carolina received. North Carolina is not only the worst state in the USA for unfair districting but the worst entity in the world ever analyzed by the Electoral Integrity Project.

Third, government in North Carolina has become arbitrary and detached from popular will. When, in response to losing the governorship, one party uses its legislative dominance to take away significant executive power, it is a direct attack upon the separation of powers that defines American democracy. When a wounded legislative leadership, and a lame-duck executive, force through draconian changes with no time for robust review and debate it leaves Carolina no better than the authoritarian regimes we look down upon.

http://amp.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've been repeatedly called nuts for saying that the Republican plan isn't to have honest elections anymore.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I've been repeatedly called nuts for saying that the Republican plan isn't to have honest elections anymore.

Was that before Trump? It should have been, but I think some more realize it now, but still not nearly enough. The GOP has proved beyond reasonable doubt to show that they are more than willing to throw our democracy under the bus in defending of all people, Donald Trump.

They have found their justification. It rests within their ignorant, paranoid, conspiracy theory about the deep state, illegal immigrant voters, and so on. I see more GOP congress people decrying "fake news" now. It's the new get out of jail free card. There's not enough smart conservatives left in the party to hold on I don't think. Many others that haven't lost their minds still call themselves Republicans, but not by their own brethren.

The idiocracy is fast approaching. A shame, I was hoping for better for my children.

 

[bilby]

When you know that your team is the best, and will therefore always win, it's perfectly OK to cheat, because that doesn't change the outcome - it just ensures that the wrong outcome doesn't happen by mistake.

That's how these people really think.

 

[SimpleDon]

I've been repeatedly called nuts for saying that the Republican plan isn't to have honest elections anymore.

Was that before Trump? It should have been, but I think some more realize it now, but still not nearly enough. The GOP has proved beyond reasonable doubt to show that they are more than willing to throw our democracy under the bus in defending of all people, Donald Trump.

They have found their justification. It rests within their ignorant, paranoid, conspiracy theory about the deep state, illegal immigrant voters, and so on. I see more GOP congress people decrying "fake news" now. It's the new get out of jail free card. There's not enough smart conservatives left in the party to hold on I don't think. Many others that haven't lost their minds still call themselves Republicans, but not by their own brethren.

The idiocracy is fast approaching. A shame, I was hoping for better for my children.

Yes, it is getting to be really bad. I don't have any belief that matters would improve if the Democrats were swept into power, that they would just use the tools that the Republicans leave to swing the gerrymandering and voter suppression over to supporting them.

There is a 50/50 chance that the Supreme Court will rule against the gerrymandering and overturn its - "all is fair in politics" ruling of the Reagan and Bush era. There wouldn't be any other reason for them to hear the case if they didn't want change the ruling. They also need to revisit the Citizens United ruling, to overturn the "money is free speech," and "a corporation is a person" ruling. A constitutionally 14th amendment protected full citizen, no less. A corporation is a wholly formed creation of the government and we don't need a SCOTUS ruling to change it, we can just pass a law.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can we stop pretending that this is only a Republican thing? Despite the name, the Democratic party isn't very pro-democracy either. And they won't become moreso after Trump was elected.

- - - Updated - - -

When you know that your team is the best, and will therefore always win, it's perfectly OK to cheat, because that doesn't change the outcome - it just ensures that the wrong outcome doesn't happen by mistake.

That's how these people really think.

Exactly. And it isn't exclusive to either the right or left. Super delegates, gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, excluding third parties from debates all spring immediately to mind.

 

[LordKiran]

Can we stop pretending that this is only a Republican thing? Despite the name, the Democratic party isn't very pro-democracy either. And they won't become moreso after Trump was elected.

- - - Updated - - -

When you know that your team is the best, and will therefore always win, it's perfectly OK to cheat, because that doesn't change the outcome - it just ensures that the wrong outcome doesn't happen by mistake.

That's how these people really think.

Exactly. And it isn't exclusive to either the right or left. Super delegates, gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, excluding third parties from debates all spring immediately to mind.

Classic Whataboutism.

Democrats do not currently pose an existential threat to our democracy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Classic Whataboutism.

Democrats do not currently pose an existential threat to our democracy.

What about the fact that Democrats want Democratic politicians put into office for no better reason than because more people voted for them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can we stop pretending that this is only a Republican thing?

You mean the vote disenfranchising?

When you know that your team is the best, and will therefore always win, it's perfectly OK to cheat, because that doesn't change the outcome - it just ensures that the wrong outcome doesn't happen by mistake.

That's how these people really think.

Exactly. And it isn't exclusive to either the right or left. Super delegates, gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, excluding third parties from debates all spring immediately to mind.

Moore-Coulter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've been repeatedly called nuts for saying that the Republican plan isn't to have honest elections anymore.

Was that before Trump? It should have been, but I think some more realize it now, but still not nearly enough. The GOP has proved beyond reasonable doubt to show that they are more than willing to throw our democracy under the bus in defending of all people, Donald Trump.

Long, long before His Flatulence.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Democrats do not currently pose an existential threat to our democracy.

Yes, they do. They don't want democracy. They don't make any effort to allow or include third parties in debates. They rig their primaries with super delegates rather than work democratically (something that ironically the Republican's don't do). And with Trump in office, we face a big incentive on the part of Democrats to skirt around democracy in the next general. Do you want Democracy or do you want not-Trump?

OH! OH! OH! But they are not as bad as the Republicans! Yes, I hear you. But, so what? That doesn't make them pro-democracy or not a threat to democracy.

In fact your last national election had the Democratic nominee's whole campaign boiling down to "Hold your nose and vote for me, because you have to, because if you don't you'll get that other guy who is really scary. No I won't listen to you or do anything you want, but vote for me because I'm your only choice if you are not a misogynist racist deplorable".

 

[zorq]

Democrats do not currently pose an existential threat to our democracy.

Yes, they do. They don't want democracy. They don't make any effort to allow or include third parties in debates. They rig their primaries with super delegates rather than work democratically (something that ironically the Republican's don't do).

These two complaints don't really have anything to do with the government style known as "democracy."

Firstly, the Democratic party isn't a government. When we compare the way the Democrats select the candidates they want to represent them on the national arena, to government styles, it is true, the Democrats have more of a republic style than a democracy style. But that really says nothing about how much Democrats support democracy in the US.

Secondly, there is nothing about democracy as a government style that tells us who should be invited to speak in election debates, how, where, or when they should be held or broadcast. In fact,democracy doesn't need to have parties at all, much less "Third parties". So this complaint about "debates" and "parties" has doubly nothing to do with democracy.

And with Trump in office, we face a big incentive on the part of Democrats to skirt around democracy in the next general. Do you want Democracy or do you want not-Trump?

.

Incentive isn't behavior or history. Complaining about sins that haven't been committed and may never be committed makes you look foolish. This isn't even a "What about..." complaint. It's a "What if..." complaint.

In fact your last national election had the Democratic nominee's whole campaign boiling down to "Hold your nose and vote for me, because you have to, because if you don't you'll get that other guy who is really scary. No I won't listen to you or do anything you want, but vote for me because I'm your only choice if you are not a misogynist racist deplorable".

No, She actually had plenty of great things to say, that made her a good candidate. The fact that she couldn't help pointing out how horrible her competition was doesn't make everything else she had to offer just disappear. If that is all that you paid attention to, that's only your fault.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, She actually had plenty of great things to say, that made her a good candidate. The fact that she couldn't help pointing out how horrible her competition was doesn't make everything else she had to offer just disappear. If that is all that you paid attention to, that's only your fault.

"Stronger Together!"; "Break Down the Barriers!"; "I'm with her!" (not she's with us); "They are deplorables!"; "He's not qualified"; "I'm not pay for play, no wait I am"; "No Bernie, We Can't"

Yeah she had a lot of great things to say. She had a lot of empty platitudes, as she had her primary rigged for her, and harboured neo-con policies she dared not speak of during the election. Yeah. She was great. She was so great that she lost to Donald Trump.

You had very little choice in your last federal election, and you know it. People who voted third party were branded traitors as third parties were shut out by both the media and the two ruling parties excluding them from debates. Yes, parties are not particularly democratic, as you say, and a two party system even less so.

 

[LordKiran]

Democrats do not currently pose an existential threat to our democracy.

Yes, they do. They don't want democracy. They don't make any effort to allow or include third parties in debates. They rig their primaries with super delegates rather than work democratically (something that ironically the Republican's don't do). And with Trump in office, we face a big incentive on the part of Democrats to skirt around democracy in the next general. Do you want Democracy or do you want not-Trump?

OH! OH! OH! But they are not as bad as the Republicans! Yes, I hear you. But, so what? That doesn't make them pro-democracy or not a threat to democracy.

In fact your last national election had the Democratic nominee's whole campaign boiling down to "Hold your nose and vote for me, because you have to, because if you don't you'll get that other guy who is really scary. No I won't listen to you or do anything you want, but vote for me because I'm your only choice if you are not a misogynist racist deplorable".

You know I could come up with some long winded and overly pithy statements about how or why you're wrong but instead I'll point out the word "Currently" in my statement. Facts are the GOP right now this instant poses a direct, tangible, existential threat to the nation and its institutions. Right now! What you think the dems "might do" were the positions reversed does not concern me, as I try not to concern myself with irrelevant suppositions.

This is called being rational; acknowledging and confronting problems in the order of their magnitude and immediacy and responding accordingly. Or to put it more shortly:

GET YOUR PRIORITIES IN ORDER

 

[ZiprHead]

North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered - NY Times

"Judge James A. Wynn Jr., in a biting 191-page opinion, said that Republicans in North Carolina’s Legislature had been “motivated by invidious partisan intent” as they carried out their obligation in 2016 to divide the state into 13 congressional districts, 10 of which are held by Republicans. The result, Judge Wynn wrote, violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I see the two party system as more of a threat than either of those parties in isolation. If the only move to counter the Republican dictators is to do whatever the Democrats say then the Democrats become dictators as well.

 

[bilby]

Democrats do not currently pose an existential threat to our democracy.

Yes, they do. They don't want democracy. They don't make any effort to allow or include third parties in debates. They rig their primaries with super delegates rather than work democratically (something that ironically the Republican's don't do). And with Trump in office, we face a big incentive on the part of Democrats to skirt around democracy in the next general. Do you want Democracy or do you want not-Trump?

OH! OH! OH! But they are not as bad as the Republicans! Yes, I hear you. But, so what? That doesn't make them pro-democracy or not a threat to democracy.

In fact your last national election had the Democratic nominee's whole campaign boiling down to "Hold your nose and vote for me, because you have to, because if you don't you'll get that other guy who is really scary. No I won't listen to you or do anything you want, but vote for me because I'm your only choice if you are not a misogynist racist deplorable".

You know I could come up with some long winded and overly pithy statements about how or why you're wrong but instead I'll point out the word "Currently" in my statement. Facts are the GOP right now this instant poses a direct, tangible, existential threat to the nation and its institutions. Right now! What you think the dems "might do" were the positions reversed does not concern me, as I try not to concern myself with irrelevant suppositions.

This is called being rational; acknowledging and confronting problems in the order of their magnitude and immediacy and responding accordingly. Or to put it more shortly:

GET YOUR PRIORITIES IN ORDER

Winston Churchill despised Stalin and his Communist regime. But that didn't stop him from forming an alliance with Stalin, in order to defeat Hitler, who was an existential threat to the UK. Nor did that alliance prevent him from acting against the Soviet Union once Hitler was beaten.

The idea that you cannot support or ally yourself with people you dislike under any circumstances is foolish at best, and deadly at worst.

If the Democrats are needed to defeat the Republicans, then it's a smart move to support them - even if you plan to condemn them once your mutual enemy is defeated.

 

[Underseer]

I've been repeatedly called nuts for saying that the Republican plan isn't to have honest elections anymore.

Plan? As in future tense?

You really need to stop watching FOX News.

 

[lpetrich]

I see the two party system as more of a threat than either of those parties in isolation. If the only move to counter the Republican dictators is to do whatever the Democrats say then the Democrats become dictators as well.

The problem is Duverger's law. Electoral systems are a strong influence on party composition. For first-past-the-post or plurality voting, the spoiler effect leads to there being only two parties. For proportional representation, several parties are easily possible and often happen.

So why not proportional representation? Is it really that unthinkable?

 

[Patooka]

Can we stop pretending that this is only a Republican thing?

You're absolutely right right, and I wish more people would point that out. It isn't only a Republican thing; what would be more accurate is saying it's mostly a Republican thing. Almost always a Republican thing. A thing that Republicans follow almost religously as a viable (sometimes the only) strategy to get elected. But most definitely NOT just a Republican thing. They are only the largest practitioner of voter disenfranchisement, not the sole proprietor.

Glad we cleared that up.