Notices by 8124 (8124@babka.social)

@TruthSandwich @rameshgupta @ArenaCops @GreenFire @marcelias no, we do not need to take democracy lessons or inspiration from Germany. our system allows greater rights, but the amount of effort and coordination to do a successful version of January 6th is difficult to imagine, and the second you're on public record doing so (as someone who took an oath to the constitution), you're out unless and until congress gives you amnesty. so our system offers both greater freedom and greater resilience to bad actors. it's a very targeted disqualification.

@TruthSandwich @rameshgupta @ArenaCops @GreenFire @marcelias i had to think about this one, i see what you're saying. when i say "out" i mean constitutionally disqualified. SCOTUS tells us about it later (unless they make a mistake which is totally possible).

@TruthSandwich @rameshgupta @ArenaCops @GreenFire @marcelias while i don't share this sentiment, i do understand it, and i feel that we have the luxury of in some sense being above requiring visceral reactions to deal with it, because of what the reconstruction amendment ratifiers did for us, what they took from their experience and gave to us.

@TruthSandwich @rameshgupta @ArenaCops @GreenFire @marcelias we don't know that yet. if SCOTUS rules him disqualified, i believe that could effectively end the campaign.

@TruthSandwich @rameshgupta @ArenaCops @GreenFire @marcelias I do, mostly for the same reason we have Dobbs: more originalists are on the court than before.

@GreenFire @TruthSandwich @rameshgupta @ArenaCops @marcelias That’s right, and insurrections are probably easier to quell when the president actually wants to quell them 😉

@TruthSandwich @rameshgupta @ArenaCops @GreenFire @marcelias Is it, though? Elections run by the federal government have an obvious, singular point of failure. Popular vote compacts would be unstable without constitutional amendment because any signatory could unilaterally pull out at any moment.

@TruthSandwich @rameshgupta @ArenaCops @GreenFire @marcelias

"The alternative to an electoral college is for states to run elections but for every vote to count equally."

But how to coordinate agreement upon the vote totals in a way that does not amount to just handing elections over to the federal government?

Before I go any further, I want to say that I agree with you 100% that one person should get one vote, regardless of where they live, for presidential elections. That would be more "democratic" than what we have now.

But it is important to realize that USA was not the first democracy, and most failed. USA has the record for longest running constitutional democracy by far. And part of what makes the system durable is that we do accept restrictions of democracy on some level. You can't vote for a 34 year old because founders hated the idea of "favorite son" presidents. You can't engage in insurrection and still be eligible for office, because the Civil War was awful. Etc.

@TruthSandwich @rameshgupta @ArenaCops @GreenFire @marcelias that is another fact of our system, as durable as it's been, the trend has always been towards greater freedom, with the exception of prohibition which was repealed.

the senate is important when you understand the two most important principles of the constitution might be said to be separation of powers, and federalism. having half of the legislature, with certain distinct duties, with equal representation for the states makes sense when you consider that each state has its own constitution, which was ratified similarly to the federal one in each state, each with its own unique properties and a wide scope of freedom to set the context of state law.

i would say in reply that the electoral college is the only reason Trump v Anderson is even at SCOTUS right now. having 50 separate election systems is simply better (more resilient) than 1. it's way harder to take over. so no, it is the furthest thing from a mistake.

@robertnorlyn fr?

@rameshgupta thought provoking question. i’m gonna guess the answer is no, but i’m willing to be wrong.