None of those provisions made a real dent in voter turnout in 2020. And aside from that, the republican party was far better at getting mail-in turnout in 2024, AND not even considering that about half or more voters are not even members of a particular party. That you look at this in such a partisan manner tells me your view of “revolution” has more to do with putting democrats back in power than any substantial structural changes to governance.
It has NOTHING to do with politics or any particular party
It has EVERYTHING to do with putting in power a party that runs by and honors small-"d" democracy, as opposed to the lawless administration now occupying the WH and it's enablers in congress who are only ensuring their own irrelevance.
This administration is is not political games, they are attempting, so far successfully, to convert a democracy and small-"d" democratic election into an autocracy. This is the same thing that happened in Russia, Venezuela, Hungary, Germany and many other countries (Putin, Chavez then Mauduro, Orban, and Hitler were all first elected, then "re-elected").
Stop trying to justify it. Things always get worse under autocracy, and often by the time people notice it, it is too late to do anything about it.
Sort of true, but don't act like such a glib answer holds water.
It is even less of a democracy when the party in power neither believes in nor abides by the rule of law.
In First-Past-The-Post voting, the dynamics inevitably force 1- or 2-Party rule. Third-party candidates are always spoilers, and candidates who absolutely do NOT have majority support can be elected. None of those are true when Ranked Choice Voting is used.
These flaws of 1PTP voting have been repeatedly exploited by fascists and authoritarians to gain power and impose their rules and avoid the rule of law.
The most essential part of a democracy is that THE PEOPLE write the laws and NO ONE, including and especially the rulers, is above the law. The rulers are there to implement the laws of the people, not to impose on the people their laws or whims.
When under 1PTP voting, one party abandons democracy and rule of law, yes, there is not much of a choice and that demands repair. The authoritarian party must be brought back to abide by rule of law or be replaced by one that does.
Acting like we need to 'respect' the authoritarian party because otherwise there would be only one viable party left in the democracy is just wrong.
If it were up to me, I'd ban any party that stopped respecting the rule of law (as the current one has), and implement Ranked Choice Voting nationwide to ensure that any leader has at least a majority of people who support him/her. I'd expect new parties or currently fringe parties to play a much larger role in a more vibrant democracy. But at this point, complaining that only one party respects rule of law is not the priority; re-establishing the rule of law is Job #1.
>These flaws of 1PTP voting have been repeatedly exploited by fascists and authoritarians to gain power and impose their rules and avoid the rule of law.
Hitler was elected Chancellor in a parlimentary system without a majority. The voting system is relatively unimportant compared to the social forces at play. While hard to admit, it is certainly possible that a majority of voters simply wanted Trump to win.
Nope, he didn't even get a majority of the people who went to the polls. Only 49.8% [0].
And yes, there are ways to manipulate and exploit flaws in every electoral system, but some are more resistant to others. It only came up to point out the ridiculousness of the gp comment.
That "even" is doing a lot of work here. Its not very common for presidents to get the majority of the vote, I don't even think Hillary had a greater portion in 2016 than Trump in 2024. So, not counting that 1% of those who didn't vote for D or R, Trump won a clean majority of the vote, incontestably. Why this is hard for you to accept, I have no idea. It seems like an inability to face facts.
The Democrats, the State Department, the FBI, all these guys, a lot of them are just Princeton, Yale humanities graduates who read Derrida in college. You treat them like gods. And Trump is just some doofus who has strange ideas, no care or respect for the norms espoused by those political elite, and despises any contest to his authority. I have nothing against Ivy league kids, but its clear that the only reason you've been convinced to support them without compromise, while they tend to live relatively comfortable and secure lives compared to the vast majority of people in America, is because you're not one of them. Neither is Trump, not really, neither are most of his supporters; they look down on you. Is it a ruse? Of course, but so was the alternative.
Wow, that is an impressive list of 100% incorrect assumptions stated as fact!
Of course I know Trump won a plurality and that is the 1PTP system we have. The point that neither had a majority is that it is entirely possible that under RCV, he (or Harris) could still have lost.
>>Treat Ivy League grads as gods because they read Derrida?
Wow, couldn't be more wrong. I AM an Ivy grad (on scholarship) with one of my majors in Philosophy, barely encountered Derrida, and certainly don't treat any other grad or person with more or less respect than they individually deserve from the content of their character (but I'm glad you have nothing against Ivy League "kids").
>> convinced to support them ...because I'm not one of them
Wrong X2. Obvs, I AM one. Plus, the only derivation of my support is from first principles of governance.
First, the most essential factor do deal with in governance is human nature, and the historically established fact that "Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely". There may be exceptions in history, but they only prove the rule.
Of course technically, the most efficient and effective form of govt is a benevolent dictatorship. But this is absolutely unsustainable. Either the King will himself be corrupted or one of the next rulers will become corrupted.
The only way to deal with this, as has been said "The worst form of government aside from all others that have been tried" is democracy, and more exactly ensuring that power is as widely distributed, divided, and balanced as possible.
In a functioning democratic or successful society, the three branches of government are balanced in power, and the branches of society, business, industry, press, academy, religion, social orgs, sport, etc. are also independent.
When all parties work to uphold the balance of power, or at least intend to keep that power vested in the people, then my support or opposition is down to policy.
When one of the major parties has abandoned the principles of democracy and is actively working to rule as a minority party, then I oppose them just as I oppose Nazis (which happens to be the playbook the admin is using).
When one of the major parties in a 2-pty system has turned against the very system that ensures our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, I oppose them and support the remaining party who does support democracy.
And yes, that is the ONLY issue that can overrule the principle of not becoming a single issue voter — on preserving democracy when it is at stake, that IS the single issue.
It is as simple as that.
If Rs are somehow replaced as a party, or return to small-d democratic principles, I may very well start voting for them again, as I often did in earlier years (and I grew up with strongly R parents). But for now, they have gone far off the rails, and I could tell stories from inside R conventions where I was that would illuminate that some, but will not here.
