US "Mid-term" Elections 2018

[rory_20_uk]

No one ever said the battle for America's soul was going to be easy. Even an outright sweep of both chambers and the executive in 2020 would not settle this. We are in the beginnings of Act 3 of what could be a full 5 part Shakespearean tragedy. This election has seen the first native-Americans, bisexuals, and socialists elected to the House ever. This country also sends to its capitol Neo-Nazi's and authoritarian sycophants. It is truly becoming a battleground of humanity in all of its forms. We simultaneously frighten and inspire ourselves to a degree that will carry both sides forward for decades to come.

We are seeing the massive downside of a written constitution: the inability to alter as reality alters. The Senate is hilariously imbalanced regarding the "one person, one vote" but of course every state only gets the same number of Senators and the Senate is the senior chamber. Things would be better if the House was the senior chamber since they represent more closely the people (at least the numbers of people). But this highly unlikely to change since why would the "loosers" in a rebalance vote to reduce their power? Because they are there for the people?

If things can not gently move to a new stable state, they tend to do so in a more violent jolt. Perhaps the "solution" would be a rebalancing of the states vs Federal power to help paper over the disagreements.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We are seeing the massive downside of a written constitution: the inability to alter as reality alters. The Senate is hilariously imbalanced regarding the "one person, one vote" but of course every state only gets the same number of Senators and the Senate is the senior chamber. Things would be better if the House was the senior chamber since they represent more closely the people (at least the numbers of people). But this highly unlikely to change since why would the "loosers" in a rebalance vote to reduce their power? Because they are there for the people?

If things can not gently move to a new stable state, they tend to do so in a more violent jolt. Perhaps the "solution" would be a rebalancing of the states vs Federal power to help paper over the disagreements.

When written, the Constitution called for a bicameral legislature with divided powers -- neither was supposed to be "senior" per se. Congress collectively was allocated to declare war. The Senate got 'advice and consent' over treaties and appointments and sits in judgment during an impeachment, but the HOUSE got the power, to impeach and ALL budget/funding bills must originate in the House. The House was directly elected by the people of their districts, whereas the Senators were selected by their state governments. None of these federal representatives were supposed to spend more than 2/3 of their time at the Capitol, and were supposed to be regularly in touch and beholden to their constituencies (the persons of their district or the government of their states respectively). The Presidency was to administer the laws established by Congress, head up national defenses as funded by Congress, and conduct foreign relations.


Obviously, in practice, it doesn't really function like that at all anymore, and never worked quite like it had been blue-printed. Though written to constrain the powers of the federal government, particularly the executive, the House has abrogated the development of a budget to the executive; Senators are directly elected state wide and for longer terms than the governors of the states they represent and can, effectively, operate almost independently of increasingly redundant state governments (subject to the practical needs/connections needed to secure re-election), and Congress as a whole has largely turned over War decisions to the executive aside from pro forma votes to 'authorize' the military actions already being taken by the Executive. Direct taxation via the 16th further marginalizes state government since they do not fund the federal government via apportionment anymore.

Power is concentrating in the hands of the Senate (who have costly elections, but only stand one year in six) and the executive -- which always seek to acquire power. The house is too busy fundraising for re-election to make much time for governance.

But changes have been made to the written document and have had a sweeping impact.

I would venture to say that one amendment more -- the removal of the electoral college in favor of either a popular vote or a Federal district by district vote across -- would see the USA as a proper social democracy in no more than 3 Presidential election cycles.

I don't see us getting around to a fuller revision of things to reflect what is really out there -- abolition of state government in favor of regional administrative districts that reflect population centers and do not adhere to silly impracticalities like according 2 Senators to Montana (Population 1.1M) and 2 Senators to California (Population 39.6M); federal districts assigned an appropriate number of representatives elected from that district; laws proposed by subject matter experts working for the executive by requiring the advice and consent of the representatives, etc.

We are too enamored of tradition to rationalize our government structure to reflect its practice.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We are seeing the massive downside of a written constitution: the inability to alter as reality alters. The Senate is hilariously imbalanced regarding the "one person, one vote" but of course every state only gets the same number of Senators and the Senate is the senior chamber. Things would be better if the House was the senior chamber since they represent more closely the people (at least the numbers of people). But this highly unlikely to change since why would the "loosers" in a rebalance vote to reduce their power? Because they are there for the people?

If things can not gently move to a new stable state, they tend to do so in a more violent jolt. Perhaps the "solution" would be a rebalancing of the states vs Federal power to help paper over the disagreements.

I don't see the connection to written vs unwritten Constitutions. If you are suggesting that changing the rules on the fly would be more stable does not jive with what we are seeing in the house and senate. Many of the "unwritten" rules have been discarded, and has only contributed to more instability, more polarization. In fact much of our government is precisely the opposite of how you portray it. Only the basic structure is written down, the rest are social norms.

Society itself cannot agree on what we should be, whether the previous system was written down or not makes no difference.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't see the connection to written vs unwritten Constitutions. If you are suggesting that changing the rules on the fly would be more stable does not jive with what we are seeing in the house and senate. Many of the "unwritten" rules have been discarded, and has only contributed to more instability, more polarization. In fact much of our government is precisely the opposite of how you portray it. Only the basic structure is written down, the rest are social norms.

Society itself cannot agree on what we should be, whether the previous system was written down or not makes no difference.

So you've got the worst of both worlds - a rigid basic structure that in essence can't be altered and all the "fixes" not which can be bulldozed. I don't think that suddenly changing things is a good idea or even possible given the existing frameworks.

In times where things are homogeneous this can be easily overlooked, but now when the need for strong processes is more clear than ever (with the popular vote and the elected officials diverging ever wider) the ability to change the core appears to be absent.

So, given all that is in place, the only realistic solution would be for the Federal government to try to do better on less tasks and leave the states themselves to focus on aspects that are not agreed on - the 2nd amendment (and Supreme Court interpretation aside), it might well be that some states would ban guns and others would not. Clearly pretending everyone is exactly the same is working less and less well.

[Pannonian]

So you've got the worst of both worlds - a rigid basic structure that in essence can't be altered and all the "fixes" not which can be bulldozed. I don't think that suddenly changing things is a good idea or even possible given the existing frameworks.

In times where things are homogeneous this can be easily overlooked, but now when the need for strong processes is more clear than ever (with the popular vote and the elected officials diverging ever wider) the ability to change the core appears to be absent.

So, given all that is in place, the only realistic solution would be for the Federal government to try to do better on less tasks and leave the states themselves to focus on aspects that are not agreed on - the 2nd amendment (and Supreme Court interpretation aside), it might well be that some states would ban guns and others would not. Clearly pretending everyone is exactly the same is working less and less well.

What we're seeing in the US, and UK for that matter, is the limits of democracy. We're used to an establishment that sets out reasonable choices before the electorate for them to choose from. We now have batshit insane and openly corrupt ideas being actively pursued, and an electorate that disregards objective truth in favour of their deliverer of rhetoric of choice. Some time in the C19 there was a famous case where a state legislature voted to set pi to 3.2. The state senate dismissed that, saying that "mathematical truth is not in the remit of government". Nowadays, such is the abuse of democratic ideals, that kind of crap and more would be directly passed by the electorate.

[Montmorency]

ACIN, about California's turnout: if you include all eligible voters, turnout wasn't even 30% turnout. Going by 7.3 million votes so far in the governor's race (7.2 million for House), 25.6 million eligible voters, and 18 to 19 million registered (where you got 37% I gather). Even less turnout in the Senate race (25% turnout of eligible). Is this what happens when you're known as the state of surplus voters? It's crazy that Florida could cast more votes (8.2 million) than California with hardly half the population. I raise an eyebrow at the people who are confident a meta-gerrymandered sexpartite California could reliably deliver 12 Dem Senators.



In updates on the election, votes are still being counted in several congressional districts.

Arizona Senate race still tallying, but it looks like the Democrat will win this one after all. If so, only a 2-seat gain by Republicans.

Dem Stacey Abrams in Georgia governor race refuses to concede the election and is demanding a recount. ACIN, seriously, do a review of the shadiness in the Georgia election, up to and including the hundreds of missing (hidden) voting machines and the apparent thousands of early votes that were not tallied for some reason.

Florida counts/recounts are ongoing and the gap in the Senate race is just 0.2% (0.4% in the governor race).

The skin-of-the-teeth nearness of a real national Dem sweep should only galvanize us all to try harder. Remember that the overall popular vote surge for Dems is at least that of the historic Republican surges of 1994 and 2010.

So you've got the worst of both worlds - a rigid basic structure that in essence can't be altered and all the "fixes" not which can be bulldozed. I don't think that suddenly changing things is a good idea or even possible given the existing frameworks.

In times where things are homogeneous this can be easily overlooked, but now when the need for strong processes is more clear than ever (with the popular vote and the elected officials diverging ever wider) the ability to change the core appears to be absent.

So, given all that is in place, the only realistic solution would be for the Federal government to try to do better on less tasks and leave the states themselves to focus on aspects that are not agreed on - the 2nd amendment (and Supreme Court interpretation aside), it might well be that some states would ban guns and others would not. Clearly pretending everyone is exactly the same is working less and less well.

Devolving to the states would leave most of America indicating like a Third-World country.

[rory_20_uk]

Devolving to the states would leave most of America indicating like a Third-World country.

That is a shame. This is increasingly why countries think that on balance perhaps the Chinese model works better - when you've got a problem with over a million people, you can just lock them all up without trial. Simple!

[Montmorency]

That is a shame. This is increasingly why countries think that on balance perhaps the Chinese model works better - when you've got a problem with over a million people, you can just lock them all up without trial. Simple!

Everyone wants the whole plate.

I'm currently reading this alternate history novel of the early Roman Empire in which the Romans underwent an industrial revolution and Jesus is a terrorist mastermind.

The author is one of those Liberals and expressed annoyance that people wrote to her adoring all the nice material aspects of Roman industrial and political domination, while ignoring negative aspects like torture and repression of dissidents and free speech.

I think we should avoid relying on circular logic about the integrity of the "cause"/"revolution"/"will of the people" to oppress people who may not be on board. The logical conclusion is some version of Pol Pot's Cambodia or Robespierre's France, where "he who protests is an enemy; he who opposes is a corpse." That always devolves back into violent anarchy or low-authoritarian capture. We have to break that old story to have any hope for the future.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[a completely inoffensive name]

So you've got the worst of both worlds - a rigid basic structure that in essence can't be altered and all the "fixes" not which can be bulldozed. I don't think that suddenly changing things is a good idea or even possible given the existing frameworks.

In times where things are homogeneous this can be easily overlooked, but now when the need for strong processes is more clear than ever (with the popular vote and the elected officials diverging ever wider) the ability to change the core appears to be absent.

So, given all that is in place, the only realistic solution would be for the Federal government to try to do better on less tasks and leave the states themselves to focus on aspects that are not agreed on - the 2nd amendment (and Supreme Court interpretation aside), it might well be that some states would ban guns and others would not. Clearly pretending everyone is exactly the same is working less and less well.

Has the British model shown any better promise? Brexit is jeopardizing everything to the point where an independent Scotland and a unified Ireland is not out of the question if May ends up delivering a hard Brexit with hard borders.
Where is this flexibility on the part of Parliament to adapt to the country as it lives today?

ACIN, about California's turnout: if you include all eligible voters, turnout wasn't even 30% turnout. Going by 7.3 million votes so far in the governor's race (7.2 million for House), 25.6 million eligible voters, and 18 to 19 million registered (where you got 37% I gather). Even less turnout in the Senate race (25% turnout of eligible). Is this what happens when you're known as the state of surplus voters? It's crazy that Florida could cast more votes (8.2 million) than California with hardly half the population. I raise an eyebrow at the people who are confident a meta-gerrymandered sexpartite California could reliably deliver 12 Dem Senators.



In updates on the election, votes are still being counted in several congressional districts.

Arizona Senate race still tallying, but it looks like the Democrat will win this one after all. If so, only a 2-seat gain by Republicans.

Dem Stacey Abrams in Georgia governor race refuses to concede the election and is demanding a recount. ACIN, seriously, do a review of the shadiness in the Georgia election, up to and including the hundreds of missing (hidden) voting machines and the apparent thousands of early votes that were not tallied for some reason.

Florida counts/recounts are ongoing and the gap in the Senate race is just 0.2% (0.4% in the governor race).

The skin-of-the-teeth nearness of a real national Dem sweep should only galvanize us all to try harder. Remember that the overall popular vote surge for Dems is at least that of the historic Republican surges of 1994 and 2010.

I agree with everything you are saying here. Hope I haven't given the opposite impression.

6 California's would give 9 Dems and 3 Reps just FYI.

[Pannonian]

Has the British model shown any better promise? Brexit is jeopardizing everything to the point where an independent Scotland and a unified Ireland is not out of the question if May ends up delivering a hard Brexit with hard borders.
Where is this flexibility on the part of Parliament to adapt to the country as it lives today?

The institutions exist that can provide flexibility: an elected House that legislates, and an appointed House that scrutinises. The problem is the fanatical belief in the infallibility of the elected House, and the idiots currently ruling the roost in the elected House (of all parties). The Lords have repeatedly pointed out the holes in the Brexit arguments provided by the Commons. Unfortunately both main p;arties in the Commons want Brexit.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The institutions exist that can provide flexibility: an elected House that legislates, and an appointed House that scrutinises. The problem is the fanatical belief in the infallibility of the elected House, and the idiots currently ruling the roost in the elected House (of all parties). The Lords have repeatedly pointed out the holes in the Brexit arguments provided by the Commons. Unfortunately both main p;arties in the Commons want Brexit.

So it sounds like your unwritten Constitution has failed as well.

[Pannonian]

So it sounds like your unwritten Constitution has failed as well.

It takes less work to put it right. The Common actually listening to the Lords would be something that is doable in the immediate future. The Commons not threatening the Lords with dissolution whenever the latter disagreed with the former would be another step immediately doable. Just replace the idiots heading the Labour party with someone marginally effective in opposition (hello Stella Creasy, Yvette Cooper, etc.), and most of the current worst abuses of the British system would work itself out. It's taking the active collaboration of both main parties, in a system where there's supposed to be a permanent opposition, to override existing checks and balances. An equivalent in US terms would be Republicans and Democrats actively collaborating to bring something about which every scientist in the land says is a catastrophically bad idea. If you live in a democracy, and the largest parties work together to be stupid, there's not much you can do.

[rory_20_uk]

Has the British model shown any better promise? Brexit is jeopardizing everything to the point where an independent Scotland and a unified Ireland is not out of the question if May ends up delivering a hard Brexit with hard borders.
Where is this flexibility on the part of Parliament to adapt to the country as it lives today?

This was a plebiscite. So this is one time that Brexit has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. It was a decision by the PM to hold it and not one that the country expected to get since the EU seems to get on best when the people are sidelined.

I personally prefer the German model to what we have in the UK - I think that the UK model is better than that in the USA - but you set thebar very low.

[Montmorency]

I agree with everything you are saying here. Hope I haven't given the opposite impression.

6 California's would give 9 Dems and 3 Reps just FYI.

I was speaking more to the thread than you, except where I named you.

Bro, how do California place fewer votes than Florida with twice the population size? That's shameful my dude.

[Beskar]

American attack ads are hilarious...


"Oh no, they are going to treat me for free! I wanted to get charged $200,000 in live in crippling debt for the rest of my life" cue Student Debt, cue Employment issues in repaying.

[Husar]

American attack ads are hilarious...
[...]

"Oh no, they are going to treat me for free! I wanted to get charged $200,000 in live in crippling debt for the rest of my life" cue Student Debt, cue Employment issues in repaying.

To answer the ad:
It looks very sexy (in both ways), so sit back and relax?!

The only odd thing is the universal job guarantee, but I guess it riles up the working class who prefer to work in a coal mine for themselves rather than let a robot do it and enjoy socialist paradise.

[Askthepizzaguy]

American attack ads are hilarious...

"Oh no, they are going to treat me for free! I wanted to get charged $200,000 in live in crippling debt for the rest of my life" cue Student Debt, cue Employment issues in repaying.

The future of America might be Norway, which leads the world in countless categories.

Oh noes, how dreadful.

[Viking]

"Oh no, they are going to treat me for free!

Of course you are not treated for free, you pay for the healthcare in forms of taxes and other fees. Publicly funded health care is a mandatory insurance with the state as the insurance company. If you want to be treated for free with public healthcare, you'll have to be on welfare so that you don't pay anything to the state; but that's for the few.

[CrossLOPER]

American attack ads are hilarious...

I don't think you understand the state that many Americans are in. Many have been conditioned, since youth, that they are merely temporarily embarrassed millionaires, and that Democrats are standing in their way to prosperity with over-taxation and over-regulation. They can do it all by themselves, and that welfare is only for those who are lazy.

Polarization hasn't helped.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This was a plebiscite. So this is one time that Brexit has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. It was a decision by the PM to hold it and not one that the country expected to get since the EU seems to get on best when the people are sidelined.

I personally prefer the German model to what we have in the UK - I think that the UK model is better than that in the USA - but you set thebar very low.

Our written Constitution doesn't allow the President or Congress to pose questions directly to the people. Sounds like your unwritten Constitution allowed British politicians to dump their responsibility on charged political questions in a very divisive way...
What difference does it make if the result was unexpected?

I was speaking more to the thread than you, except where I named you.

Bro, how do California place fewer votes than Florida with twice the population size? That's shameful my dude.

Many Californian Republicans don't show up in California because they feel the state is lost to the Democrats already. Never mind the fact the CALGOP lost the state when they went full Nazi in asking for complete removal of the brown people in the state.

Also, this might be alien to people who live outside of California, but since California is solidly blue and has a solidly blue government, we have been generally content with the current state of California politics.
Governor Moonbeam has been an amazing governor and is the reason I hate term limits.

[Montmorency]

Many Californian Republicans don't show up in California because they feel the state is lost to the Democrats already. Never mind the fact the CALGOP lost the state when they went full Nazi in asking for complete removal of the brown people in the state.

Also, this might be alien to people who live outside of California, but since California is solidly blue and has a solidly blue government, we have been generally content with the current state of California politics.
Governor Moonbeam has been an amazing governor and is the reason I hate term limits.

Prop 187?

What's Brown like on immigration? I heard he hated it back in the 1970s. Then again, many labor Democrats did yet.

Our written Constitution doesn't allow the President or Congress to pose questions directly to the people. Sounds like your unwritten Constitution allowed British politicians to dump their responsibility on charged political questions in a very divisive way...
What difference does it make if the result was unexpected?

That's actually a very interesting question. Does Congress lack the authority to pass enabling legislation allowing the invocation of national referenda that would have the force of federal law/policy, or require the implementation of corresponding law/policy? Maybe such a thing already exists, idk.

###

Rory, on the subject of discourse and governance, I came upon this quote from Aneurin Bevan, godfather of British socialism in the 20th century and architect of the NHS:

"The eyes of the world are turning to Great Britain. We now have the moral leadership of the world, and before many years are over we shall have people coming here as to a modern Mecca, learning from us in the twentieth century as they learned from us in the seventeenth," said Mr Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, at a Labour rally in Manchester yesterday.
The meeting was called to celebrate the anniversary of Labour's accession to power. The Labour party, he said, would win the 1950 election because successful Toryism and an intelligent electorate were a contradiction in terms. His own experiences ensured that no amount of cajolery could eradicate from his heart a deep burning hatred of the Tory party. "So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin," he went on. "They condemned millions of people to semi-starvation. I warn you young men and women, do not listen to what they are saying, do not listen to the seductions of Lord Woolton. They have not changed, or if they have they are slightly worse."

The Government decided the issues in accordance with the best principles, he said: "The weak first; and the strong next." Mr. Churchill preferred a free-for-all, but what was Toryism except organised Spivvery?

As a result of controls, the well-to-do had not been able to build houses, but ordinary men and women were moving into their own homes. Progress could not be made without pain. People who campaigned against controls were conducting an immoral campaign. There was a kind of schizophrenia in the country, so that people reading newspapers and hearing talk in luxury hotels got an entirely different conception of what was happening, which did not square with the statistics. The bodies and spirits of the people were being built up - but the Government's efforts could not be sustained except by the energies and labour of the people. Production must be raised to make the new legislative reforms a living reality.

The Government never promised in 1945 that everybody was going to be better off. It knew some were worse off to-day, but it always intended they should be.

[Bevan's "vermin" remark - one of the most famous jibes in politics - was adroitly turned against the Attlee government by Tory speakers, who pretended it insulted their voters rather than policy makers. However, Bevan merely retorted that men of Celtic fire were needed to bring about great reforms like the new NHS. That was why, he explained, Welshmen were put in charge instead of "the bovine and phlegmatic Anglo-Saxons."

On one hand, uhhh....

On the other hand, the Republicans like to say that the people want someone who "tells it like it is".

[Crandar]

Apparently, maintaining a small majority in the Senate and losing it in the House counts as a great victory. Did a portion of the electorate always suffer from such a severe lack of touch with reality or has it recently become worse, due to polarization?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Apparently, maintaining a small majority in the Senate and losing it in the House counts as a great victory.

History is not exactly replete with pols who, following poor election results, openly declare 'we got our asses handed to us by the voters. We clearly need to rethink things.' In the USA's current delirium of narcissistic polarization, no admission of weakness can be made lest the other side use it against you. So "we've always been at war with Eastasia."

Did a portion of the electorate always suffer from such a severe lack of touch with reality or has it recently become worse, due to polarization?

Of course a portion of the electorate suffers from being haphazardly indexed with reality. Rabid single issue voters who would vote for to adopt a dictatorship as long as abortion was outlawed; people whose nativism is driven more by a desire to retain the advantages they enjoyed from the lottery of birth without an appreciation for the value of change; people like my mother in law who voted straight democrat in every election for nearly 40 years (despite being pro death penalty, anti-amnesty for illegals, convinced that the welfare system was a hammock and not a safety net, and a believer in lower taxes) -- we have always had our voters who were out of touch.

But it is the self-chosen ignorance of our electorate that allows for and encourages the polarization. The loudest voices from the political extremes scream for their agendas, the media gleefully exacerbates on and focuses upon "the race" or the conflict or who is "on top" because THAT is good for revenues, and the ignorant mass -- a goodly portion of whom vote despite their ignorance of the particulars -- fall in line with the loud voices as feels most emotionally rewarding to themselves.