![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That annoying trope
19 Oct 2023 09:44The House is a mess. Still no speaker, bunch of losers. And they're out there blaming the Democrats? Why the fuck should the Dems vote for McCarthy? And like any of the Rs would have voted for Pelosi if she'd faced a revolt in her ranks? Also, Repubs? Don't be pathetic. Count your fucking votes before you go out to the floor.
OK. That said.
One of the things the media keep repeating that is driving me batty: that "Americans like divided government" and this is "what Americans wants".
That's cheap reasoning, ignores systemic issues, public opinion, and is said to give cover to the Republicans for being incomps whose goal it is to dismantle government, not govern.
(Or, as dh said, if they're in government, they want to rule, not govern.)
So. Divided government.
Leaving aside the stolen seat on the Supreme Court, that's not where I'm headed, though clearly the Court is much more rightwing than the country and does not reflect the opinions or desires of the American public.
The presidency. We don't elect via a popular vote. We have had two elections where the winner of the most votes, ie the choices of most American voters, did not win the presidency. This is problematic and will always be. It is probably going to get worse over the years, with more and more Republicans winnings office by benefitting from the very clear undemocratic institution of the Electoral College.
The Senate. Wyoming, population 576851 (*) gets two senators. California, population 39512000 (approx) (*) gets two senators. (*) 2020 census numbers.
This creates a situation where small, often rural, often red states have more influence than they should, engendering a tyranny of the minority. This is, btw, going to get worse over the years, as more people pack into blue states, and those still still only have two senators. This will probably mean, sometime in the next decade, if not before, a permanent Republican majority in the Senate. Despite, of course, fewer people wanting that.
The House. At this point, gerrymandering is responsible for much of the repartition in seats in the House. Yes, in the past election, more votes were cast for Republicans than for Democrats, but the difference is small (*) and pales compared to how many seats gerrymandering determines. Yes, both sides do it, but the Republicans have taken it to an art, and often put out maps that don't even pretend to be fair. The SCOTUS has slapped a few down (Alabama comes to mind) often thanks to Mark Elias, and some state courts are going to push for fairer maps (NY, which struck down a Dem gerrymander, only to have a map favoring Rs be imposed by the courts, but that map is, iirc, currently being appealed which should result is a more fair maps, and more seats to Dems).
(*) Seats with no competition reduce voter participation. This is true in both blue metropolitan areas and deep red Trump +35 districts.
So, no, as a general rule, the current (pathetically incompetent) Republican majority in the House does not clearly reflect the will of the voters. It reflects instead like a distorted mirror, some bits taking on larger proportions than they otherwise should.
There is not general will by the American people to have divided government. There is, instead, the poisonous racist intent of the Constitution spilling forward 250+ year forward to amplify some voices, and muffle others. The result may be divided government but there is not much evidence that this is what people want vs what we get, given the constraints of the Constitution.
The lofty stated goal of preventing the "tyranny of the majority" is instead going to entrench the tyranny of the minority, where a smaller number of backwards voters in a bunch of shithole states get to impose their will on the majority of people who would prefer to live otherwise.
This is not tenable.
OK. That said.
One of the things the media keep repeating that is driving me batty: that "Americans like divided government" and this is "what Americans wants".
That's cheap reasoning, ignores systemic issues, public opinion, and is said to give cover to the Republicans for being incomps whose goal it is to dismantle government, not govern.
(Or, as dh said, if they're in government, they want to rule, not govern.)
So. Divided government.
Leaving aside the stolen seat on the Supreme Court, that's not where I'm headed, though clearly the Court is much more rightwing than the country and does not reflect the opinions or desires of the American public.
The presidency. We don't elect via a popular vote. We have had two elections where the winner of the most votes, ie the choices of most American voters, did not win the presidency. This is problematic and will always be. It is probably going to get worse over the years, with more and more Republicans winnings office by benefitting from the very clear undemocratic institution of the Electoral College.
The Senate. Wyoming, population 576851 (*) gets two senators. California, population 39512000 (approx) (*) gets two senators. (*) 2020 census numbers.
This creates a situation where small, often rural, often red states have more influence than they should, engendering a tyranny of the minority. This is, btw, going to get worse over the years, as more people pack into blue states, and those still still only have two senators. This will probably mean, sometime in the next decade, if not before, a permanent Republican majority in the Senate. Despite, of course, fewer people wanting that.
The House. At this point, gerrymandering is responsible for much of the repartition in seats in the House. Yes, in the past election, more votes were cast for Republicans than for Democrats, but the difference is small (*) and pales compared to how many seats gerrymandering determines. Yes, both sides do it, but the Republicans have taken it to an art, and often put out maps that don't even pretend to be fair. The SCOTUS has slapped a few down (Alabama comes to mind) often thanks to Mark Elias, and some state courts are going to push for fairer maps (NY, which struck down a Dem gerrymander, only to have a map favoring Rs be imposed by the courts, but that map is, iirc, currently being appealed which should result is a more fair maps, and more seats to Dems).
(*) Seats with no competition reduce voter participation. This is true in both blue metropolitan areas and deep red Trump +35 districts.
So, no, as a general rule, the current (pathetically incompetent) Republican majority in the House does not clearly reflect the will of the voters. It reflects instead like a distorted mirror, some bits taking on larger proportions than they otherwise should.
There is not general will by the American people to have divided government. There is, instead, the poisonous racist intent of the Constitution spilling forward 250+ year forward to amplify some voices, and muffle others. The result may be divided government but there is not much evidence that this is what people want vs what we get, given the constraints of the Constitution.
The lofty stated goal of preventing the "tyranny of the majority" is instead going to entrench the tyranny of the minority, where a smaller number of backwards voters in a bunch of shithole states get to impose their will on the majority of people who would prefer to live otherwise.
This is not tenable.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}