American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mr. Cairo]

What I have a really hard time to get my head around is the voter registration system in Anglo countries in general (?) and the US in particular. I can only explain it to myself as your democracies being older, with a tendency to eccentric traditions.
As a citizen I'm eligible to vote, why should I have to register for that seperately? Should be sufficient if I show up on election day. I have a vague idea that the US doesn't really have a civil registry? But you do count everybody in this huge periodical census, don't you, and then obviously it is a laughable idea that in this day and age the US government of any would not know all of its citizens by name and adress...

In Canada, voter registration can be done online, at least in the two provinces I've done it in (BC, MB) and it's very easy. Also, when you file your tax return you automatically get registered, so you only ever need to actually go and register if you've moved since you've last paid your taxes (which is why I had to do it in Manitoba) or you've never paid taxes (like an 18 year old who's never worked).

So really, the voter registration thing in America is more to do with consistent, repeated attempts at disenfranchising people than any general Anglo thing. For all (some) Americans like to go on about their God-Given Constitutional Rights, it sure seems as though their governments (especially State governments) have a lot more power to screw them over than in other western democracies.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

What I have a really hard time to get my head around is the voter registration system in Anglo countries in general (?) and the US in particular. I can only explain it to myself as your democracies being older, with a tendency to eccentric traditions.
As a citizen I'm eligible to vote, why should I have to register for that seperately? Should be sufficient if I show up on election day. I have a vague idea that the US doesn't really have a civil registry? But you do count everybody in this huge periodical census, don't you, and then obviously it is a laughable idea that in this day and age the US government of any would not know all of its citizens by name and adress...

In Canada, voter registration can be done online, at least in the two provinces I've done it in (BC, MB) and it's very easy. Also, when you file your tax return you automatically get registered, so you only ever need to actually go and register if you've moved since you've last paid your taxes (which is why I had to do it in Manitoba) or you've never paid taxes (like an 18 year old who's never worked).

So really, the voter registration thing in America is more to do with consistent, repeated attempts at disenfranchising people than any general Anglo thing. For all (some) Americans like to go on about their God-Given Constitutional Rights, it sure seems as though their governments (especially State governments) have a lot more power to screw them over than in other western democracies.

Something on the order of 20,000 ballots got thrown out last election in my state because "the signatures didn't match" which is a typical way of junking ballots. Somehow, the signatures of minorities tend to match less often. I wonder why

[AdrienIer]

Also, I can't find fault in the justice confirmation. Sure the acting persons are terrible, the concept of lifelong judges is absurd in my book, the politization deplorable, confirmation by simple majority is a dubious rule that incentivizes the former, and the composition of the US Senate runs under eccentric traditions, see above, but the fact is that there is a democratically (or say, constitutionally) elected majority among the relevant actors when in 2016 there wasn't. They act different because the boundary conditions are different. I don't like the rules but I don't see foul play. I can understand why many people would really want to avoid this confirmation from happening, of course.
I mean she could have resigned at 80(!) and have avoided this mess.

To be clear, the reason why the confirmation is considered a dickish move is that 4 years ago republicans refused to even hold a hearing for Obama's nominee (and the nomination was almost a year before the election) because "the american people should decide in the upcoming election". This time, 6 weeks before the election they're going through with the confirmation. Literally 2 years ago the republican senators were claiming that in a case like this they'd leave it to the next president.

[T-hawk]

The Republican claim in 2016 was not that. That claim was specifically that when the presidency and senate are split, the nomination/confirmation should wait until the next term. That does not apply to the current situation, where the presidency and senate are unified, and thus a confirmation can happen without a fight. It's not a contradiction, despite how the fake news frames it.

Of course, there's no actual principles at all, it's only about practicality and power. The Republicans took both their 2016 and 2020 positions simply because it favored them. They will push through a nominee because they can and for exactly no other reason.

[Miguelito]

Yup as I said, I don't like the outcome and feel bad for US Americans who will be affected by it (I think for us in the wider world it's much less affecting than a bad president. I get the impression that for domestic issues this may be reverse).
But that's what I meant with different boundary conditions. The Republican Senate had every right to reject a judge in 2016 (not giving a hearing is scummy though), as they have the right to confirm one now. I don't see a contradiction, and while I reserve the right to think the rules are stupid (and recognize that my opinion doesn't and shouldn't matter), it's played by the rules (emphasis on played, they're not acting responsibly imo)

[AdrienIer]

The Republican claim in 2016 was not that.  That claim was specifically that when the presidency and senate are split, the nomination/confirmation should wait until the next term.  That does not apply to the current situation, where the presidency and senate are unified, and thus a confirmation can happen without a fight.  It's not a contradiction, despite how the fake news frames it.

Of course, there's no actual principles at all, it's only about practicality and power.  The Republicans took both their 2016 and 2020 positions simply because it favored them.  They will push through a nominee because they can and for exactly no other reason.

In 2016 they presented it as a matter of principle in an election year. In 2018 Lindsey Graham stated it forcefully, you can look it up. As you say their only principle is "might makes right" so they went back on all their claims as soon as they saw an advantage. Today they're making it as if their 2016 argument was about the presidency and senate being split, but it never was. 
Anyone who expected any better of them was a fool, but "might makes right" as a principle for a party hellbent against the "tyranny of the majority" essentially means they favor the tyranny of the minority over the majority.

[darrelljs]

The Republican claim in 2016 was not that.  That claim was specifically that when the presidency and senate are split, the nomination/confirmation should wait until the next term.

Nope.

Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court

Edit: Full op-ed.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

A few other excerpts:

So the American people have a particular opportunity now to make their voice heard in the selection of Scalia’s successor as they participate in the process to select their next president — as they decide who they trust to both lead the country and nominate the next Supreme Court justice.

Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term, and the Senate has not confirmed a nominee to fill a vacancy arising in such circumstances for the better part of a century.

We don’t think the American people should be robbed of this unique opportunity. Democrats beg to differ. They’d rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment by a president on his way out the door.

The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.

The argument on why they wouldn't do it was "moral" in nature; the argument on what gave them the authority rested on having control of the senate.  And for the record I have no problem with what they did, just the BS excuse & rank hypocrisy.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

"might makes right" as a principle for a party hellbent against the "tyranny of the majority" essentially means they favor the tyranny of the minority over the majority.

So you are saying Alexander de Tocqueville got it backwards ?

Darrell

[T-hawk]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/mccon...rg-garland

“The McConnell rule applies when the Senate and White House are controlled by *different* parties, which is obviously not the case in 2020. Journos understand this, but many will deliberately mislead their readers and viewers who do not.”