US Poll-itics

[JGP]

AmErIcA, aMeRiCa
MaY gOd ThY gOlD rEfInE

 

[that's a big lol, btw]

 

 

[Ran]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It should be noted a lot of these polls started before the debate. It may skew the results no?

Emerson released a poll today that puts Biden merely at q five point lead nationally .

They had Biden +3 in July and late September, so this means movement in Biden's direction, which is good.

[Martell Spy]

The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power
A Harvard law professor on whether it’s time to rethink the nation’s highest court.

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-mark-tushnet

Quote

 

Sean Illing
How unusual is it for a liberal democratic system like ours to allow judges to overturn laws outright?

Mark Tushnet
In the modern era, since the middle of the 20th century or so, this has become a pretty common role for courts worldwide. There are important variations in the way countries do it, however. And in particular, since the late 20th century, constitutional designers and implementers have switched from a US style, where the court has the last word and there is nothing you can do about it, to a system that allows for what legal scholars call a more “dialogic” process — which basically means there’s an interactive process between the court and the legislature.

Sean Illing
And how does that kind of system work?

Mark Tushnet
The idea is that the legislature passes a law, the court says it’s unconstitutional for this or that reason, and then the legislature has an opportunity to respond to the court. In some cases, the legislature will just say, “We understand your reasons, but we disagree with them, and we’re going to go forward with the policy anyway.”

Sean Illing
Do you think we’d be better off if we abolished the Supreme Court in its current manifestation and moved to a more balanced system like the one you just described?

Mark Tushnet
Yeah, I do. I’m a big fan of the dialogic approach. And it’s worth noting that even very conservative legal scholars like Robert Bork have proposed this sort of system, which suggests this is something people across the ideological spectrum could get behind. And I’ve felt this way for my entire career, regardless of the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court.

 

 

[Alarich II]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power
A Harvard law professor on whether it’s time to rethink the nation’s highest court.

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-mark-tushnet

 

I think that's a terrible idea:

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

In some cases, the legislature will just say, “We understand your reasons, but we disagree with them, and we’re going to go forward with the policy anyway.”

This is just tyranny of the majority, it has little to do with a modern understanding of democracy. You really have to have an unreasobably big amount of faith in democratic institutions and traditions as well as voters, to think that this would be a good idea.

[Ran]

The Netherlands has a constitution that expressly forbids courts from reviewing the constitutionality of legislation, and a system of government where majority power is basically unchecked. It's also one of the best places to live in the world, with high quality of life, happiness, democracy, freedom, etc. scores.

So, "tyranny of the majority" is no argument, on its own.

[felice]

53 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

You really have to have an unreasobably big amount of faith in democratic institutions and traditions as well as voters, to think that this would be a good idea.

Nah, you just need slightly more faith in democratic institutions and traditions and voters than you have in a small group of unaccountable lifetime appointees, disproportionately appointed by Republicans.

[DireWolfSpirit]

12 hours ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Probably out of money. Though Minnesota always looms large as a potential prize for Republicans. Weird state. Lots of white democrats. 

Nothing weird about being smart. Vermont and Massachusetts are also full of right thinking palefaces methinks

[Alarich II]

21 minutes ago, Ran said:

The Netherlands has a constitution that expressly forbids courts from reviewing the constitutionality of legislation, and a system of government where majority power is basically unchecked. It's also one of the best places to live in the world, with high quality of life, happiness, democracy, freedom, etc. scores.

The Netherlands have no law review against their own constitution, that's true, but Dutch judiciary can review laws against European and international provisions. So the majority is hardly unchecked. But then again, the Netherlands are a very small country and have a very different parliamentary system than the US, and the executive power is much less focused on one person but rather distributed over the ministers. Combine this with proportional representation and the necessary coalition building and the chance that a single party can capture the entire state is much smaller.

 

24 minutes ago, felice said:

Nah, you just need slightly more faith in democratic institutions and traditions and voters than you have in a small group of unaccountable lifetime appointees, disproportionately appointed by Republicans.

You mean institutions like the Electoral College, a two party system, and presidential powers that actually give huge amounts of executive power to a single person who does not even win the majority of votes cast? I think, I'll save my faith for sunday service. Court-packing seems a much better strategy, although it would probably be even better if judges were appointed on their judical merits rather than political stance. This entire system that just depends on the goodwill of politicians to not pick and pull on the loose threads, like Trump does, seems fragile to me. Then again, my perspective is not American, we have had other experiences with Totalitarians here.

[ants]

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power
A Harvard law professor on whether it’s time to rethink the nation’s highest court.

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-mark-tushnet

At the end of the day, whatever the system, one body has to be the final arbiter.  I'd prefer that to be the court than the legislature.  

1 hour ago, Ran said:

The Netherlands has a constitution that expressly forbids courts from reviewing the constitutionality of legislation, and a system of government where majority power is basically unchecked. It's also one of the best places to live in the world, with high quality of life, happiness, democracy, freedom, etc. scores.

So, "tyranny of the majority" is no argument, on its own.

A single example is hardly proof that it isn't a valid argument. Given that issue with "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority takes extreme positions, any majority who has chosen not to isn't going to be a disaster.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

10 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Hahahaha. People are people, even if they have better fashion sense in NYC. 

I don't know....

I remember going into Saks5thAve "yrs ago" on my HS senior trip. Took a look at a shirt, price tag said over $700. And I distinctly recall thinking to my Midwestern ass-

"$700 for that shirt? That don't make no kinda SENSE!"

[Ran]

46 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

The Netherlands have no law review against their own constitution, that's true, but Dutch judiciary can review laws against European and international provisions.

And yet the EU did not exist in 1814, which is from when the Dutch constitutional injunction against courts being involved in examining legislation for constitutionality dates. US courts also sometimes refer to international treaties and agreements when deciding legality of things, so ... not that different, really.

 

40 minutes ago, ants said:

At the end of the day, whatever the system, one body has to be the final arbiter.  I'd prefer that to be the court than the legislature.  

A single example is hardly proof that it isn't a valid argument. Given that issue with "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority takes extreme positions, any majority who has chosen not to isn't going to be a disaster.  

Certainly. But the US has been suffering the tyranny of the minority of late, as well, a tyranny literally enshrined in the Constitution that cannot be readily broken. Instead, the task needs to be to make politicization of the courts entirely pointless. 

There are a number of ways to do it, and removing their judicial review capacity, or strictly limiting it, would be one approach.

Personally, I'm not convinced by that approach, but I just think "tyranny of the majority" is misguided when the fact is this would be a response to the tyranny of a minority.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 10/27/2020 at 6:13 AM, DMC said:

In terms of the numbers that's inarguable, but I don't even want to think about the shitshow this country would go through if this election got thrown to the House.  Especially if Biden wins the popular vote by, say, 3-4 percent.  Anyway, 2% likelihood is literally statistically insignificant, so wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

This is not the year to taunt the Universe about things that are highly “unlikely”.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

In PA, 3 million ballots have been requested of which 1.7 million have been returned. I am taking a close look at that to see how many will be outstanding come Nov 3, because the SC may not allow counting those mailed on Nov 3 and postmarked (not sure if they can drop it off at a clerk's office day of election or not).

Regarding TX, it will almost certainly reach higher than 2016 numbers, but how much is anyone's guess

In PA, if an absentee ballot has been requested but not returned, can that voter vote in person at their normal precinct on election day?

In South Carolina requesting an absentee ballot means you may no longer vote at your normal precinct.  You have to mail the ballot or take the ballot to your county voting commission to cast your ballot.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 hours ago, Maithanet said:

However, the scenario we're worrying about is Trump and the Supreme Court stopping counting the votes to hand Trump a victory.  Which is very possible.  But that scenario doesn't mean that the polls missed, they just didn't balance out cheating.  If you look at the most likely Electoral College counts, Biden breaks 290 (and thus doesn't need PA) at least 75% of the time.  Which is a big part of why I think that the polls DO matter, because the bigger the landslide Biden has, the harder it will be to steal.  If Biden wins at least two of NC, AZ, TX, GA, FL, and OH on election night, then he's very likely to win.  Now, those are very conservative states, and it is total bullshit that we're in this situation, but what can you do?  We're a failing democracy. 

How does the 75% prediction square with Sec. Clinton’s position at this point in 2016?

[IheartIheartTesla]

Quote

According to the Pennsylvania Department of State: “If you did not return your mail-in or absentee ballot and you want to vote in person, you have two options: Bring your ballot and the pre-addressed outer return envelope to your polling place to be voided. After you surrender your ballot and envelope and sign a declaration, you can then vote a regular ballot. If you don’t surrender your ballot and return envelope, you can only vote by provisional ballot at your polling place. Your county board of elections will then verify that you did not vote by mail before counting your provisional ballot.”

Every state is different, of course

[Erik of Hazelfield]

One thing I recognize to be a major difference between US politics and Swedish politics is the tendency of the former to try to game the system. The supreme court assignments, the gerrymandering, the focus on swing states, the voter suppression, the filibuster... I'm not saying our type of democracy is perfect - the gods know it isn't - but we don't have that.

Some reasons, I think, include:

- Very low barriers to voting. No registration. If you're entitled to vote, then you get the info in your mailbox and the only thing you actually have to bring to your voting station on the Sunday of the election is your ID card, driver's license or passport. Queues are usually short to non-existent.

- Proportional (well, almost) assignment of parliamentary seats. No electoral college.

- The supreme court does not have the final say on laws. (Actually the system is completely different and we have a toothless "law board" that will review new laws and point out their unconstitutionality, at which point parliament can ignore it. Not saying this is a good thing.)

On the other hand we get many small parties and almost suffered a constitutional crisis two years ago when the parties couldn't agree on who would lead the next government, so there's that. But it's interesting how the constitutional system of a country shapes its politics. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

After a lull yesterday, I think we'll see a lot of polling today. Just a snippet, ABC/WaPo has Biden up an impressive 17 points in WI, and a less impressive ~7 in MI.

[Gaston de Foix]

18 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

But it's interesting how the constitutional system of a country shapes its politics. 

Always.  And the most urgent task facing the U.S. is to fix some of these things by legislation: independent redistricting commissions to prevent gerrymandering.  Automatic voter registration.  Election day a holiday.    

[Alarich II]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

And yet the EU did not exist in 1814, which is from when the Dutch constitutional injunction against courts being involved in examining legislation for constitutionality dates. US courts also sometimes refer to international treaties and agreements when deciding legality of things, so ... not that different, really.

Yes, the EU did not exist in 1814, very many things were different 200 years ago, I'm not sure that this really has relevant bearing on today. Regarding international treaties - I'm pretty sure that the US doesn't recognize any supranational courts in the same manner the memberstates of the EU do with the CJEU and ECHR, so again, I don't think that's really comparable. And even if we would conclude that whatever works for the Netherlands will work in the US, it would still be an absolutely terrible idea, as long as it's not even a given that a party-majority in the legislative chambers or the executive organs actually comes from a majority of votes cast.

I mean, if you import the entire Dutch system with a largely symbolic head of state, a council of ministers, proportional representation etc. I guess you might as well do away with judicial review of the constitutionality of laws (which I still think is a bad idea) instead of maintaining a highly politicized court.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is not the year to taunt the Universe about things that are highly “unlikely”.

Who's taunting?