The great constitutionalists, from Aristotle to Montesquieu to Madison, believed that the populace should have a voice, but they also thought, with Cicero, that the well-being of the people was the highest law. Survival and flourishing is most important, not pandering to popular passions.
Any small “r” republican knows that a good society divides up power among authorities, repositories, and mysteries, such that all are checked and balanced; neither the bounder nor the mobile vulgus can become tyrannical. Pluralist theory seeks both safety and stability in multiplicity. The wisdom of crowds—and brokering institutions.
I think that’s an unfair characterization of the author’s argument.
At most, they said voter fraud is a very real threat, linking to the article you cited with 1500 proven instances. The article does proceed under the assumption that voter fraud is a threat, but that’s hardly controversial. As you say, it’s “a small fraction of the whole.” A threat it may be, but a small one.
Moreover, unlike many articles in this community, this isn’t the crux of his argument, merely a premise to it. In response to the threat of voter fraud, red and blue states are responding differently. There is absolutely an underlying assumption that non-citizens voting is bad, I’ll grant you that. And one of his sources cites at least one instance of non-citizens voting in local elections.
Again, that’ just a premise, and I agree, but you’re missing the forest for the trees.
In other words, there are two visions of just politics becoming more defined, and a potential solution to them is for them to coexist and keep a watchful eye on each other, like the Romans did back in the day.
The whole article seems to say that because voter fraud exists and that there is a preception amoung conservative voters that elections are rigged that voting is pointless.
And then these folks that didn’t vote because “it’s rigged” will lose fairly and scream that it’s rigged.
This article supports this odd mindset and is unhelpful to maintaining a healthy democracy.
We don’t need two sides looking for a reason to claim fraud every time they lose. We need to encourage everyone to vote and have confidence that their vote matters. How we get back to that place I have no idea. But this article does not help.
This is it exactly! I think the author of this article honestly believes that a healthy American democracy, the kind that we’ve had for a couple hundred years now, is gone and won’t come back. So yeah, it’s not trying to help maintain that version of democracy. An odd mindset indeed.
But, they say:
American democracy isn’t the only framework of democracy available. He’s arguing that our version of democracy looks more like the old Roman version, so why not just do that?
So, I agree with you partially, this article doesn’t help get us back to where we were. Frankly, I’m inclined to agree with him. But, I think there’s an interesting idea here nonetheless. I’m not keen on the implication that America is the modern-day Rome, but is voting really the only process that legitimates the democratic ideal? If not, then why can’t we implement these different processes so that people are more effectively able to participate in governing?
As a matter of fact, Morris Fiorina, a conservative political scientist I’m tangentially aware of, wrote an interesting paper titled “Extreme Voices: A Dark Side of Civic Engagement”. He argues that the increase in civic engagement over the past century or so is directly and ironically responsible for our dissatisfaction with the political process. Basically, special interests are inclined to participate and regular people aren’t, despite the ease with which both might participate. But since special interests actually participate, it’s their views that are most often represented. Fiorina’s solution to the problem as he identified it? Encourage more civic engagement. Go all in on democracy.
At least, that’s how I’m looking at this. It’s why I prefer the blue solution over the red one, even if they are opposites sides of the same American democratic coin.
Except that the premise is untrue. He is repeating the big lie:
He can’t fully bring himself to say it outright, but what is the meaning a reasonable person would take from this? He “is on record” saying yeah, the 2020 election was probably rigged.
I should not have to remind the esteemed members of this community that if you start off with a false premise, all that follows will also be wrong.
It is absolutely stupid that the discourse of American politics should still be focused and forced into the repetition and refutation of this absolute fabrication. The 202O election was not rigged, no matter how many hair-dye dripping landscaping parking lot press conferences you hold.
Esteemed, you say? Why, aren’t you kind!
Anyway, yes, and an invalid argument doesn’t make dialogue impossible, contrary to the entire virtual world of social media. His argument is invalid. I posted the article and I ultimately disagree with the conclusion, even if I were to treat the argument as valid. Nonetheless, there’s still value in considering the other premises of his arguments.
Yes, but people who believe this are who we have to deal with. It doesn’t matter how stupid it is or how misinformed we believe them to be, American politics is going to be influenced by this absolute fabrication. It is being influenced by it now. The choice for is how we handle it.
And, if the lesson isn’t clear, I’m against disenfranchising these people just because I think they’re completely removed from reality, and, in fact, would prefer that everyone have a real opportunity to (consider perspectives they fundamentally disagree with and) engage civically and politically.
Yeah that was sarcasm. Still, I admire your optimism.
I myself view these examples of rhetoric - which would have been unthinkable a scant few years ago- as yet more signs of the impending and imminent collapse.