Mail in voting and the election day train wreck

[Timsup2nothin]

That's a separate issue. The point I am making is very specific and not mutually exclusive with yours. @Farm Boy said that, quote "Seriously. All the stuff that needs 2/3rds needs 2/3rds for a reason" in my estimation, ignoring that the actual reason they put that stuff in the Constitution was to protect slavery, and instead, retroactively assigning some higher moral purpose to it. So I reminded him of the reality. The fact that the 2/3 rule sometimes does some good work, even putting aside the fact that it also sometimes prevents/frustrates some good work... does not change that the original reason "All the stuff that needs 2/3rds needs 2/3rds" was to protect slavery.

I'm resisting the noble, retroactive, rewriting of history that we got in grade school, because I think the 2/3 thing needs to be looked at, precisely on the merits, for what it actually accomplishes now, rather than some rose colored theoretical, hypothetical outlook that is heavily coloured by the "OMG the Founders were such geniuses, look how awesome and forward thinking our Constitution was!!" crap that I know you all learned as kids, cause I learned it too. Remember, the Constitution and the 2/3rds stuff didn't get rid of slavery. The War did.

So I'll put the question to you. What has 2/3rds done for me (us) lately?

GWBush and the GOP had a congressional majority for two years. So did Trump. Look at the damage they did, and consider what kind of destruction they would have wrought had they been unbridled.

Bottom line, our democracy is broken and the stuff is either hitting the fan or going down the drain and taking everything with it...and that may very well be because of flaws in the originating documents. Those flaws may well exist because the situation at the time was irredeemable. Tough break. But overall things held together pretty well for a remarkably long time, considering.

Admittedly, I personally am sort of at expecting the worst so the only thing I can really effectively say at this point amounts to "suck it up, buttercup" and I realize that isn't terribly helpful.

 

[Sommerswerd]

happy accidents.

Sounds a lot like

dumb luck coincidence.

slavery informed the purpose of design

sounds a lot like

They were protecting slavery.

Like I said, the other stuff isn't mutually exclusive. The original intent was evil, sinister, whatever you want to call it. The fact that we want to say "Well it all worked out so all's well" and so on... doesn't change that.

Frankly, the premise isn't even that solid. 750,000 Americans had to die died in the Civil War to "fix" the system, outside of the 2/3rd "protection" and then oh wait, it wasn't fixed at all, Civil Rights movement, oh wait, still getting shot and abused by cops, need police reform... nope, can't do it and those awesome 2/3rds rules aren't helping.​

 

[Sommerswerd]

"suck it up, buttercup"

I plan to, as you well know. I'm checking the box for Biden and the holding pattern so we can stop the bleeding and figure out what's next.

The rest of the stuff you said, I also agree with.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I plan to, as you well know. I'm checking the box for Biden and the holding pattern so we can stop the bleeding and figure out what's next.

The rest of the stuff you said, I also agree with.

I think it's too late. We've bled out and we're actually just waiting for the major organ failures to start showing up on the monitors.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think it's too late. We've bled out and we're actually just waiting for the major organ failures to start showing up on the monitors.

Its not too late... although...

consider what kind of destruction they would have wrought had they been unbridled.

If you sit back and think about the mess we are in anyway, just starting with Garland and moving forward to now... I mean... sure it could be worse but... my kids had their first day of all-remote school today, for example.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We are about to have an election which probably 30% of the population is going to believe was illegally conducted.

Do you seriously think the bleeding can be stopped at this point?

 

[Sommerswerd]

We are about to have an election which probably 30% of the population is going to believe was illegally conducted.

Do you seriously think the bleeding can be stopped at this point?

It goes back to what you always point out. Paraphrasing... people in this country have a lot, relatively speaking, to lose and the country is relatively stable, all things considered. An all-out Civil War is a lot to expect from people with cable tv, internet, smart phones, video games, live sports, libraries of endless varieties of streaming music, grocery stores with year round cornucopias of fresh and packaged foods, take-out, delivery and so on.

I think there may be violence following this election, but I think that getting "back to normal" is possible, and I also think further, slow progress in a reasonably good direction is also a reasonable expectation. I'm not at the point yet where I think a second Civil War, or even Trump as dictator-for-life are more likely than that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Fair. I think my concern is rooted in perceived fragility...and that may just be my perception. Yes, an all out civil war seems off the table given all those things people have. But I am perhaps more aware (or at least think I am more aware) of how easily access to all those things can be disrupted. I don't expect anything as organized as a civil war. Maybe one or two percent of the population sets out to "right the wrong of the illegal election" and that seems like no big deal. But when that leads to widespread lapses in the availability of those "good things" we have a real problem. People who have lost their cable TV and their grocery store will be fighting too just because they are pissed off and that's a lot harder to sort out, because the more they fight the less they will have.

 

[Gori the Grey]

So, can I summarize your position as "they may have designed this system to defend and preserve slavery, but it's still awesome"?

Like Tim, I'd be game to defend this thesis, actually.

One of the traditional forms of "genius" attributed to the framers was recognizing that one lives in a particular historical reality, and that that changes over time. That's why they included mechanisms for amending even the foundational document. One part of this genius is "we, the founders, live in a particular historical reality, that to some future age will look far from ideal; but from out of this flawed historical reality, we can still create a mechanism for governing, that can still function even after our admittedly compromised era passes."

I would submit that that is politically genius, that it is awesome, and that it was the work of people who, in their moment, were working to defend and preserve slavery.

 

[Farm Boy]

nope, can't do it and those awesome 2/3rds rules aren't helping.

It's easier to point out what isn't working 100%, then it is to point out what might be working worse, or much worse. You pointed out once instance where it didn't work properly. I say it as many time as it comes up, for all it's vast imperfections, the takeaway we got from a big cataclysmic war was pretty damn solid, I'm hard pressed to stretch to thinking that's normal rather than fortunate, despite the vast imperfections.

"We're already there" you said on some pretty big things. Well, the tools provided enough purpose to allow us to get there, on those. Different tools would not have. Perfect tools? Well, I need prayer sometimes too.

 

[Naskra]

I would submit that that is politically genius, that it is awesome

I would note that the grandchildren of the founders were killing each other over fundamentals that were never properly addressed. Not so genius.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Fair. I think my concern is rooted in perceived fragility...and that may just be my perception. Yes, an all out civil war seems off the table given all those things people have. But I am perhaps more aware (or at least think I am more aware) of how easily access to all those things can be disrupted. I don't expect anything as organized as a civil war. Maybe one or two percent of the population sets out to "right the wrong of the illegal election" and that seems like no big deal. But when that leads to widespread lapses in the availability of those "good things" we have a real problem. People who have lost their cable TV and their grocery store will be fighting too just because they are pissed off and that's a lot harder to sort out, because the more they fight the less they will have.

I will admit that I find it undeniable that all the upheaval because of covid was a major part of why so many people were and are protesting police brutality. If life had been otherwise normal, people would have been at work and unable to be bothered with protesting, most of those college kids would have just been in class or at practice or at campus parties, rather than in "autonomous zones" and so on.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Like Tim, I'd be game to defend this thesis, actually.

One of the traditional forms of "genius" attributed to the framers was recognizing that one lives in a particular historical reality, and that that changes over time. That's why they included mechanisms for amending even the foundational document. One part of this genius is "we, the founders, live in a particular historical reality, that to some future age will look far from ideal; but from out of this flawed historical reality, we can still create a mechanism for governing, that can still function even after our admittedly compromised era passes."

I would submit that that is politically genius, that it is awesome, and that it was the work of people who, in their moment, were working to defend and preserve slavery.

Yes, yes, I've heard all this in 4th grade, then 6th grade, then 8th grade... and so on... even heard it in Law School, now that I'm thinking about it. I just don't buy it anymore. It wasn't "genius" to create a mechanism for changing the law. That was already a thing. At best I'd call the amendment system "prudent" and "competent", not "genius". I mean I can accept that some Founders could see that slavery was wrong and wanted to put a small thermal exhaust port right below the main port, that someone braver than them could use later to get rid of it once their consciences became more evolved... but it didn't even work, and they ended up doing it the old fashioned way, with the tried and true club and stone to the oppositions' head.

EDIT: Lastly, I'll also point out that you're slightly off point here aren't you? @Farm Boy was extolling the virtues of the 2/3 rules protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, while you've kinda switched to arguing the genius of the ability to make amendments. Those aren't the same thing. I'm not accusing you of moving the goalpost, indeed I didn't even notice it at first and your argument makes sense given how much we got forced fed all that "genius of the Constitution/Founders is that they created a government that can be changed" stuff. It all gets kind of conflated in my mind even to this day. With no sarcasm whatsoever I can honestly say reading your post took me back to my feelings as a kid and how proud I felt about our glorious Constitution and Founders listening to my teachers say exactly what you just said. ​

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We had a violent revolution like 250 years ago and we are falling apart.

The Tsars were overthrown less than 200 years ago and the Soviet Union collapsed long enough ago that it has been widely forgotten.

We win.

 

[Farm Boy]

Extolling the virtues? My only argument has been that the 2/3rds line is a much bigger line than simple majority. That's the purpose, the general function. You put the biggest powers behind the line with augmented buy-in. You'll note all the sub 1/3rd special interests that don't have the money to buy over the line wind up getting wrecked, relatively. Increasing the majority needed for override will enfranchise minority more, and make it harder to do anything. Decreasing the majority needed for override will grease the wheels by making more people discountable, suffering instability from the disenfranchisement. The tools of control might have improved enough less enfranchisement is necessary. Not sure. But I don't think I'm making the argument you're arguing against.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's easier to point out what isn't working 100%, then it is to point out what might be working worse, or much worse. You pointed out once instance where it didn't work properly. I say it as many time as it comes up, for all it's vast imperfections, the takeaway we got from a big cataclysmic war was pretty damn solid, I'm hard pressed to stretch to thinking that's normal rather than fortunate, despite the vast imperfections.

"We're already there" you said on some pretty big things. Well, the tools provided enough purpose to allow us to get there, on those. Different tools would not have. Perfect tools? Well, I need prayer sometimes too.

I mean there's lots more examples where the 2/3rds thing has borked us, but sure...

Far be it from me to argue with Leonard Nimoy afterall.​

 

[Gori the Grey]

@Farm Boy was extolling the virtues of the 2/3 rules protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, while you've kinda switched to arguing the genius of the ability to make amendments. Those aren't the same thing.

The 2/3 rule is so that making changes will be hard. They knew mobs were fickle. Make sure they really want a thing. A lot of you. More than a majority. Even you extra-cautious rural folk. Ok, then we'll make the change.

And, yes, it was 8th grade veneration of the founding fathers I was channeling when I replied.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You did really well... seriously no joke. Your Civics teacher would be proud. You actually almost had me.

 

[Farm Boy]

Talking about this instead of that? I mean, I'm talking about this, not that. But if you want to talk about that, that's cool. This is just to remind you not to pretend I'm talking about that when I'm talking about this.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You actually almost had me.

I'm going to try to altogether get you. I've made my posts in haste, and this one might be as well.

I'm reading Jill Lepore's These Truths. What she hammers is that the founders were never not conscious of the way that slaveholding vitiated the political ideals they were enshrining in the Constitution.

They had as blank a slate as anyone's ever had or is likely to have. They knew it, and they knew what they could do with it. But they didn't have an altogether blank slate. Their society had an existing economy and that was based on slaveholding. The wisdom or genius or awesomeness involved not waiting until they had ideal circumstances to forge their ideals.

I like your Star Wars analogy, but the world of Star Wars can't provide analogies here. They weren't building a Death Star, and building in a thermal exhaust port. They were building something good in circumstances that were far from good. But they didn't let that stop them from trying to build the good thing, as it could stop some people.

I'll say one more thing. The genius of the founders is not in any one thing: amendments, 2/3. It's in how a whole set of things hang together: rule of law, no man is above the law, separation of powers, checks and balances, amendments, 2/3. Their core genius, and I'll keep calling it that until you knuckle under, is their PRE-cise level of pessimism about mankind. Enough that they know that the only thing that can keep one wretch in check is another wretch, but not so much that they threw up their hands and said "this whole thing is impossible."