USian Mid-term elections - Here we go again!

[Hygro]

We aren't owed it. Gets closer to the feel.

No, but like all things we aren't owed that are in our mutual interest, mutual among they who should and those who do, ...

 

[EgonSpengler]

Is the Supreme Court the governing body that should be determining the details of school funding? Is that a comparable situation to Brown v Board of Education?

The SC wouldn't determine the details, no. They never do. They say, "this isn't right. Fix it." As for whether it's comparable to Brown v Board of Education, that's an interesting question. I might have to think about it more, but the answer might well be, "yes, it is similar." I was also reading something recently about the school busing fights that happened in Boston in the '70s (literal fights, in some cases). That was primarily about race, as Brown v Board was, but funding surely played into it, as the schools that were being integrated were in working-class neighborhoods that probably didn't have money coming out of their ears.

US educaction is funded out of local property taxes !?

Public education is funded out of property taxes. Wealthy people just send their kids to private schools.

My suspicion is that he said that they don't have a constitutional right to equal education, which makes it a legislative problem not a court problem. It's not easy, because we've started seeing the courts as a mechanism by which Our Betters descend from On High to correct legislators and force them to actually behave like well-intentioned adults. But the actual intention of the courts is to clarify laws that can't possibly be clarified sufficiently well during the legislative process. Americans are in deep trouble, because 'Activist Judges' was recognized as part of the winning game by the Right, and so a minority of the population foisted judges onto the populace that then forces people to obey rules written by an Elite Few.

You're right, yes, but let's not kid ourselves. Scalia was a Harvard Law School graduate, nominated to the Court by President Reagan, who championed the utterly boneheaded philosophy of "textualism" in interpreting the U.S. Constitution (some people call him an "originalist", but iirc, he didn't like that term). He was as conservative a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" kind of guy as there's ever been. And if there's a boot on your neck, you just have to try harder. fwiw, I think there may have been a racial component to the case about the two schools, because the poorer town/district was predominantly Latino and the wealthier town/district was predominantly White. I don't recall whether or how Scalia address that. Obviously he must have found some way to skirt it or stiff-arm it aside, or the case might have run headfirst into Brown v Board in the same way Dobbs necessarily refuted Roe v Wade. It could have been as simple as asserting that racism must be deliberate effort and not merely a result of circumstances.

 

[Lexicus]

My suspicion is that he said that they don't have a constitutional right to equal education, which makes it a legislative problem not a court problem. It's not easy, because we've started seeing the courts as a mechanism by which Our Betters descend from On High to correct legislators and force them to actually behave like well-intentioned adults. But the actual intention of the courts is to clarify laws that can't possibly be clarified sufficiently well during the legislative process. Americans are in deep trouble, because 'Activist Judges' was recognized as part of the winning game by the Right, and so a minority of the population foisted judges onto the populace that then forces people to obey rules written by an Elite Few.

Fortunately, a number of state constitutions do guarantee that right, including the constitution of my home state (New Jersey), and the state Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the educational system set up by the legislature is unconstitutional for denying poor children a good education.

Gonna need federal intervention to get the former Confederacy to guarantee an equal education to black children though.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yah, seems like it (except obviously Texans could change their own legislation first). Minority-imposed judges will also work to impose it .... but it becomes sticky. Like most things, it's all so much more preferable to have a local democratic success and change.

 

[Zardnaar]

More voters means it's harder for extremists to take power.

Here our turnout last election was around 75% iirc. Theoretically you need 51% of the vote. Due to wasted votes which are around 5% you only need 47-48% to win of the ones that turn up.

That's about 38% overall.

Each side has around 35% of the vote baked in and another 10% that lean their way.

So those swing voters in the middle essentially determines who wins. We have had several elections come down to minor parties with 5-6% of the vote determine the government.

Hence my belief in my if you go to far left or right you lose the election.

Even in first past the post you can't go to crazy as you'll alienate the middle and people whon lean your way.

Political physics and gravity also exists.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Ezra Klein:

Opinion | Three Theories That Explain This Strange Moment

Calcification, political parity and cultural backlash brought us where we are.

www.nytimes.com

All the 50/50 close elections for the last 20+ years is itself awfully suspicious.

Have the conspiracy theorists looked into it?

Or have the two flavors of politician gotten so good at hugging our average line?

 

[João III]

If your issue is "too many people are voting and this leads to less desirable outcomes because people aren't smart enough to vote for the right things" (paraphrasing), then yes, you are. The suggestions I outlined can help lead to maximal voter engagement. They raise turnout (and the quality of voter decisions). It fixes the problems you were complaining about. Are you therefore saying you support these suggestions?

Speaking of responding with insults. Bit unnecessary, don't you think? I don't think my post was at all unreasonable.

[...]

I shouldn't have gone with "intelligence". It wasn't my intent to call people "dumb" (hence why I explicitly did not say people are dumb... although everyone else is...). If you allow me to re-phrase, I would say if the average person is not particularly well-informed on issues, then half of all people are even less informed (if not outright poorly informed). Would it be better to have middling voter turnout but everyone was very well-informed or high turnout but everyone was only somewhat informed on the issues? (yes, I know these are not necessarily mutually exclusive)

Like I said, I am not against your suggestions, but I just because I am not against your suggestions does not mean I support them. Also, I have never said anything about depriving anyone of the ability or right to vote. People should be allowed to make their own mistakes. Overall, I think @EgonSpengler articulated my thoughts better. Maybe "education" is best phrasing.

And my apologies, you're right, I shouldn't have said that to you. It can be frustrating though to (try) to say one thing and then everyone jumps to putting words in my mouth. If there's confusion, it's okay to just ask questions before jumping to statements (what did you mean when you said...? vs. so what you're saying is...)

Not voting is a vote. It says, "I'd support either of the two." Any winning candidate can consider themself to have received all the votes they got, plus all the uncast votes.

I disagree. Refusing to take part in a corrupt system does not confer approval on the system. Not voting, to me, says "I refuse to take part in this and thereby lend it legitimacy"

Well, better to insult one person than half of all people. And better to be dumb than to be the sort of person who thinks IQ is intelligence, or that it's bad for people they consider beneath themselves to vote.

I'm reminded of William Buckley, one of the biggest *******s in modern American history, who in debate with James Baldwin said the problem is not that too few "Negroes" vote, but that too many whites do.

I will admit I made a mistake with my original phrasing. I apologise if that is how it came across. For the record though, I never said "IQ is intelligence, or that it's bad for people they consider beneath themselves to vote". I think it is bad for people to be poorly informed or misinformed and then vote. It would seem bad for a democracy if elections are ultimately decided by voters who have been either poorly informed or outright lied to and manipulated.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I think my issue is that the concern about level of informedness implies this is about some correct or good outcome that can be achieved by people making good choices on the basis of some sufficient degree of knowledge or information.

But again, voting isn’t good because it leads to optimal outcomes in some utilitarian or consequentialist sense. Voting is good because a society in which the people do not have a say in what happens in their lives is an unjust one. All that should matter in this question is that every person who is affected by a social decision, and who is interested in inputting their say in the process, is freely and easily able to do so. And so then the challenge isn’t in paternalistically “informing below-average people adequately,” or whatever, but in ensuring that voting is as free, fair, and accessible as possible.

 

[Lexicus]

I will admit I made a mistake with my original phrasing. I apologise if that is how it came across. For the record though, I never said "IQ is intelligence, or that it's bad for people they consider beneath themselves to vote". I think it is bad for people to be poorly informed or misinformed and then vote. It would seem bad for a democracy if elections are ultimately decided by voters who have been either poorly informed or outright lied to and manipulated.

Fair enough, I reasoned that from what you said implying that intelligence is a numerical variable following a normal distribution, which is how IQ is supposed to work. But I would echo @schlaufuchs here and say that my view of the matter is that voting is not about "being informed" or whatever, it is about having your interest represented, and ultimately people know their own interests, and who to vote for to further those interests, better than someone else does.

This doesn't mean I think more people voting is necessarily good (as a good communist™ I'm not exactly enamored of bourgeois democracy), but at the very least there should be as few barriers as practicable in place if someone does choose to vote.

 

[Birdjaguar]

All the 50/50 close elections for the last 20+ years is itself awfully suspicious.

Have the conspiracy theorists looked into it?

Or have the two flavors of politician gotten so good at hugging our average line?

I would push the origins of the evenly divided situation back to the Vietnam war and how it split the country and especially the boomers. The older generations were already conservative leaning. Regan 's popularity reinforced it politically. Talk radio of the 90s and onward cemented it in place preventing more liberal views from dominating. Gay rights and women's rights still managed to struggle through to become normalized. It is the fairly even split among boomers that have given the conservatives so much influence in the past 20 years. Talk radio has persuaded many men that being liberal is being "gay" and weak and anti American. As we die off, I expect you all will see a swing to left.

 

[Arwon]

Not voting is a vote. It says, "I'd support either of the two." Any winning candidate can consider themself to have received all the votes they got, plus all the uncast votes.

Quite often it's mostly "they made it systemically more difficult for people like me to vote so less of us do".

 

[Lexicus]

Quite often it's mostly "they made it systemically more difficult for people like me to vote so less of us do".

Or, you know, "it's not worth fighting my boss to get the time off when neither of the candidates is going to effect a change in my life anyway"

 

[Zardnaar]

I would push the origins of the evenly divided situation back to the Vietnam war and how it split the country and especially the boomers. The older generations were already conservative leaning. Regan 's popularity reinforced it politically. Talk radio of the 90s and onward cemented it in place preventing more liberal views from dominating. Gay rights and women's rights still managed to struggle through to become normalized. It is the fairly even split among boomers that have given the conservatives so much influence in the past 20 years. Talk radio has persuaded many men that being liberal is being "gay" and weak and anti American. As we die off, I expect you all will see a swing to left.

Vietnam and the backlash against extreme liberals (Jane Fonda types) was the catalyst.

Vietnam also lead to the economic problems of the 70's.

Fox news was formed as Walter Kronkite type reporting gave way to liberal talking heads type during the war years.

The news was fairly balanced in the 60's with the exception of communism.

 

[Arwon]

extreme liberals (Jane Fonda types)

 

[RobAnybody]

It can be frustrating though to (try) to say one thing and then everyone jumps to putting words in my mouth. If there's confusion, it's okay to just ask questions before jumping to statements (what did you mean when you said...? vs. so what you're saying is...)

This should be a disclaimer at the top of every thread here.

 

[Gorbles]

@João III - just to avoid piling on, lexi and schlaufuchs cover what I wanted to say. Better than I could, hah.

This should be a disclaimer at the top of every thread here.

I dunno it reads like the kinda thing people will stop abiding by once they convince themselves the people they disagree with don't deserve it

 

[RobAnybody]

Yikes. Irony is... ironic, I suppose. It has been said that the ones who need to hear a message most are the least likely to hear it.

 

[João III]

I think my issue is that the concern about level of informedness implies this is about some correct or good outcome that can be achieved by people making good choices on the basis of some sufficient degree of knowledge or information.

But again, voting isn’t good because it leads to optimal outcomes in some utilitarian or consequentialist sense. Voting is good because a society in which the people do not have a say in what happens in their lives is an unjust one. All that should matter in this question is that every person who is affected by a social decision, and who is interested in inputting their say in the process, is freely and easily able to do so. And so then the challenge isn’t in paternalistically “informing below-average people adequately,” or whatever, but in ensuring that voting is as free, fair, and accessible as possible.

I've never said anything about putting up barriers to voting or stopping people from voting, nor am I suggesting voting is "bad". I agree, everyone should be allowed to have a say. Not sure if this is a good analogy but perhaps look at it as akin to informed consent ahead of a medical procedure. Is it not important that people are fully informed on what they are signing up for or is it only important that they show up on time? Maybe we are just talking about different things entirely.

Fair enough, I reasoned that from what you said implying that intelligence is a numerical variable following a normal distribution, which is how IQ is supposed to work. But I would echo @schlaufuchs here and say that my view of the matter is that voting is not about "being informed" or whatever, it is about having your interest represented, and ultimately people know their own interests, and who to vote for to further those interests, better than someone else does.

This doesn't mean I think more people voting is necessarily good (as a good communist™ I'm not exactly enamored of bourgeois democracy), but at the very least there should be as few barriers as practicable in place if someone does choose to vote.

Yes, people know their own interests, but how can people effectively vote based on those interests if they're not fully informed on how candidates may or may not advance their interests? Is it a "free and fair" election if voters haven't been fully informed about what they are voting on? I seem to recall a lot of people had concerns about Russian misinformation in recent US elections, but if all that matters is voter turnout, then why care about misinformation? Not asking you to answer any of this, mostly just rhetorical. And like I said above, I'm not trying to put up barriers, I just disagree with the idea that a high voter turnout alone is a sign of a good election

 

[Hygro]

Yes, people know their own interests, but how can people effectively vote based on those interests if they're not fully informed on how candidates may or may not advance their interests? Is it a "free and fair" election if voters haven't been fully informed about what they are voting on? I seem to recall a lot of people had concerns about Russian misinformation in recent US elections, but if all that matters is voter turnout, then why care about misinformation? Not asking you to answer any of this, mostly just rhetorical. And like I said above, I'm not trying to put up barriers, I just disagree with the idea that a high voter turnout alone is a sign of a good election

It kind of doesn't matter, for two different branches.

Moral branch: if you truly believe in democracy and not oligarchy or republicanism, you want people to assert themselves, fear of wrongness be damned, as a body of responsibility-sharing politicians who enact what they public truly believes. Even it's "wrong".

For those still afraid of that but want to be convinced, and need something utilitarian: crowd wisdom is improved by greater numbers, including greater numbers of "wrong-ish" people.

 

[Broken_Erika]

House Republicans says 'top priority' to probe Biden family​

One day after retaking a majority in the US House of Representatives, Republicans have said they will investigate the president's family as a "top priority".
The lawmakers said the inquiry would focus on overseas business dealings of the president's son, Hunter Biden.
The 52-year-old is already under federal investigation, but has so far not faced any charges.
The younger Biden is not involved with the administration in any capacity.

But top Republicans insist their inquiry will determine the extent of Joe Biden's alleged involvement in his son's business dealings, including during the elder Biden's time as vice-president.

• What Washington's split government means for Biden
• Potential tax crimes renew scrutiny of Hunter Biden

In an interim report released at a press conference on Thursday, they argued that the president had lied to the American people about his alleged involvement in his family's business dealings.

"The president's participation in enriching his family is, in a word, abuse of the highest order," said James Comer, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight Committee.
"I want to be clear: this is an investigation of Joe Biden, and that's where our focus will be next Congress."
They accused Hunter Biden of crimes including tax evasion and wire fraud, but did not announce any immediate plans to summon him to testify.
Christopher Clark, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, told BBC News his client had no comment about the Republican announcement.
Mr Comer was joined at the press conference by congressman Jim Jordan, who is expected to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
The Ohio Republican later tweeted: "The Biden Family's business deals are a national security threat."

Officials with the Democratic National Committee have hit back by circulating a memo that refers to Mr Comer, a Kentucky congressman, as "a Trump apologist who has made clear that his phony investigations are political exercises designed to hurt President Biden".
The White House said the inquiries were politically motivated.
Spokesman Ian Sams said: "Instead of working with President Biden to address issues important to the American people, like lower costs, congressional Republicans' top priority is to go after President Biden with politically motivated attacks chock-full of long-debunked conspiracy theories."

• Republicans win House control with narrow majority

The newly announced investigation is one of many that House Republicans could lead. Others include the Biden administration's troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and its handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The select committee investigating the 6 January 2021 riot by Trump supporters on Capitol Hill will be dissolved when the new Congress takes over.
If Democrats had kept the House, the probe into efforts by Trump supporters to block Joe Biden from taking office would have continued.

The Republican party conference has nominated California Republican Kevin McCarthy, its current minority leader, as its choice for House Speaker when a new Congress convenes in January.
If elected, he would succeed long-time Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who announced on Thursday that she is stepping down from her leadership post.
Mr McCarthy has suggested that a Republican majority will pull back on funding for Ukraine, but he must contend with a narrow majority in the chamber.
Democrats will meanwhile retain power in the Senate, the upper chamber of Congress.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63665351