Is American Democracy at risk? A nuanced look.
October 31, 2022 9:05 AM Subscribe
In advance of the 2022 US midterms, Apollo Academic Surveys is reporting an expert survey on threats to American democracy. At a time of potential risks to American democratic norms and institutions, we report the results of a survey of 682 experts in political science. The expert email list was constructed from the faculty list of U.S. institutions represented in the online program of the 2016 American Political Science Association conference.
Primary results
On a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is least democratic and 100 is most democratic, experts gave the United States a rating of 67, consistent with past surveys and behind Canada (84) and Great Britain (76). Experts felt that the US political system could soon become less democratic, dropping to 60 in 5 years.
A large majority of experts (94%) thought former President Trump committed a crime in his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House, and 85% thought he should be prosecuted. The small fraction who thought he committed a crime but should not be prosecuted indicated several reasons for their response, most commonly that a prosecution could encourage future administrations to prosecute their opponents. Large majorities of experts rated certain recent events as 'Abnormal'. The events rated most abnormal were (1) a large number of statewide Republican candidates refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2020 elections and (2) the FBI finding documents at Mar-a-Lago related to foreign nations' nuclear capabilities and Experts estimated a 70% probability that in at least two statewide elections in 2022, Republican candidates who lose the election would refuse to concede defeat. Experts estimated a 65% probability that the next Supreme Court vacancy would not be filled unless the Senate and presidency are held by the same party.
Primary results
On a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is least democratic and 100 is most democratic, experts gave the United States a rating of 67, consistent with past surveys and behind Canada (84) and Great Britain (76). Experts felt that the US political system could soon become less democratic, dropping to 60 in 5 years.
A large majority of experts (94%) thought former President Trump committed a crime in his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House, and 85% thought he should be prosecuted. The small fraction who thought he committed a crime but should not be prosecuted indicated several reasons for their response, most commonly that a prosecution could encourage future administrations to prosecute their opponents. Large majorities of experts rated certain recent events as 'Abnormal'. The events rated most abnormal were (1) a large number of statewide Republican candidates refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2020 elections and (2) the FBI finding documents at Mar-a-Lago related to foreign nations' nuclear capabilities and Experts estimated a 70% probability that in at least two statewide elections in 2022, Republican candidates who lose the election would refuse to concede defeat. Experts estimated a 65% probability that the next Supreme Court vacancy would not be filled unless the Senate and presidency are held by the same party.
Experts estimated a 70% probability that in at least two statewide elections in 2022, Republican candidates who lose the election would refuse to concede defeat.
That seems like a serious underestimate, given that some candidates have already said they would not concede.
Experts estimated a 65% probability that the next Supreme Court vacancy would not be filled unless the Senate and presidency are held by the same party.
That 65% surely only applies if the next vacancy occurs before November 2023. After that it's a virtual certainty that McConnell will stall, particularly if the vacancy is a Republican-held seat.
most commonly that a prosecution could encourage future administrations to prosecute their opponents
That's not a good reason not to prosecute Trump. The Durham investigation shows that Republicans are already prosecuting political opponents, even where the evidence is incredibly thin.
posted by jedicus at 9:21 AM on October 31, 2022 [32 favorites]
That seems like a serious underestimate, given that some candidates have already said they would not concede.
Experts estimated a 65% probability that the next Supreme Court vacancy would not be filled unless the Senate and presidency are held by the same party.
That 65% surely only applies if the next vacancy occurs before November 2023. After that it's a virtual certainty that McConnell will stall, particularly if the vacancy is a Republican-held seat.
most commonly that a prosecution could encourage future administrations to prosecute their opponents
That's not a good reason not to prosecute Trump. The Durham investigation shows that Republicans are already prosecuting political opponents, even where the evidence is incredibly thin.
posted by jedicus at 9:21 AM on October 31, 2022 [32 favorites]
I’m all for querying experts, and a lot of the people (presumably) in this survey are friends and mentors of mine, but IMO this survey should be read more as, what do left of center highly educated liberals think, rather than experts of democratic backsliding or whatever.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:26 AM on October 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:26 AM on October 31, 2022 [14 favorites]
Oh, another example of Trump prosecuting political opponents: his history of suing the media, both large and very small. These suits are often funded by his campaign, making them explicitly political and giving them essentially unlimited resources.
posted by jedicus at 9:34 AM on October 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by jedicus at 9:34 AM on October 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
The Durham investigation shows that Republicans are already prosecuting political opponents, even where the evidence is incredibly thin.
So if they're already doing it, then what's the point of showing restraint? It's not like they're just going to stop doing it. This line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense. It's just giving them an excuse to do whatever the hell they want with no repercussions.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:38 AM on October 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
So if they're already doing it, then what's the point of showing restraint? It's not like they're just going to stop doing it. This line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense. It's just giving them an excuse to do whatever the hell they want with no repercussions.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:38 AM on October 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
jedicus, I apologize. I completely missed the double-negative in your comment and I thought you were making the opposite point.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:44 AM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:44 AM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
It surprises me how little discussion is given to the ways Republicans have created obstacles to voting (shutting polling places, removing people from the rolls, challenging legitimate voters who are not white). So much attention is placed on Trump that these things seem to go under the radar. The Dems really needed to pass voter protections last year when they still could (and paint anyone who opposed as anti-democratic, anti-american, anti-citizen).
posted by kokaku at 10:09 AM on October 31, 2022 [30 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 10:09 AM on October 31, 2022 [30 favorites]
The Durham investigation shows that Republicans are already prosecuting political opponents, even where the evidence is incredibly thin.
Several of them have already discussed impeaching Biden if they take the House. If you ask why, it's hand-wave and mumbling about Hunter's laptop, but you know they're doing it purely out of spite.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:26 AM on October 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
Several of them have already discussed impeaching Biden if they take the House. If you ask why, it's hand-wave and mumbling about Hunter's laptop, but you know they're doing it purely out of spite.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:26 AM on October 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all future presidential administrations to prosecute their predecessors if in fact their predecessors committed crimes. Yes, my guy too.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 10:30 AM on October 31, 2022 [26 favorites]
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 10:30 AM on October 31, 2022 [26 favorites]
So if they're already doing it, then what's the point of showing restraint?
In formal logic, this is called the Democrat Paradox.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:37 AM on October 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
In formal logic, this is called the Democrat Paradox.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:37 AM on October 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
It surprises me how little discussion
I think this is true only by contrast with the number of Trump articles. In the last six years, I have seen hundreds (thousands?) of posts, extended comments, surveys, articles, documentaries, vlogs, and documentaries via MetaFilter, news sites, and various social media. There is no shortage of content about any of the threats currently facing democracy in the United States. I think these things go "under the radar" only insofar as the content already exists and doesn't happen to be being reshared or lightly rewritten for republication at every given moment. And on top of that, there's new research (as linked here) that circulates and forms the basis for popular articles, op eds, etc.
Trump is a glowing, toxic trash fire that's easy to focus on. The other stuff is thoroughly into wonk territory and not particularly exciting. Even if it may be more important in terms of overall Republican strategy...
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:00 AM on October 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
I think this is true only by contrast with the number of Trump articles. In the last six years, I have seen hundreds (thousands?) of posts, extended comments, surveys, articles, documentaries, vlogs, and documentaries via MetaFilter, news sites, and various social media. There is no shortage of content about any of the threats currently facing democracy in the United States. I think these things go "under the radar" only insofar as the content already exists and doesn't happen to be being reshared or lightly rewritten for republication at every given moment. And on top of that, there's new research (as linked here) that circulates and forms the basis for popular articles, op eds, etc.
Trump is a glowing, toxic trash fire that's easy to focus on. The other stuff is thoroughly into wonk territory and not particularly exciting. Even if it may be more important in terms of overall Republican strategy...
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:00 AM on October 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
I'm sorry, but who on earth thinks the USA was ever a democracy? It's from the start been an oligarchy with a pseudo-democratic flavor and a great deal of propaganda dedicated to maintaining the fiction that we're a democracy. The entire system is set up to hamstring the popular will and keep the elites' privileges undisturbed. If the popular will threatens those privileges, further propaganda will be mobilized; in the event that doesn't work, the dumbest and cruelest among the proles will be given license to murder the liberals. This is how it's been and this is how it always will be. There are no "threats to democracy", because it's not a democracy and never has been.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:21 AM on October 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:21 AM on October 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
Per TFA, it's slightly less of a democracy than Great Britain, a country that still has a royal family, and slightly more of a democracy than Israel, an apartheid state.
posted by box at 11:26 AM on October 31, 2022 [21 favorites]
posted by box at 11:26 AM on October 31, 2022 [21 favorites]
I'm sorry, but who on earth thinks the USA was ever a democracy?
Hundreds of millions of people, now and historically. It does not meet standards of absolute democracy (per TFA), but few countries do so consistently over the long haul.
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:44 AM on October 31, 2022 [20 favorites]
Hundreds of millions of people, now and historically. It does not meet standards of absolute democracy (per TFA), but few countries do so consistently over the long haul.
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:44 AM on October 31, 2022 [20 favorites]
most commonly that a prosecution could encourage future administrations to prosecute their opponents
What about the incentive for people to stop breaking the law?
posted by biffa at 11:49 AM on October 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
What about the incentive for people to stop breaking the law?
posted by biffa at 11:49 AM on October 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
Day after the Reichstag fire in Berlin, 1933: "Lets Take a Nuanced Look At Hitler".
Winston Churchill warned Britain over and over in the 1930's that Nazis were lying every day, every way.
These "nuanced" academics will be the first to go "if" the Fascist takeover of the USA happens. You think the Capitol riot was a big deal? Wait til the Proud Boys burn down the NY Times building and kill some editors.
If the big news media doesn't stop with the both siderism and the 'nuanced" takes, they will be the first to go.
Where is our Churchill?
posted by pthomas745 at 12:28 PM on October 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
Winston Churchill warned Britain over and over in the 1930's that Nazis were lying every day, every way.
These "nuanced" academics will be the first to go "if" the Fascist takeover of the USA happens. You think the Capitol riot was a big deal? Wait til the Proud Boys burn down the NY Times building and kill some editors.
If the big news media doesn't stop with the both siderism and the 'nuanced" takes, they will be the first to go.
Where is our Churchill?
posted by pthomas745 at 12:28 PM on October 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
I'm sorry, but who on earth thinks the USA was ever a democracy?
I’m 60 years old and for 50 of those years I’ve been following our (Canadian) elections. I seem to recall that almost every time we had a national, provincial, or municipal vote, any number of people would pop out of the woodwork saying that we should be doing things like the Americans. Elected senators! A direct vote for the premier or prime minister! Ballot initiatives controlling the imposition of property taxes and the allocation of public funds! If the Americans were doing a thing, why weren’t we? And honestly, that was/is the whole identity, mission, goal or whatever. Not just “the shining city on a hill” but the Great American Experiment in liberty, freedom, democracy! That’s been America’s self described and incessantly proclaimed brand for almost 250 years, every State of the Union address, every national campaign, every declaration of war or military action. I don’t want to jump down your throat here, I definitely agree that it’s really been a toxic facade in so many ways. But given the quarter millennium of relentless evangelization of the American Way, I’d expect more than a few of those inside and outside the borders of the U.S. have rightly or wrongly internalized the notion of “American democracy” by now.
Or what cupcakeninja just said more succinctly three comments above.
posted by hangashore at 12:53 PM on October 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
I’m 60 years old and for 50 of those years I’ve been following our (Canadian) elections. I seem to recall that almost every time we had a national, provincial, or municipal vote, any number of people would pop out of the woodwork saying that we should be doing things like the Americans. Elected senators! A direct vote for the premier or prime minister! Ballot initiatives controlling the imposition of property taxes and the allocation of public funds! If the Americans were doing a thing, why weren’t we? And honestly, that was/is the whole identity, mission, goal or whatever. Not just “the shining city on a hill” but the Great American Experiment in liberty, freedom, democracy! That’s been America’s self described and incessantly proclaimed brand for almost 250 years, every State of the Union address, every national campaign, every declaration of war or military action. I don’t want to jump down your throat here, I definitely agree that it’s really been a toxic facade in so many ways. But given the quarter millennium of relentless evangelization of the American Way, I’d expect more than a few of those inside and outside the borders of the U.S. have rightly or wrongly internalized the notion of “American democracy” by now.
Or what cupcakeninja just said more succinctly three comments above.
posted by hangashore at 12:53 PM on October 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
The US is criminally underrepresented. One congressperson per over 750,000 residents on average. How is that functional? We need to expand the House by at least an order of magnitude, if not 20x, preferably using some sort of multi-member districts elected by PR instead of this FPTP horseshit.
There's no way the US, or any Democratic system for that matter, can continue to function if the reps are disconnected from their constituents by sheer volume.
The Senate is another story entirely which will probably never be fixed in our lifetimes short of revolution, but at least we can get the House in order.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:19 PM on October 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
There's no way the US, or any Democratic system for that matter, can continue to function if the reps are disconnected from their constituents by sheer volume.
The Senate is another story entirely which will probably never be fixed in our lifetimes short of revolution, but at least we can get the House in order.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:19 PM on October 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
Let's also point out that there are plenty of American democracies all throughout North and South America and the insistence that the United States = America is pretty rankling to lots of people.
posted by rhymedirective at 1:39 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by rhymedirective at 1:39 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
It shouldn’t be, the United States of America is the only nation with “America” in its name, and “America” is in the name because at the time of its founding it was a union of all independent states in America.
posted by star gentle uterus at 1:52 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by star gentle uterus at 1:52 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
hangashore, as a fellow Canadian, I don't elected senators are the answer, but I think abolishing the useless, rubber-stamp, political appointee senate is.
posted by jordantwodelta at 1:58 PM on October 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by jordantwodelta at 1:58 PM on October 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's a double edged sword. We have an elected Senate back home in Australia and while they can provide a useful check on the executive, they can also cause a massive constitutional crisis when one side decides to be an ass. Also, when you have an evil bastard like Harradine with the balance of power you can see backwards movement on issues. Not to mention they're also inherently unrepresentative because they're fixed numbers on a per-state basis.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:16 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:16 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
1) Poll: "Speaking at a Trump rally, Representative Marjorie Taylor Green claims that Democratic 'killings' of Republicans have started" -- This happened on Oct. 1, if you missed it. “We’re all targets now, though, for daring to push back against the regime,” Greene said at the event in Warren, Michigan. “And it doesn’t stop at a weaponized legal system. I’m not going to mince words with you all. Democrats want Republicans dead and they have already started the killings.”
2) In question 17, the poll asks about the likelihood of "[d]isputes over the election results in the 2022 midterms escalate to political violence in which more than 10 people are killed nationwide." The threat the current violence poses to democracy isn't explicitly part of the poll, though? On Friday, Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul (82), was hospitalized with a hammer-induced skull fracture and other injuries after a home invasion. Assailant David DePape was looking for the congresswoman; DePape admitted he'd planned to hold her hostage and break her kneecaps. See also: Jan. 6 (the VP and other targeted politicians survived); gunmen legally 'monitoring' Arizona ballot boxes this month; the thwarted plot to abduct Gretchen Whitmer in 2020; 2018's string of 16 failed mail bombs; the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting (Steve Scalisi survived); Clementa Pinckney (1973-2015), one of the victims in the Charleston church murders; Gabby Giffords, who survived the 2011 Tucson murders... an abbreviated "Threats and attacks on members of Congress" timeline (Reuters, Oct. 28, 2022); Frustrated lawmakers want protection for their families as threats increase (CNN, Oct. 28, 2022); Vox overview.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:06 PM on October 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
2) In question 17, the poll asks about the likelihood of "[d]isputes over the election results in the 2022 midterms escalate to political violence in which more than 10 people are killed nationwide." The threat the current violence poses to democracy isn't explicitly part of the poll, though? On Friday, Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul (82), was hospitalized with a hammer-induced skull fracture and other injuries after a home invasion. Assailant David DePape was looking for the congresswoman; DePape admitted he'd planned to hold her hostage and break her kneecaps. See also: Jan. 6 (the VP and other targeted politicians survived); gunmen legally 'monitoring' Arizona ballot boxes this month; the thwarted plot to abduct Gretchen Whitmer in 2020; 2018's string of 16 failed mail bombs; the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting (Steve Scalisi survived); Clementa Pinckney (1973-2015), one of the victims in the Charleston church murders; Gabby Giffords, who survived the 2011 Tucson murders... an abbreviated "Threats and attacks on members of Congress" timeline (Reuters, Oct. 28, 2022); Frustrated lawmakers want protection for their families as threats increase (CNN, Oct. 28, 2022); Vox overview.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:06 PM on October 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
>a prosecution could encourage future administrations to prosecute their opponents.
"Future administrations" meaning future Republican administrations? Republicans started prosecuting their political enemies for bullshit reasons with Bill Clinton, and they aren't going to stop if we're nice to them. And then there's the question of what not prosecuting obvious criminals for obvious crimes encourages.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 3:25 PM on October 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Future administrations" meaning future Republican administrations? Republicans started prosecuting their political enemies for bullshit reasons with Bill Clinton, and they aren't going to stop if we're nice to them. And then there's the question of what not prosecuting obvious criminals for obvious crimes encourages.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 3:25 PM on October 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
jordantwodelta: I don't elected senators are the answer, but I think abolishing the useless, rubber-stamp, political appointee senate is.
Agree on the first, mostly agree on the second, especially when some PMs stack it with a pack of hacks (looking at YOU, Harper). But I'd keep the institution in name only, and reconstitute it as a council of Canadians representing our regions, communities, cultures, and origins, people from a broad variety of professions especially those geared towards the public good, who can look at a piece of legislation from the Commons and pick apart whether it violates the Charter of Rights (rather than loading that onto the Supremes), or constructively suggest ways legislation can be improved. More nonpartisan but it can take people with political backgrounds who've demonstrated a talent for collaborating beyond party lines. Lots more power for public outreach and input, something many current Senators seem to be doing but I'd want it to have more tangible effects and sooner. And yeah, the government of the day will generally get its agenda through (will of the electorate after all), but I'd hope with less obvious grandstanding ("The Patriotic Defence of Canadian Values Act of 2025!") or score-settling.
(Oh and while I'm making wishes, an electric car that seats 4, goes 1000 km on a single charge and costs less than $20,000 please! More chance of getting that anytime soon than the pie-in-the-sky Senate I've just proposed.)
posted by hangashore at 4:22 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Agree on the first, mostly agree on the second, especially when some PMs stack it with a pack of hacks (looking at YOU, Harper). But I'd keep the institution in name only, and reconstitute it as a council of Canadians representing our regions, communities, cultures, and origins, people from a broad variety of professions especially those geared towards the public good, who can look at a piece of legislation from the Commons and pick apart whether it violates the Charter of Rights (rather than loading that onto the Supremes), or constructively suggest ways legislation can be improved. More nonpartisan but it can take people with political backgrounds who've demonstrated a talent for collaborating beyond party lines. Lots more power for public outreach and input, something many current Senators seem to be doing but I'd want it to have more tangible effects and sooner. And yeah, the government of the day will generally get its agenda through (will of the electorate after all), but I'd hope with less obvious grandstanding ("The Patriotic Defence of Canadian Values Act of 2025!") or score-settling.
(Oh and while I'm making wishes, an electric car that seats 4, goes 1000 km on a single charge and costs less than $20,000 please! More chance of getting that anytime soon than the pie-in-the-sky Senate I've just proposed.)
posted by hangashore at 4:22 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Speaking at a Trump rally, Representative Marjorie Taylor Green claims that Democratic 'killings' of Republicans have started"
I don't understand why statements like this go unchallenged. "OK, Representative Green, what 'killings' do you speak of? What evidence do you have these are politically motivated? How does this seem more or less than Republican attacks of the Left?" All the MAGA-aligned folks, starting with Trump and working down, all are allowed to throw this sort of stuff out. Why aren't they being pressed to prove it?
Right: they only go to friendly audiences.
posted by MrGuilt at 6:46 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don't understand why statements like this go unchallenged. "OK, Representative Green, what 'killings' do you speak of? What evidence do you have these are politically motivated? How does this seem more or less than Republican attacks of the Left?" All the MAGA-aligned folks, starting with Trump and working down, all are allowed to throw this sort of stuff out. Why aren't they being pressed to prove it?
Right: they only go to friendly audiences.
posted by MrGuilt at 6:46 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Also, when you have an evil bastard like Harradine with the balance of power you can see backwards movement on issues.
In recent years the Senate has also served to prevent the government of the day from driving backwards movement on issues, as well - it really is a double-edged sword, and I think its function is mostly to work differently from the lower house so that when the system inevitably breaks in one of the two, there's a method of recovery rather than being locked into bad government for years.
One of the (many) problems with the American political system is that when the system inevitably breaks somewhere, it causes gridlock, and the entire government stops working. I recall seeing a study somewhere that a huge majority of American-style presidential systems around the world end up failing when the president and the senate become unreconcilable, while Westminster-style systems certainly do fail as well but have a track record of being able to reset in response to an unreconcilable conflict.
posted by Merus at 7:04 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
In recent years the Senate has also served to prevent the government of the day from driving backwards movement on issues, as well - it really is a double-edged sword, and I think its function is mostly to work differently from the lower house so that when the system inevitably breaks in one of the two, there's a method of recovery rather than being locked into bad government for years.
One of the (many) problems with the American political system is that when the system inevitably breaks somewhere, it causes gridlock, and the entire government stops working. I recall seeing a study somewhere that a huge majority of American-style presidential systems around the world end up failing when the president and the senate become unreconcilable, while Westminster-style systems certainly do fail as well but have a track record of being able to reset in response to an unreconcilable conflict.
posted by Merus at 7:04 PM on October 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
I recall seeing a study somewhere that a huge majority of American-style presidential systems around the world end up failing when the president and the senate become unreconcilable, while Westminster-style systems certainly do fail as well but have a track record of being able to reset in response to an unreconcilable conflict.
I'd believe it. Having lived in both I definitely prefer Westminster. It's such a great feature being able to no confidence or supply out of a shitty executive and drag it back to the electorate. Worst case you go double dissolution and clean the whole lot out. Letting shitty people have executive power for fixed terms is agonizing.
Also, separating legislative and executive branches is overrated. America has no political cohesion inside its own fucking government even when all three branches are controlled by supposedly the same people.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:36 PM on October 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
I'd believe it. Having lived in both I definitely prefer Westminster. It's such a great feature being able to no confidence or supply out of a shitty executive and drag it back to the electorate. Worst case you go double dissolution and clean the whole lot out. Letting shitty people have executive power for fixed terms is agonizing.
Also, separating legislative and executive branches is overrated. America has no political cohesion inside its own fucking government even when all three branches are controlled by supposedly the same people.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:36 PM on October 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
“We’re all targets now, though, for daring to push back against the regime,” Greene said at the event in Warren, Michigan. “And it doesn’t stop at a weaponized legal system. I’m not going to mince words with you all. Democrats want Republicans dead and they have already started the killings.”
Great. Insane and a psychopath. Just what the world needs more of right now.
----------------
re: presidential US style v. Westminster style government.
One big advantage of the Westminster system is that it can (at least partially) reset between elections. The leader and/or party in government can be changed by the parliament.*
The principle being that the parliament, as the directly elected voice of the people, rules supreme, not the government of the day.
It helps keep the government on its toes and on a short leash, knowing they can be thrown out before the next election.
*In Australia the government is formed, and the Prime Minister chosen, by the majority in the lower house (Representatives). The upper house (Senate) being the house of review, not of government itself. The Reps are elected on a majoritarian preferential (instant run-off) system, and the Senate on a states-based proportional system (though it isn't very proportional overall, with one state in particular, Tasmania, getting way above its fair share of senators).
posted by Pouteria at 9:48 PM on October 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Great. Insane and a psychopath. Just what the world needs more of right now.
----------------
re: presidential US style v. Westminster style government.
One big advantage of the Westminster system is that it can (at least partially) reset between elections. The leader and/or party in government can be changed by the parliament.*
The principle being that the parliament, as the directly elected voice of the people, rules supreme, not the government of the day.
It helps keep the government on its toes and on a short leash, knowing they can be thrown out before the next election.
*In Australia the government is formed, and the Prime Minister chosen, by the majority in the lower house (Representatives). The upper house (Senate) being the house of review, not of government itself. The Reps are elected on a majoritarian preferential (instant run-off) system, and the Senate on a states-based proportional system (though it isn't very proportional overall, with one state in particular, Tasmania, getting way above its fair share of senators).
posted by Pouteria at 9:48 PM on October 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Some possible fixes. [WaPo gift]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:48 AM on November 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:48 AM on November 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Democrats want Republicans dead and they have already started the killings.
Given the Republican habit of projection, I find this statement really chilling.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:56 AM on November 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
Given the Republican habit of projection, I find this statement really chilling.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:56 AM on November 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
RE: Projection. Here is a recent PNAS article comparing violence by right-wing, left-wing, and Islamist extremists. From the paper:
When compared to individuals associated with a right-wing ideology, individuals adhering to a left-wing ideology had 68% lower odds of engaging in violent (vs. nonviolent) radical behavior (b = −1.15, SE = 0.13, odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, P < 0.001). On the other hand, the difference between individuals motivated by Islamist and right-wing causes was not significant (b = 0.05, SE = 0.14, OR = 1.05, P = 0.747). Expressed in terms of predicted probabilities, the probability of left-wing violent attack was 0.33, that of right-wing violent attack was 0.61, and that of Islamist violent attack was 0.62. These findings remained robust after we controlled for demographic variables (sex, age, education, minority status, immigration status), prior criminal experiences, military experience, and decade in which the perpetrator entered the database. Of the control variables, immigrants were less likely to engage in violence. Those who had a prior violent criminal record were more likely to engage in violence. Further, older individuals and those identified as white were less likely to engage in violence in this sample.posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:27 AM on November 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older Individuals have a fundamental right to have their... | The Internet’s Biggest Jack Antonoff Hater... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by thecincinnatikid at 9:13 AM on October 31, 2022 [3 favorites]