Opinion: Ensuring our democracy survives and flourishes will be a monumental effort

The Colorado Supreme Court recently ruled that Trump cannot appear on the primary ballot because he “having previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States…engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same…” Whatever the history of this third clause of the 14th Amendment, its real value is to help prevent our democracy from turning into a dictatorship. If the person wanting to be the next president engages in insurrection, this allows us to prevent them from occupying our democracy’s most powerful position, knowing that they might do it again.

If it was their second time around, that president would have learned from the first experience and would proceed with more careful strategic planning. And (s)he would have over three years to appoint fellow conspirators to gain an irreversible lock on power.

Democracies are not immune from takeovers. “Why Democracies Collapse,” by Diskin, Diskin and Hazan evaluated the collapse of 30 democracies, identified the factors required for a collapse, and showed that if this combination occurs, collapse is very likely to happen.

Wikipedia has a great list of all the various actions that were taken by Trump or on his behalf in furtherance of his attempt to maintain power, in spite of his losing the 2020 election. (“Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election”) 

This almost-successful effort included:

• The attempted coup at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (From one of the court cases, “If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.”)

• Pressuring the Justice Department to declare that the election was corrupt.

• Promoting the idea that Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to certify the results. (Fortunately, he did his job.)

• Filing over 60 lawsuits about election results, with only one barely successful.

There are many angles that someone committed to maintaining power can pursue. And, apparently, the courts are where to gain the most power (the Federalist Society seems to agree), especially in the (unregulated) Supreme Court. We’ll soon find out how the Court chooses to act, or not. With the wrong Court, even the current two-term limit might become irrelevant.

The situation is made far worse by the gross inequities of our Electoral College system, the parallel inequities in our Senate, and the gerrymandering that goes on to distort the representation in the House to swing the balance of power.

According to a CNN Jan. 1 article (“Opinion: The Supreme Court could make a Trump victory virtually impossible”), it’s reasonable to assume that the 2024 winner will be decided by the Electors of the projected swing states. They constitute 97 Electoral College electors of 538 total, or about 18%: Arizona(11), Georgia (16), Michigan (15), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (16), Pennsylvania(19) and Wisconsin (10). 

Individual voters in the other states will likely have no effect on the outcome, because in the Electoral College, if a state votes mostly D or R, and you vote the other way, you are essentially irrelevant — it’s the majority that determines 100% of the state’s Electoral College votes. The only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, where individual districts’ outcomes determine how their Electors vote. And, remember, both George W. Bush (2000) and Trump (2016) won with a minority of the popular vote. So much for “Let the people decide.”

The Electoral College further distorts the popular vote by having one Elector for each House and Senate seat. So, Wyoming has three Electors for a population of 576,851, or 192,283 per Elector. At the other extreme, California has 54 electors for its 39,538,223 population or 732,189 per Elector. Thus, each Wyoming resident counts about 3.8 times as much as a California one.

In the Senate, half the votes are controlled by states that total less than one-sixth of the country’s population. So, per person, these states have over six times the power. Don’t expect Congress to save us.

Finally, the Jan. 2 story “Democrats fear electoral bloodbath in North Carolina” describes GOP state lawmakers approving a redistricting (gerrymandering) plan in October that sets the stage for Republicans to pick up at least three seats, and maybe four, in the 14-member delegation. This would double the GOP’s slender House majority on Capitol Hill. Is this fair?

Ensuring our democracy survives and flourishes will be a monumental effort, but there is a lot of support for doing so, except from those whose power benefits from maintaining these inequalities. Let’s not make it harder by risking it further.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more