Is the Republican Party a Threat to Our Representative Democracy?

[Frodo]

Do the Republicans Even Believe in Democracy Anymore?
They pay lip service to it, but they actively try to undermine its institutions.

A number of observers, myself included, have written pieces in recent years arguing that the Republican Party is no longer simply trying to compete with and defeat the Democratic Party on a level playing field. Today, rather than simply playing the game, the Republicans are simultaneously trying to rig the game’s rules so that they never lose.

The aggressive gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court just declared to be a matter beyond its purview; the voter suppression schemes; the dubious proposals that haven’t gone anywhere — yet — like trying to award presidential electoral votes by congressional district rather than by state, a scheme that Republicans in five states considered after the 2012 election and that is still discussed: These are not ideas aimed at invigorating democracy. They are hatched and executed for the express purpose of essentially fixing elections.

(...) The gerrymandering enabled them to maintain their House majority during the Obama years even as Democratic House candidates were winning more votes. But there’s much more. “Recent Republican behavior — from the 2016 stolen Supreme Court seat to the legislative shenanigans that followed gubernatorial defeats in North Carolina and Wisconsin to voter suppression efforts across numerous states — suggests a party whose commitment to democratic politics has weakened,” Mr. Levitsky said. “The fact that the Republican Party has grown increasingly authoritarian poses a greater threat to American democracy than Donald Trump.”

[Senator Incitatus]

Hopefully.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Politicians in general are a threat to our Representative Democracy.

[TML]

I think it's not just Republicans, but also establishment Democrats who are part of the problem.

In fact, any politician who takes significant contributions from large corporations and/or wealthy individuals and then proceeds to vote for policies in their favor is part of the problem.

[Mopsus]

Representative democracy implies representation. If anything, Republicans are doing a service to our democracy by ensuring that the economically important regions of the South, the Rust Belt, and the Plains receive their proper representation.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Watching the blue avatars contort themselves in response to SCOTUS's gerrymandering decision has been instructive on this count. By no means can the districts drawn in places like North Carolina, where a <50% vote share in the state leads to 10-3 seat distributions for Republicans, be considered in line with a functioning representative democracy. And they don't care.

[John Dule]

Watching the blue avatars contort themselves in response to SCOTUS's gerrymandering decision has been instructive on this count. By no means can the districts drawn in places like North Carolina, where a <50% vote share in the state leads to 10-3 seat distributions for Republicans, be considered in line with a functioning representative democracy. And they don't care.

Well, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, and seeing as congress hasn't put any amendments or laws on the books to justify the courts taking action, it's hardly their fault. But I suppose you'd rather have nine unelected men and women make decisions like this with no legal justification or legislation to back them up.

[MarkD]

Watching the blue avatars contort themselves in response to SCOTUS's gerrymandering decision has been instructive on this count. By no means can the districts drawn in places like North Carolina, where a <50% vote share in the state leads to 10-3 seat distributions for Republicans, be considered in line with a functioning representative democracy. And they don't care.

Well, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, and seeing as congress hasn't put any amendments or laws on the books to justify the courts taking action, it's hardly their fault. But I suppose you'd rather have nine unelected men and women make decisions like this with no legal justification or legislation to back them up.

When litigating parties and judges are looking at state or local laws they do not like and deem those laws to be unfair, it is a matter of habit and routine to say that those laws violate either the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (or both). A gerrymandered map drawn by Republicans which is unfair to Democrats violates the Equal Protection Clause, they say. The DP Clause and the EP Clause are the most frequently litigated parts of the Constitution and are the source of most judicial activism. Inversely, if judges do like the challenged laws, or see nothing unfair about them, then they uphold them, rejecting the challenge that said laws violate either of those clauses. There's lots of ambiguity in this sentence, ....

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think that the DP Clause does not actually have any ambiguity in it, nor was it intended to mean anything more than what it says, but the Supreme Court has managed to make it have an ambiguous meaning anyway. Be that as it may, I'm sick and tired of the Supreme Court striking down laws they deem to be unfair, with their subjective standards, which is why I want to adopt an amendment that rewrites that sentence to make its meaning narrower and clearer.

BTW, I don't understand why the article posted in the OP did not mention the threat to democracy that was perpetrated by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, which is, to me, the worst thing that any Republicans have ever done to our democratic republic.

[Slander and/or Libel]

This cuts deeper than unfairness. If we are to have a representative republic, and a minority faction can capture the representation indefinitely despite a dwindling share of the popular vote, it’s more than unfair. It means we no longer have a representative republic.

[darklordoftech]

Yes, since 1964.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The U.S. was never a proper "representative" democracy to begin with.

[TJ in Oregon]

If I recall correctly, after the 2016 election it was not the Republicans who were clamoring to overturn the result in order to "save democracy".

The set of things listed here, while dirty, are entirely consistent within the mechanical framework of the US government. They're closer to Harry Reid saying Romney hadn't paid taxes in decades than they are to a fascist revolt.

Yes, that's a hackish answer, but this is a hackish question.

[Skunk]

The Republican Party is irredeemable garbage for thousands of other reasons, being a threat to our "democracy" isn't one of them.

[parochial boy]

It's interesting that all the attempts to defend the Republicans so far have hinged on either "it's not against the rules" or "both sides do it" rather than anyone trying to argue that what the Republicans are doing isn't actually weakening democracy

[Decay]

If I recall correctly, after the 2016 election it was not the Republicans who were clamoring to overturn the result in order to "save democracy".

The set of things listed here, while dirty, are entirely consistent within the mechanical framework of the US government. They're closer to Harry Reid saying Romney hadn't paid taxes in decades than they are to a fascist revolt.

Yes, that's a hackish answer, but this is a hackish question.

It's a dumb question because at this point, particularly following the disastrous conservative court ruling on the cancerous growth in our democracy called gerrymandering, the question doesn't need to be asked.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Republican Party is a threat to a lot of things worth preserving or at least fighting for, period.

Sorry to be hackish about it but that's how I view it.

[John Dule]

Watching the blue avatars contort themselves in response to SCOTUS's gerrymandering decision has been instructive on this count. By no means can the districts drawn in places like North Carolina, where a <50% vote share in the state leads to 10-3 seat distributions for Republicans, be considered in line with a functioning representative democracy. And they don't care.

Well, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, and seeing as congress hasn't put any amendments or laws on the books to justify the courts taking action, it's hardly their fault. But I suppose you'd rather have nine unelected men and women make decisions like this with no legal justification or legislation to back them up.

When litigating parties and judges are looking at state or local laws they do not like and deem those laws to be unfair, it is a matter of habit and routine to say that those laws violate either the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (or both). A gerrymandered map drawn by Republicans which is unfair to Democrats violates the Equal Protection Clause, they say. The DP Clause and the EP Clause are the most frequently litigated parts of the Constitution and are the source of most judicial activism. Inversely, if judges do like the challenged laws, or see nothing unfair about them, then they uphold them, rejecting the challenge that said laws violate either of those clauses. There's lots of ambiguity in this sentence, ....

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think that the DP Clause does not actually have any ambiguity in it, nor was it intended to mean anything more than what it says, but the Supreme Court has managed to make it have an ambiguous meaning anyway. Be that as it may, I'm sick and tired of the Supreme Court striking down laws they deem to be unfair, with their subjective standards, which is why I want to adopt an amendment that rewrites that sentence to make its meaning narrower and clearer.

BTW, I don't understand why the article posted in the OP did not mention the threat to democracy that was perpetrated by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, which is, to me, the worst thing that any Republicans have ever done to our democratic republic.

I absolutely agree. Vague laws/legislation are great for authoritarians because they can be subjectively enforced. I would also support new amendments that clear up the wording in old ones, but because this would probably require the chaos of a constitutional convention, it's never going to happen.

[MarkD]

Watching the blue avatars contort themselves in response to SCOTUS's gerrymandering decision has been instructive on this count. By no means can the districts drawn in places like North Carolina, where a <50% vote share in the state leads to 10-3 seat distributions for Republicans, be considered in line with a functioning representative democracy. And they don't care.

Well, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, and seeing as congress hasn't put any amendments or laws on the books to justify the courts taking action, it's hardly their fault. But I suppose you'd rather have nine unelected men and women make decisions like this with no legal justification or legislation to back them up.

When litigating parties and judges are looking at state or local laws they do not like and deem those laws to be unfair, it is a matter of habit and routine to say that those laws violate either the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (or both). A gerrymandered map drawn by Republicans which is unfair to Democrats violates the Equal Protection Clause, they say. The DP Clause and the EP Clause are the most frequently litigated parts of the Constitution and are the source of most judicial activism. Inversely, if judges do like the challenged laws, or see nothing unfair about them, then they uphold them, rejecting the challenge that said laws violate either of those clauses. There's lots of ambiguity in this sentence, ....

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think that the DP Clause does not actually have any ambiguity in it, nor was it intended to mean anything more than what it says, but the Supreme Court has managed to make it have an ambiguous meaning anyway. Be that as it may, I'm sick and tired of the Supreme Court striking down laws they deem to be unfair, with their subjective standards, which is why I want to adopt an amendment that rewrites that sentence to make its meaning narrower and clearer.

BTW, I don't understand why the article posted in the OP did not mention the threat to democracy that was perpetrated by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, which is, to me, the worst thing that any Republicans have ever done to our democratic republic.

I absolutely agree. Vague laws/legislation are great for authoritarians because they can be subjectively enforced. I would also support new amendments that clear up the wording in old ones, but because this would probably require the chaos of a constitutional convention, it's never going to happen.

Never say never. The people promoting this movement would dispute they are summoning a "constitutional convention," and that the convention they are summoning is going to be chaotic. The Convention of States Project has already sponsored a mock convention -- they called it a "simulated convention" -- and it went off smoothly, according to plans.

[brucejoel99]

The Republican Party is becoming less & less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy & becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe, yes.

[SteveRogers]

Watching the blue avatars contort themselves in response to SCOTUS's gerrymandering decision has been instructive on this count. By no means can the districts drawn in places like North Carolina, where a <50% vote share in the state leads to 10-3 seat distributions for Republicans, be considered in line with a functioning representative democracy. And they don't care.

Well, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, and seeing as congress hasn't put any amendments or laws on the books to justify the courts taking action, it's hardly their fault. But I suppose you'd rather have nine unelected men and women make decisions like this with no legal justification or legislation to back them up.

Republicans don’t support legislation to end partisan gerrymandering either though.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Watching the blue avatars contort themselves in response to SCOTUS's gerrymandering decision has been instructive on this count. By no means can the districts drawn in places like North Carolina, where a <50% vote share in the state leads to 10-3 seat distributions for Republicans, be considered in line with a functioning representative democracy. And they don't care.

Well, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, and seeing as congress hasn't put any amendments or laws on the books to justify the courts taking action, it's hardly their fault. But I suppose you'd rather have nine unelected men and women make decisions like this with no legal justification or legislation to back them up.

Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

Extreme gerrymandering cuts directly against this clear principle that the people choose the representatives, not the other way around. This by no means guarantees proportional representation, but I think it fairly obviously forecloses maps that lock in partisan advantage irrespective of vote share, at least if you’re willing to be honest for one hot second.

[John Dule]

Watching the blue avatars contort themselves in response to SCOTUS's gerrymandering decision has been instructive on this count. By no means can the districts drawn in places like North Carolina, where a <50% vote share in the state leads to 10-3 seat distributions for Republicans, be considered in line with a functioning representative democracy. And they don't care.

Well, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, and seeing as congress hasn't put any amendments or laws on the books to justify the courts taking action, it's hardly their fault. But I suppose you'd rather have nine unelected men and women make decisions like this with no legal justification or legislation to back them up.

Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

Extreme gerrymandering cuts directly against this clear principle that the people choose the representatives, not the other way around. This by no means guarantees proportional representation, but I think it fairly obviously forecloses maps that lock in partisan advantage irrespective of vote share, at least if you’re willing to be honest for one hot second.

Look, I'm not going to make a pro-gerrymandering argument. I don't like it any more than you do. But I'm very much against subjective interpretations of the law. There is nothing in Article I, Section 2 that explicitly states that districts have to be fair, or drawn by non-partisan organizations, or proportional, or not too advantageous to any political group, or not drawn according to the racial composition of the state, etc. Gerrymandering exists because it exploits a loophole; you can't get around it by acting like that loophole doesn't exist. You have to close it. That path might be harder, but it's well worth it, and it prevents subjective interpretations of this law in the future.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Watching the blue avatars contort themselves in response to SCOTUS's gerrymandering decision has been instructive on this count. By no means can the districts drawn in places like North Carolina, where a <50% vote share in the state leads to 10-3 seat distributions for Republicans, be considered in line with a functioning representative democracy. And they don't care.

Well, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, and seeing as congress hasn't put any amendments or laws on the books to justify the courts taking action, it's hardly their fault. But I suppose you'd rather have nine unelected men and women make decisions like this with no legal justification or legislation to back them up.

Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

Extreme gerrymandering cuts directly against this clear principle that the people choose the representatives, not the other way around. This by no means guarantees proportional representation, but I think it fairly obviously forecloses maps that lock in partisan advantage irrespective of vote share, at least if you’re willing to be honest for one hot second.

Look, I'm not going to make a pro-gerrymandering argument. I don't like it any more than you do. But I'm very much against subjective interpretations of the law. There is nothing in Article I, Section 2 that explicitly states that districts have to be fair, or drawn by non-partisan organizations, or proportional, or not too advantageous to any political group, or not drawn according to the racial composition of the state, etc. Gerrymandering exists because it exploits a loophole; you can't get around it by acting like that loophole doesn't exist. You have to close it. That path might be harder, but it's well worth it, and it prevents subjective interpretations of this law in the future.

Just don’t act like your subjective interpretation is the only rational one that people can have. You might think what you said, and I might think (like I do!) that your interpretation is dead wrong, and that to read such a loophole into the constitution is to undermine it entirely. If we are meant to have a legislature chosen by the people, I don’t believe it’s reasonable to allow intervention into the process that effectively negates the peoples’ opinion. That’s a considered opinion based on the text, not just a wish.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I think it's not just Republicans, but also establishment Democrats who are part of the problem.

In fact, any politician who takes significant contributions from large corporations and/or wealthy individuals and then proceeds to vote for policies in their favor is part of the problem.

I think this is something of a false equivalency.

We actually have two ongoing threats to our representative democracy.

The first is the one you described - the ongoing transformation of our government into a "captive democracy" where a plutocratic oligarchy hollows out our democratic republic. And yes, both parties are participants in that self-destructive process.

The second threat seems far more dire - the Republicans are  blatant fascists who want to replace our democratic republic with one party rule. And rule by a pretty vile set of people and ideas at that.

[TML]

I think it's not just Republicans, but also establishment Democrats who are part of the problem.

In fact, any politician who takes significant contributions from large corporations and/or wealthy individuals and then proceeds to vote for policies in their favor is part of the problem.

I think this is something of a false equivalency.

We actually have two ongoing threats to our representative democracy.

The first is the one you described - the ongoing transformation of our government into a "captive democracy" where a plutocratic oligarchy hollows out our democratic republic. And yes, both parties are participants in that self-destructive process.

The second threat seems far more dire - the Republicans are  blatant fascists who want to replace our democratic republic with one party rule. And rule by a pretty vile set of people and ideas at that.

Regarding the second threat, I think special interests also play a major role here as well. Republican politicians under the influence of special interests are usually strong and ruthless while Democratic politicians under the influence of special interests are usually weak and feckless. This enables Republicans to get away with just about anything they do, simply because Democrats under corporate influence are too chicken to fight back (which they could certainly do if they really wanted to do so).