Illinois Democrats quickly change election laws to favor themselves in November.

[Subduction Zone]

The Republicans didn't even vote against the bill, apparently they don't care.

No, to be fair they are at the short end of a super majority. In other words, their voted does not count so in protest they all voted "present".

To be honest if this is accurate it should have been done before the primary season for state seats. Or at the least not take effect until next election. His source is right of center but has a fairly high credibility:

Chicago Tribune - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not really a lefty, although I'm guessing some Americans might see me as such.

Whilst I have a pretty good handle on US election rules, etc, sometimes the nuance is a little lost on me with things like this, I have to admit.
However, I'd be more worried about the increasing habit of adding nonbinding proposals to the bottom of ballots. With non-compulsory voting, the quickest and most risk-free way of swinging elections is to focus on voter turnout, and that seems a way to easily encourage one side or the other to come out, without even making the proposals meaningful in a legal sense.

To fill in some of the nuance, they're playing hardball as Republicans are known for. I also suspect the goal isn't just to sway the state election but help swing it for Biden.
But I think it's good they're doing it. Republicans take every advantage they can, and they are blocking a proposal to give parents more ownership over their kids and affirm parents have the final say over needed treatment for kids (and it's not just trans stuff where this is an extreme problem in America).

 

[Kathryn]

No, to be fair they are at the short end of a super majority. In other words, their voted does not count so in protest they all voted "present".

To be honest if this is accurate it should have been done before the primary season for state seats. Or at the least not take effect until next election. His source is right of center but has a fairly high credibility:

Chicago Tribune - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

I'd say it has high credibility.

 

[Kathryn]

What's funny about that, @Subduction Zone ? It's a direct quote from the article linked. I didn't link the article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd say it has high credibility.

True. But it does not have "very high credibility". I think that for this article that they got it right.

I think that it is a good idea, but they should have delayed the date that it takes effect.

 

[Kathryn]

True. But it does not have "very high credibility". I think that for this article that they got it right.

I think that it is a good idea, but they should have delayed the date that it takes effect.

I never said it had "very high credibility." I simply said it had high credibility which the article you linked to agrees with. According to that article, it ranks 5/6 in credibility and has had no Fact-check violations since at least 2016. From the article in question:
"In review, the Chicago Tribune reports local news using reporters and national/world news through syndication of the Associated Press. There is minimal use of loaded language in headlines and articles, and all information is properly sourced. Editorially, there is a right-leaning bias through the promotion of free-market economics and limited government. The newspaper has historically endorsed Republican or 3rd party candidates; however, in 2008 and 2012, they endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president. In 2016, they opted to endorse Libertarian Gary Johnson."

Chicago Tribune - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

• Overall, we rate the Chicago Tribune Right-Center biased based on moderately right-leaning editorial positions and High for factual reporting due to a clean fact-check record.

---

Detailed Report​

Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

 

[Stevicus]

A couple of quick thoughts on this;

1) put me in the 'I don't love democracy but it's better than the alternatives' camp

I agree, for the most part, but by the same token, I don't see democracy as some kind of sacred cow. I've heard some call it the new "opium of the masses."

Democracy requires a vigilant, aware, and informed populace to make it work. If it's not working, then we have to ask ourselves why. It's a purposeful, conscious process, not something that we can just let run on automatic and hope for the best - which is what most people seem to be doing these days. It's just like people used to say back in the 60s, "All you need is love," but now, it's like they're saying "All you need is democracy."

It's been a constant refrain in foreign policy, too. I remember people saying as far back as the 1990s (about China) "All they need is more democracy, and they would be just fine." We've wanted to push for democracy in the Middle East as well. To some people, democracy is everything - the be all and end all of human existence.

But the thing is, "democracy" is just a word. When we actually get into the weeds of the system itself, looking through the nuts and bolts, that's where the problems arise. Democracy requires faith, and when the people start to lose faith and trust in the system, whose fault is that?

2) there are plenty of functioning democracies who don't have these issues around the transfer of power. I live in one, and have worked in two others (Australia, New Zealand, Sweden)

It's worked in the U.S. as well, for the most part, from 1788 to the present. But I can't believe that no country has ever had any issues with the process from time to time.

I think the main issue with our system in the U.S. is because people worship democracy as if it's a religion, and therefore, they see it as unchanging and with only one orthodox viewpoint. There's no room for criticism or any calls for reform when the political culture is hobbled in such a way. As an example, I would point out the numerous criticisms of the Electoral College and calls for its removal. Yet, we still have the Electoral College, because..."that's just how it is."

3) I think the move from the system you have to a better system is evolutionary, not revolutionary, hence the need for thought and discussion

I agree, but if the rhetoric on social media is anything to go by (and we can even see shades of it here on RF), then how much thought and productive discussion can we actually expect?

I would also mention that, America has been down this road before. I'm old enough to remember when people were saying that everything was getting better, especially after Nixon resigned and the U.S. pulled its forces out of Vietnam. The Civil Rights movement made huge advances, and it looked like we were entering a new age - which was occurring through evolution, not revolution (even though a few people had been calling for that, but most didn't want it). It looked like things were going in a good direction, but somehow, we went off track.

There has been some thought and discussion about that, where people ask "where did we go wrong?" But there doesn't seem to be that much interest in the deeper questions about the state of affairs. Most of the public's attention seems more geared towards soap operas and melodrama in politics, where anything with any real depth or thought is just too boring for a lot of people.

4) I think part of the answer is in sensibly expanding political power away from a two party system, and I don't think the current US system practically does this

There's nothing legally to prevent people from voting for whichever candidate they wish. It's not really a systemic issue as much as it's an issue within the political culture itself. There's a palpable battle being waged, and it's more of a cultural battle than anything else - within the political culture. In the end, people tend to hold their nose and settle for the lesser of two evils and try to get on with their lives as best they can. But over the long haul, it slowly wears and whittles down people's standards and expectations regarding the political system. As a result, they lose faith in that system.

 

[Kathryn]

We need to put everything into historical perspective as well.

 

[We Never Know]

The Republicans didn't even vote against the bill, apparently they don't care.

I don't know if they did or not. Couldn't find the votes count.
However it wouldn't have did them any good at all to do so.

"In the 59-member Illinois Senate, Democrats hold a 39-19 advantage over Republicans with one Democratic vacancy. A total of 30 votes are needed for a majority and 36 votes for a veto-proof supermajority"


Edit....
I see from previous posts this has already been pointed out.

 

[Kathryn]

For instance, Queen Elizabeth 1. She was the daughter of Henry the 8th and Anne Boleyn. She was a staunch Protestant. She totally supported anti Catholicism and had many Catholics in England put to death. It was predominately from this element that what became the US sprang. She supported I believe Sir Walter Raleigh and he named Virginia after her. The first English colony was established during her reign. So was slavery.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree, for the most part, but by the same token, I don't see democracy as some kind of sacred cow. I've heard some call it the new "opium of the masses."

Democracy requires a vigilant, aware, and informed populace to make it work. If it's not working, then we have to ask ourselves why. It's a purposeful, conscious process, not something that we can just let run on automatic and hope for the best - which is what most people seem to be doing these days. It's just like people used to say back in the 60s, "All you need is love," but now, it's like they're saying "All you need is democracy."

It's been a constant refrain in foreign policy, too. I remember people saying as far back as the 1990s (about China) "All they need is more democracy, and they would be just fine." We've wanted to push for democracy in the Middle East as well. To some people, democracy is everything - the be all and end all of human existence.

But the thing is, "democracy" is just a word. When we actually get into the weeds of the system itself, looking through the nuts and bolts, that's where the problems arise. Democracy requires faith, and when the people start to lose faith and trust in the system, whose fault is that?



It's worked in the U.S. as well, for the most part, from 1788 to the present. But I can't believe that no country has ever had any issues with the process from time to time.

I think the main issue with our system in the U.S. is because people worship democracy as if it's a religion, and therefore, they see it as unchanging and with only one orthodox viewpoint. There's no room for criticism or any calls for reform when the political culture is hobbled in such a way. As an example, I would point out the numerous criticisms of the Electoral College and calls for its removal. Yet, we still have the Electoral College, because..."that's just how it is."




I agree, but if the rhetoric on social media is anything to go by (and we can even see shades of it here on RF), then how much thought and productive discussion can we actually expect?

I would also mention that, America has been down this road before. I'm old enough to remember when people were saying that everything was getting better, especially after Nixon resigned and the U.S. pulled its forces out of Vietnam. The Civil Rights movement made huge advances, and it looked like we were entering a new age - which was occurring through evolution, not revolution (even though a few people had been calling for that, but most didn't want it). It looked like things were going in a good direction, but somehow, we went off track.

There has been some thought and discussion about that, where people ask "where did we go wrong?" But there doesn't seem to be that much interest in the deeper questions about the state of affairs. Most of the public's attention seems more geared towards soap operas and melodrama in politics, where anything with any real depth or thought is just too boring for a lot of people.

I have no issue with any of the above, so I won't directly address it, except to say that it's easy to point out the flaws. What is more difficult is working out a different system that works better, and map from where the US is to that system without horrendous damage and suffering.

There's nothing legally to prevent people from voting for whichever candidate they wish. It's not really a systemic issue as much as it's an issue within the political culture itself. There's a palpable battle being waged, and it's more of a cultural battle than anything else - within the political culture. In the end, people tend to hold their nose and settle for the lesser of two evils and try to get on with their lives as best they can. But over the long haul, it slowly wears and whittles down people's standards and expectations regarding the political system. As a result, they lose faith in that system.

Here I fundamentally disagree, so I'll address it more directly.
I specifically said the US system doesn't 'practically' allow for this, rather than legally.

Consider a deep red state, where 60% of the vote is GOP, and 35% is Democratic.
And for the sake of example, assume a rift in the Republican party along MAGA lines, with the party dividing in two.

Simplistically, the 60% of the vote gets split, and you end up with the very real possibility of a Democrat taking power, despite the vast majority of the people voting conservative, and wanting a conservative candidate.
This is a horribly simplistic example, but that practically waters down the desire and support for third party candidates, and the possibility of those candidates having success, influencing policy, or being able to build into a credible national alternative over time.

That is VASTLY different to a preferential system, and I don't think people in the US even understand how limiting their current system is in terms of third party viability.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Always be wary of headlines that vaguely state things like "they changed election laws to favour themselves" without going into the specifics of what's actually being done and whether or not it is reasonably justified. Election reforms can happen that are both reasonably justified and also favour one electoral party over another.

I mean, for example, let's say that, per some law, people under a certain income threshold weren't allowed to vote in a certain state. One party (we'll call them "Party X") works to appeal aggressively to people above that income threshold, and has the support of a super-majority of those voters. However, the other party ("Party Y") tries a devious new tactic; they appeal to lower-income people who are ineligible to vote, and then they change the voting law so that there is no income threshold on voting, meaning they're virtually guaranteed to sweep the election.

Now, was what Party Y did actually wrong? Is it wrong to reform voting laws, in all cases, if it favours your party, even if those reforms, broadly, are more fair? Would the headline "Party Y changes election laws to favour themselves" be more apt than, say, "Party Y changes election laws so that poor people (who overwhelmingly support them) are now able to vote"?

I'm not saying this necessarily applies in this specific case. The history of gerry-mandering and ballot rigging in America far too complex for me to untangle. I'm just making a point about the language we use to discuss these kinds of things and how they can potentially mislead us. Don't forget, we're not too far away from the whole "mail-in ballot" debacle, where making voting easier for people (an unambiguously pro-democracy position) was spun as the Democrats trying to "tip the scale in their favour" by allowing people who have difficulty voting to vote, and those people were more likely to vote Democrat. I think it's very easy to flip the script and say not that the Democrats are trying to sneakily earn more votes, but suggesting that Republicans want to make it harder for people who support the Democrats to vote.

I mean, there must be a word for when a party works to have a larger majority of people support and thus vote for them over another party. I think it's called something like "Democra-something". Seems devious.

 

[Stevicus]

I have no issue with any of the above, so I won't directly address it, except to say that it's easy to point out the flaws. What is more difficult is working out a different system that works better, and map from where the US is to that system without horrendous damage and suffering.

It won't be done easily, mainly due to too much political inertia and intransigence. There's the idea that "worse is better," in that the public won't really be motivated to change until things get so bad enough that they won't have any choice.

Here I fundamentally disagree, so I'll address it more directly.
I specifically said the US system doesn't 'practically' allow for this, rather than legally.

Consider a deep red state, where 60% of the vote is GOP, and 35% is Democratic.
And for the sake of example, assume a rift in the Republican party along MAGA lines, with the party dividing in two.

Simplistically, the 60% of the vote gets split, and you end up with the very real possibility of a Democrat taking power, despite the vast majority of the people voting conservative, and wanting a conservative candidate.
This is a horribly simplistic example, but that practically waters down the desire and support for third party candidates, and the possibility of those candidates having success, influencing policy, or being able to build into a credible national alternative over time.

That is VASTLY different to a preferential system, and I don't think people in the US even understand how limiting their current system is in terms of third party viability.

The "winner take all" aspect is what causes this. This could be changed, but as I mentioned earlier about the Electoral College, there's too much religious fanaticism that not enough people will support it. I would prefer to see a change in the structure of government itself, which is still largely based on a primitive, 18th-century model.

I don't think it really matters all that much "who" is in power, just as long as the public has control over what they do. That's why I would support more ballot propositions and more public offices should be made electable positions (such as Speaker of the House, Cabinet posts, CIA and FBI Directors, Federal judges/Supreme Court, Joint Chiefs, etc.). I also think there should be national ballot propositions where people can directly vote in laws or changes to the Constitution.

Such proposals aren't even entertained, even by those who are supposed devotees of democracy. Some people seem to favor democracy only as long as they can keep it corruptible and under control of vested interests. Propose anything that might weaken that control or discourage corruption, and the banshees start screaming "NO! NEVER!"