We are seven days away from the most consequential US presidential election in your lifetime.
Two short thoughts as we approach November 5, 2024.
First thought: Go read “The Comically Terrible Rollout of Latter-day Saints for Trump,” at the Atlantic. It will be the most entertaining five minutes of your day, I promise. I especially like the photo of Captain Moroni and one of his useful idiots. No additional commentary needed. This is a serious article, but for an LDS reader it comes across as tragicomedy.
Second thought: Are there federal prisons in Puerto Rico? Because that would be a great place for Donald Trump to serve his time.
Wheat & Tares 
I work for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. There is a facility in Puerto Rico.
Dave B with his typical objective commentary
No words for that Atlantic article. Except thank you. It would have made my morning if I didn’t feel so sick over how close this election is.
Why would this election be the most consequential in our lifetime? What would be consequential about it? What significant law and policy will change between today and this time next year based on who is elected president?
Oh, and desiring to put a former president and current presidential candidate in prison kind of self-identifies who is extreme and dangerous. Want to destroy the United States of America and make it a land of warring tribes? Let political parties declare they will put opposing political figures in prison and then having them do it will make that happen faster than you can snap your fingers.
Come, A Disciple, let’s be reasonable about this. You’ve heard the “lock her up” chants. Trump and his supporters started it long ago. And they had no proof or reason for it besides malice and rumors. Someone else, however, is a convicted felon. What you are afraid of has already happened. And it is because of Trump. Playing coy isn’t helping your cause.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
josh h, we’re a blog, not a newspaper, and even newspapers have an opinion page. All are welcome to post their own opinions in response, as long as they abide by our commenting policies (most commenters do).
A Disciple, Trump is a convicted felon. He has a date for his sentencing hearing. Talking about a convicted felon serving time in prison is completely different than threatening to put political opponents, or anyone who disagrees with you (“the enemy within”) in jail.
A great read from the Atlantic.
A Disciple, no one is above the law. I thought the great thing about the Constitution was that it subjected people to the rule of law and that according to it even the most powerful could face punishment for violating the law. So why do I hear Trump supporters whining about how the formal Constitutional process was used to find Trump guilty on 34 counts so far and indicted on dozens of other counts? If anything this is the Constitution in practice, not a violation of it.
josh h, libertarianism (you’ve identified as libertarian several times) is not objective. In fact I would say that the ideology is somewhat of a cult unto itself that stands for nothing when the moment calls. Spinelessness in the face of tyranny.
For me, it is difficult to know what to do with Trump. I don’t mean that in a should-I-vote-for-him way (answer: no, clearly I should not) but whether I am supposed to take him seriously. In my lifetime we have not had serious presidential candidates who have openly talked about prosecuting political opponents as political retribution, or deporting 3+% of the residents of the country, or being a dictator for a day, or remaining as president beyond the end of his term, or any of the 1001 other deeply disturbing things Trump has said over the recent years. All politicians are willing to say outlandish things to try to get elected, but Trump has taken that to a new level. Will Trump actually attempt to accomplish all of the things he says? Does he believe his own lies? I really don’t know. Much of what he says seems to be his attempt to find adulation in the moment, not to advance any sort of ideology. He didn’t lock up Hillary, or even have her charged with any crimes. He built some wall, but didn’t send the entire US military to the southern border (or get Mexico to pay for anything). More so than any other candidate, I struggle to differentiate between his bark and his bite, and I’m not entirely sure that even he knows the difference.
To be sure, I dislike both the substance and the tenor of his campaign. I wouldn’t be voting for Haley, or Rubio, or any of the other people that plausibly could have been the republican nominee in an alternate timeline. But with any of them, I would laugh at the idea that this was the most important presidential election of my lifetime, or that democracy somehow hangs in the balance. With Trump, I’m a bit less certain. And I suppose that uncertainty is proof that it probably is the most important election I’ve yet seen.
Just a word to those of you who believe this is the “most important election” in our lifetimes: If there’s one thing I learned from the Obama years, it was that he wasn’t the anti-Christ that the far right was describing. We did not become a socialist country and Obama didn’t pledge allegiance to Muslim overlords. Fast forward to the Trump years: he’s as obnoxious as they come but it’s unlikely that the US turns into some kind of fascist dictatorship.
The country is stronger than Obama haters and Trump haters want to acknowledge. Whether or not this is the most important election in our lifetimes will be determined by events, not the president. Will we have a major economic crisis? Will we have a major international crisis? Will we have another world virus or some other event?
I’m always so confused by comments like, “Trump isn’t any different.”
Please explain to me josh h, or A Disciple, how what happened on Jan 6th wasn’t different, or how Trump calling up state officials in Georgia and asking them to find more votes for Trump to win isn’t different. Or how, you know, those things don’t directly threatened our current Democratic Republic. I’d love to hear it.
If you think the only things that are the most important are economic, international, and health crisis, and that directs threats to our governmental system aren’t, well, I invite you to read study some history. Nations rarely fail over those first crisis and always fail under the second.
Yes, Trump led the chant to lock up Hillary. Did he lock up Hillary? No. Did Trump have the DOJ hound Hillary and her people and have them indicted, convicted and jailed? No. Trump mainly loves to talk, which he has a right to do.
However Hillary committed felonies. She willingly used a unclassified server to handle classified material. That is a crime for which you and I will go to jail. Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign also initiated a massive fraud to paint Trump as in collusion with Russia. For this Hillary’s campaign was fined by the FEC for not reporting that her campaign paid for the “Steele Dossier”. The “Steele Dossier”, which was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, was then used to sell the Trump Russia collusion hoax.
The “Steele Dossier” was the greatest political trick ever executed. Imagine something similar done by Republicans against a Democratic candidate. Imagine Republicans paying foreign intelligence operators for unsubstantiated dirt on an American political opponent, and then feeding that dirt to the Department of Justice as being material evidence. This is what the Hillary Campaign did.
So I have a difficult time understanding the perspective that Trump is an especially awful person. Trump did not concoct stories that put innocent people in jail. Hillary Clinton and her campaign did this. Trump did not exploit the Department of Justice to go after his political enemies. Hillary Clinton and her campaign did this.
I see there is tremendous vitriol on the matter that Trump did not accept the 2020 election results. Trump had the audacity to question the outcome! Where is it law that it is criminal to contest elections? Seriously. Democrats have been challenging election outcomes for decades. I suspect they will challenge results from the upcoming election. But only Trump and his team are felons for challenging election outcomes. The law and justice should be impartial.
And about the crime for which Trump may still be sentenced. Do you understand the selective prosecution of this crime and conviction? Trump secured loans from willing banks and fully repaid those loans. The banks were happy. No one was harmed. And yet Trump’s political enemies concocted a legal argument with which to prosecute Trump. Every individual who has borrowed from banks could be investigated for this made up crime. Yet only Trump was. This should bother you. Why is an American being prosecuted when there are no victims? What is the public interest in prosecuting Trump for borrowing money from lenders who were happy to lend to Trump?
Whether Trump or Harris wins the presidency my life will go on. I do not expect the American president to be my savior. My singular hope is the American president will protect and defend the Constitution. Not just pledge the words but actually do it.
So. No response about Jan 6th or the Georgia call. You proved my point friend.
A Disciple, to be clear: Hillary was fined for an FEC violation, the same happened with Trump; Hillary tried to paint her opponent in a bad light by being connected to sketchy groups of people, Trump does the same; Hillary challenged the election; Trump does the same. Cool. Politics as usual.
That you believe the Steele Dossier is somehow more fraudulent in some way and is the greatest political trick ever, compared to Trump’s efforts to steal the election only reveals how successful he was in convincing you so. The amount of time, effort, money, and completely illegal acticity associated with his efforts far exceed hers; and has result in far more co-conspirators being put in jailed, fined, de-barred, etc. Finally, your desciption of why TRump was convicted does not match the charges. It wasn’t about banks. It was about what Trump did with his money, and why and how he did it. In general, the disinformation in your post is frequent.
Now, those points out of the way, do I really need to spell out that people storming the Captial to stop the legal transfer of people, some with the intent to hang Senators, House Members, and the Vice President is not normal? Hillary was involved with nothing of the sort. Also post-election, she never asked election officials to violate their duties in an effort to overthrow the election.
These are the reasons this election is different. And Trump is different than Hillary, as much as I dislike her and as much as she isn’t running this cycle.
Is Biden or Harris going after Trump to have him arrested? NO! The charges against him are coming from state and local courts for laws he violated.
Would it be good for Harris to go after Trump if he’s elected? I doubt it. She should let the courts play out their charges against him and then pardon him if she can. Remember, if it’s a state crime, she can’t pardon him.
Why do so many LDS vote and tolerate Trump? I have a couple of theories: 1. The us against them rhetoric that Trump uses resonates with LDS because of their persecution complex that, despite their success, hasn’t seemed to go away from years ago when it might have been an issue. 2. Their collective belief fostered by the words of Ezra Taft Benson that Democrats are “evil” isn’t tempered by a realistic look at the world as it is now 50 years later. 3. While LDS like to say the Glory of God is Intelligence and say they are pro-education and that they study out of the best books, they only read “approved” books and don’t question authority to think for themselves. I know this sounds harsh, but it seems that at every general conference, we are told not to question or study outside of a narrow range of books and topics. Even our priesthood, relief society, Sunday School, and Sacrament Meetings are to be taken directly for the most recent Conference Talks. Finally, 4. Even when the church makes a statement, it is stated in such a way as to not say what to do and to give a reason for both sides to do what people would say would be the exact opposite of what was said. The church won’t endorse a candidate and says it only talks about issues but then only mentions one issue instead of many that could deal with the sanctity of life, guns, wars, healthcare, immigration, or climate change.
Wheat and Tares is a place to come and discuss “Truth,” no matter how uncomfortable it is. While it is geared toward religion, religion touches many aspects of our lives, and politics, like it or not, is one of them. In other words, how we interact with politics represents how we interpret what our religion is, could be, or should be. Many of us have issues with the LDS church that we talk about openly. Organizations of people have problems, and we seem to be working towards understanding them or at least dealing with them if we can’t change them. Politics is everywhere, then. We carry all our identities with us when we talk about it, and so do the politicians we elect to represent us.
About J6. The prosecution of the event was a sham and why? Because the prosecution began with the conclusion that Trump was responsible. Yet we know that Trump asked for additional security and the request was denied. We know that Trump did not invite violence and was not connected in any way to those who acted violently. Yet the prosecution did not care about these facts. It only cared about the political stunt of making Trump guilty.
Does this not bother you? If not please explain. I thought the purpose of congressional investigations was to collect and make public evidence so the American people could fairly judge actions relevant to the country. But the J6 committee was completely biased with the sole objective to judge Trump guilty. We Americans deserve better than prejudicial, politically motivated, show trials.
As for Trump’s various election challenges, I wholly agree Trump and some of his allies like Giuliani were erratic. Trump behaving erratically and impulsively is always going to be a thorn and obstacle to success. But we need to be clear that the expression of opinion and of desire, especially in a political context, is not a crime. Begging a state authority to “find votes” is not a crime. If Trump presented illegal ways to “find votes” then you would have a crime. If Trump agreed with a state authority on illegal ways to “find votes” then you would have a crime.
Again, we have precedent to help us judge what Trump was doing. When Al Gore went to Florida after the 2000 election to “find votes” to beat George W. Bush did he commit a crime? No! Al Gore and his lawyers used existing statutes to ask for a recount and a recount standard that it hoped would “find votes” necessary for him to win. Yet Trump simply voices a desire to “find votes” and he’s a felon. I do not understand the double standard. By the way, one of the legal problems with the Florida recount in 2000 is it was done only in four counties and not across the entire state, which introduced the issue that “hanging chads” were counted differently in some counties than in others.
In January 2017, some Democratic politicians disputed the certification of the Electoral College. Should they have been arrested? Was this sedition? Why is it sedition for Trump to lead an effort to not certify the Electoral College? Why is Trump a felon for using the political and legal process to dispute an election? The double standard is obvious. When Democrats use the political and legal process to dispute elections that is OK. And lastly, the Constitution fully entertains the consideration of a disputed presidential election. Why would the Constitution entertain election disputes if such disputes were illegal and seditious?
For reference on the previous paragraph, search for the NBC News article titled “Despite Objections, Congress Certifies Donald Trump’s Election”
A Disciple, I watched those hearing and you are arguing contary to the facts of the case. You are aruging for a cover up and conspiracy of epic proportions. Somehow all these witnesses are lying. The facts are out there. Again, you are spreading misinformation. Trump was asked to invene and didn’t for hours. And about Georgia, you are arguing that Trump is okay because GA didn’t go through with his demand, so . . . it’s cool? Wow. You are continaully painting from a conspiracy-minded framework. What Trump did and the Gore/Bush situation is not the same, again, as evidenced, by . . . fact. Stubborn things those. Disputing elections and seeking to overthrow them are different. Wow, it’s almost like we’ve had this conversation before . . . In the end, we American deserve a President who hasn’t attempted to overthrow the Constution. Surprise, I love it too. But, sadly, only one of the major party candiates fits that bill. Can you bring something new, something factual to the table. Something not based on the idea of over-arching Democratic conspiracy, but some belief in the systems we have in place that Trump so vehementy attempts to overthrow?
“If there’s one thing I learned from the Obama years, it was that he wasn’t the anti-Christ that the far right was describing. We did not become a socialist country and Obama didn’t pledge allegiance to Muslim overlords”
Did Obama ever say or write that he’d be an anti-Christ, socialist Muslim on day one? Did his White House Chief of Staff or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that he was a socialist or a secret sympathizer with radical Muslims? Did Obama repeatedly speak with admiration of radical Muslim overlords or socialist dictators? What scares me about Trump is what he himself says and does, not exaggerated hyperbolic epithets cast at him by his opponents. In my decades-long series of interactions with libertarianism, I found that it has nothing to offer is beyond false equivalencies, bad comparisons, and bithsidesism. Not to mention its incessant over-the-top hysteria about government, government programs, and government spending.
A Disciple, Republicans and other conservatives have for decades sought to press charges, indict and try their Democratic opponents in a court of law for a vast array of alleged crimes. But nothing has ever stuck for major figures such as Pelosi, the Clintons, Obama, and Biden, who are among the most hated and denigrated enemies by Trump, conservative media, and other Republicans. Why do you think that is? It wasn’t easy to get reach indictments of Trump, let alone a trial, and a guilty verdict by a jury of his peers. If it’s so easy to just indict, prosecute, and convince a jury of guilt, then wouldn’t Obama and the Clintons be convicted by now? The fact is that the American justice system, in spite of its flaws, is very thorough. Major politicians aren’t just wrongfully getting charged, indicted, and convicted all the time. When that does happen, it is because there is overwhelming evidence of criminality. Trump’s indictments didn’t just happen willy-nilly. Trump is surrounded by lawyers who stop at nothing to do his bidding, and many of whom have proven they are willing to actually break the law on his behalf (heard of Michael Cohen?). Trump appointed three members of the Supreme Court. Justices Alito and Thomas are married to spouses who believe that Trump won the 2020 election and have routinely thrown him life rings when he has been in trouble. They actively delayed a court date setting for Trump to stand trial in the fake electors scheme case, which has been scheduled in March 2024. It is not easy to get to Trump legally. The main reason he has been indicted so many times is probably because there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt. And a week from now he may just get away with his crimes.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
I delisted a comment by hnorth1 on abortion because it is completely off-topic for this post and discussion.
A Disciple, I’m not going to respond in detail — others seem to be doing that. You seem to be equating a conviction in a non-partisan court of law with something you read or hear on Fox News. You can make comments, of course, but not book-length comments that are longer than standard W&T posts.
Let’s try and focus on my first thought, the Atlantic article about Mormon political participation in the election, or even on my second thought, the Trump rally attack on Puerto Ricans (and a lot of other non-white people). It’s not a wide open Trump versus Harris post or discussion.
It’s going to be a tumultuous seven days between now and election day — and I get to make another post the morning of election day, November 5, 2024!
The Atlantic article was a fun read for me. Ah, yes, I remember how Mike Lee compared Trump to Captain Moroni. I’m not sure which is worse:
1. Mike Lee using Captain Moroni, a hugely problematic political leader, as the example of an ideal leader; or
2. Mike Lee comparing Donald Trump to Captain Moroni and realizing that, despite Captain Moroni’s many flaws, the country would be much better off with Captian Moroni as president than it would be with Trump.
Is a comedians joke about a nearby island as significant an issue as a nominee accusing the opponent of being a Nazi? There are plenty of public statements made by Trump and Vance to analyze, I give their statements much more attention than a comedy act or celebrity endorser’s. With both presidential nominees having already held high office, their governing record gets even more weight.
It looks like Trump is headed to victory barring a major change in the next week, based upon a wide range of opinions and data I have seen. Will the permas here be calling for unity and calm if these forecasts hold?
I sincerely hope that Josh h is correct that Trump won’t actually deploy project 2025 or deport tens of thousands or try and run for a third term. He will die one day, right?
That being said, Trump is cruel. I do not recall any other president or president hopeful mocking disabled reporters, claiming baseless rumors about immigrants eating domesticated animals, misunderstanding that someone can be both black and Indian, or picking a running mate that believes that childless adults shouldn’t matter. I could go on including his views on women but you get the picture. He’s taken the us vs them mentality to an 11 and re-ignited bigots to speak up after years of work to shame them into silence. I hate it. And I’m ready for Americans to say no more. If we do t stand up to it I suppose we will get what we deserve.
el oso, I voted for Harris and against Trump, because I see Trump as too vile, too old, too mean, too nasty, too corrupt, too stupid, and so forth, plus he is a convicted felon who has already entered his dementia — he is unable to read position papers or understand complex arguments and nuance, and is wholly unfit to be the President of the United States — and he has surrounded himself with other vile men and mindless women who I fear to have anywhere near the corridors of power. One of the great aspects of our republic since the beginning is that the loser honorably walks away — but Trump, the loser in 2020, did not walk away but tried to subvert the election results.
That said, if he wins (and I hope he doesn’t), I will sustain him as our president and hope that our republic survives having such a vile man as our president.
I encourage everyone who hasn’t voted yet to do so.
I regret that many of my co-religionists, even leaders among us, support Trump. I cannot.
May I turn your question back on you? If Trump loses, will you call for unity and calm? Will Trump call for unity and calm?
Don’t you think it would be unfair to require something from Harris supporters that you and Trump are unwilling to honor?
I am glad we have elections every four years, and I hope we return the great American tradition of the loser honorably walking away.
Of course those of us praying and working for a Harris victory will advocate unity and calm. That’s why we’re, you know, voting for Harris. Those are core values for us, even and especially if we lose.
If Trump “wins” in this faulty system of ours where someone can ascend to the presidency without winning a majority of the vote and where Republicans have been allowed to engage in a number of voter suppression tactics, I will call for mass protest, non-violent but vigorous and relentless, and I will not stop protesting until Trump is ousted from the presidency and forced to serve time because of his crimes and stand trial because of the indictments against him. If criminals are not allowed to vote, how can they be allowed to hold office? According to the Constitution, insurrectionists are not allowed to hold office. Trump should be disqualified on these grounds. The Constitution says, “we the people” and a minority can decide the presidency? That’s not democratic. That’s not legitimate. Trump has already been impeached twice. How can he be allowed to be president again? I will demand that our broken system be fixed and that the voice of the majority of the people be heard. I will never regard Trump as legitimate. I will never bow down and “unite” with crooks, cronies, liars, criminals, and fascists. I will stand and fight Trump and Trumpism until it is gone. Trump will destroy the Republic. He will corrupt the system even more. The Republic has to be fought for, or it will collapse.
For those who think it doesn’t matter who is in the presidents office. Let me point out a few things, which you will probably ignore because they don’t support trump.
world trade. Trump wants to put a tarrif on any imports from countries that export more to America than they import from America. Trump thinks a tarrif on Chinese goods is paid by China. It is paid by American consumers and will increase the price of those goods. Inflation.
Wars. He will not support Ukraine giving it to putin. The rest of NATO will continue to support it He will not limit Israel. The Middle East will go even further into war. Oil prices in the world will soar, and many Muslims will die.
America has treaties with most countries in the world. Trump will tear them up. NATO for example. America has a treaty with Australia to defend each other. Can we defend ourself without it?
I have been in hospital recently, most of the hospital staff were migrants. If Trump deports 11 million migrants, what services will be destroyed? Will you still have a hospital system?
THE ENVIRONMENT is at a point of no return. Co2 stays accumulating in the atmosphere and the climate will become more extreme throughout the world. Much of the third world will become uninhabitable. More desperate migrants. And in 4 years will not be able to recover. Most of the first world will not trade with a country not trying to keep its Paris commitments, so trump destroys world trade, and can not trade with the first world. More hurricanes, more floods, more droughts, more heat waves, more forest fires, more extreme cold, more destroyed infrastructure.
It does matter who you vote for. TRUMP WILL DO SO MUCH DAMAGE TO THE WORLD. These are the things I could think of of the top of my head, there will be more.
Brad D: The electoral college is stupid, but it is the system we have. If Trump wins the electoral college while losing the popular vote, then he won. I won’t be happy about it, but those are the rules. To insist otherwise is to reject the rule of law. There have been 19 presidential elections where the winner didn’t receive a majority of the votes, including “winners” such as Lincoln, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton. You probably mean to be railing against those who win without a plurality. (Majority = more than half; Plurality = more than anyone else) That’s happened 5 times, most recently with Trump’s win in 2016. (Side note: JQ Adams lost the popular vote by more than 10% in 1824! Wild times.) By the way, 538 says there is about a 0.1% chance that Harris loses the popular vote, but wins the election. Would you protest that?
By all means, protest and advocate for change. I’d love to get rid of the electoral college. We should let citizens living in territories vote. I’d also prefer that felons be able to vote. There are ways to make all of these changes. Some require passing laws, some require amending the constitution. But until that happens (and if you can figure out how to make it happen, I’ll happily support the changes), the rules are the rules. Declaring election results illegitimate because you don’t like the rules is not the way to go.
[For those who are curious, in DC, ME and VT felons can vote from jail. In 23 more states, felons can vote once they are out of jail. In another 15 states felons regain their voting rights eventually, generally once parole, probation, fines and restitution are settled. In the final 10 states it tends to vary based on the nature of the crime, but even in those states many felons are eventually able to vote again.]
While I don’t much care for either candidate for President….or for politics in general….I’ve decided to vote for Trump; and dedicate my vote to Dave B. I find that in making this decision – I’m feeling quite gratified – in that I know that Trump lives in Dave’s head (rent free) 24/7 and that (perhaps) as his incessant political articles have driven me to distraction this past year…knowing that my vote may cause him some distress……brings me peace.
I already shared my thoughts on the Republican nominee, so I won’t say further on that topic.
But please let me share that I support our electoral college system. This forum is probably not the place to explain why in detail, but the electoral college is not the problem — indeed, the electoral college solves many problems that would otherwise exist.
Fighting Trump and the electoral college at the same time splits the vote, so to speak, divides the issue, and distracts from what is really important — today, a friend of our republic should focus solely on defeating Trump.
At least, that is my perspective. For now, the electoral college is our system, and I support our system and I want Trump to be defeated within our constitutional system.
Brad D: Trump’s been extremely effective at exploiting the gaps in our laws. Personally, I do think felons should be allowed to vote (and roughly 50% of states agree, once a felon’s sentence is complete), but I agree with you that allowing people to use running for office as a way to avoid legal accountability is a huge problem that apparently wasn’t foreseen well enough to eliminate the possibility. Nixon had the good sense to be ashamed enough of being caught that he resigned, although it helped that his party was willing to hold him accountable and found him to be an embarrassment in the end. Not so with Trump. Nobody is holding him accountable in his party, and he is utterly shameless.
lefthandloafer
Spite voting would imply that Dave B lives rent free in your head. Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?
DaveW, you’re right. The undemocratic Electoral College is the system we have in place that allows presidential candidates to unjustly rise to power without getting the most votes in an election. I’m fine with pluralities or runoffs. But the electoral college is an unjust system that we must fight against. I believe all elections where a candidate seized power with a minority of votes to be legally illegitimate, meaning enabled by unjust laws. If Harris got fewer votes than Trump but won the electoral college (which won’t happen), I would still call for its abolition. That said I would still call for Trump to be disqualified for being an insurrectionist, his two impeachments, his repeated violations of the Constitution, and his criminal conviction. He should step down immediately, serve his sentence, and stand trial for impending indictments.
ji, the electoral college system has led to the divided political climate we have today, for it has created several legitimacy crises in cases where a winner of the majority of the vote was denied the presidency in 2000 and 2016. There is no reason we can’t get rid of it and with immediacy, too. We’ve changed the Constitution several times in the past over the vote, and rightly so, we need to do it again. I too would prefer Trump be defeated with Harris getting the majority in the electoral college, but if Trump gets the majority electoral college vote and loses the majority, I would favor strong and immediate action based on the argument that the majority of Americans voted for Harris for the electoral college to be abolished then and there and for Harris to assume power. Who would take that action? All three branches of government. It won’t happen. But it should. The Founding Fathers and Civil Rights Heroes all talked of combatting unjust laws. The American Revolution was based on fighting unjust laws, as was the Civil Rights Movement. Trump’s installment into power with all he’s said and done would be an utmost injustice and we all know that. We must fight that. And peaceful revolutionary activity to do so would be justified.
Personally, I think the Senate is a bigger issue. California and New York State hold 17.4% of the US population. California has the fifth highest GDP in the world. New York has the 10th. We have 4 Senators between us.
The other 82.6% of the population have 96% of the representation in the Senate. 365 days in the year as opposed to the influence the electoral college — which is also undemocratic — operates once in 4 years.
BradD, I know that many will not agree with me here, but we must remember our history. The electoral college has served a legitimate purpose, and I think continues to serve one. Our republic is a collection of states, and it is states, not the people, who elect our president. The Founding Fathers did not want two or three states with large populations to dominate, so the states, not the people, are instrumental in electing both the Senate (as alice correctly notes) and the President. Our republic was designed to avoid true democracy, or the rule of the mob, or the dictatorship of the people. It should take more than 50% + 1 to get things done–this is intentional. If Harris wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, unlike you I will not “favor strong and immediate action based on the argument that the majority of Americans voted for Harris for the electoral college to be abolished then and there and for Harris to assume power.” This is a denial of the rule of law, and makes you sound pretty Trumpist.
If we decide to eliminate the electoral college following the process outlined in the Constitution, note that neither the President nor the Courts would play any role, and frankly neither would the American people at large. It is up to the Congress first, and then up to the states, whether it be by their legislatures or by popular vote within that state (but the popular votes of all the states together doesn’t matter). At least that is how I understand the process. Let’s get through this election, and then if there is desire Congress can start the issue of abolishing the electoral college, but I wouldn’t advocate deposing a lawfully elected Trump (if he is so elected) and enthroning Harris. I want a clean and lawful election, with the vice president functioning only in a ministerial capacity when the votes are counted in early January.
I found the NPVIC intriguing (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). There is a group of states (some red, some blue) and DC who have created a compact to cast their electoral votes for whoever wins the national popular vote. This is a way to get from the current electoral college system to one that truly represents the will of the people. There are 17 states participating, and they constitute 209 electoral votes, 39% of the electoral college. I’m still thinking through the implications of this effort, but it’s an interesting idea that’s been gaining steam since it was introduced in 2006. In 2014, it was just blue states willing to participate, but since 2016, red & swing states have signed on, including Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri, and Georgia. However, it’s still questionable whether it can work or will be challenged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Of course, you’ve got Trump & Mike Johnson hinting that they are going to refuse to certify a Harris win, so any way you slice it we’re screwed. I am so sick and tired of these shenanigans.
Every election that rolls around is heralded as the most consequential election of our lifetime (at least until the next one). It won’t be.
Harris getting elected will mark some major milestones demographically but will otherwise be a pretty predictable Democratic presidency. She’ll get heat from the far left for being too moderate and get heat from the right for all the usual things. She hopefully learned a lot from Biden’s long experience in government – whether or not you like Biden, he’s undeniably good at navigating the machinery of Washington.
Watching Trump try to run the government again will be like watching that slobby neighbor in flannel pants curse and spit while trying to start his sputtering old lawnmower on Saturday morning. There will be a lot of noise, a little smoke, and minimal grass mowed. Trump will try to take on some important issues like illegal immigration, issues with China, etc. But ultimately he’ll be hampered by his inability to retain top talent and his love of flattery, which will force him to staff his administration with untalented sycophants.
There’s essentially zero chance that Trump will go full dictator (or even try) – being a dictator is hard, and he’s just not smart or shrewd enough to pull it off. In general he’s just too old, chaotic, and uncreative.
Be informed, go vote for Coke or Pepsi. But state and local elections generally have more much more direct impact on our lives and communities than whoever ends up in the White House. This is especially true with the supreme court throwing things like abortion back to the individual states. Also, many jurisdictions are trying out improved voting methods, and getting those to stick is critical – non-partisan primaries and ranked choice voting will do more to save American democracy than any single president.
Dave B:
As per commitment noted above – I’ve just mailed my completed ballot, wherein I voted for Trump: and on the outside of the envelope wrote “For Dave B”.
I suppose this could be called a “Revenge Vote”. Enjoy.
It’s interesting that a couple commenters are exhibiting some of the negativity that Trump embodies: it’s not enough to vote; it’s necessary to injure someone in the process. And that leeching into the fabric of America from the Chief S___-Stirrer is what alarms some of us the most.
Dave B, I’m sure you can rise above. I hope, in the long run, we all survive it and learn better. Religion might have been what could have helped us all heal but it seems to have become one more weapon in the arsenal these days. ::sigh::
Hawkgirl, NPVIC all the way.
Since its inception, the US has inspired much of the world’s nation-states to adopt elements of its system. No one has ever adopted the electoral college. No one has ever thought that this is great idea to implement in their countries. Winning throughout all liberal democracies is determined by majorities and pluralities. The US states system served a purpose early on to create some semblance of unity among the colonies after independence. The US first adopted the Articles of Confederation, which was a complete disaster. In its place the US turned to federalism. And rightly so. Yet some elements of the confederation past continued to infect the US moving forward. The federal government was too weak to stop the US from lapsing into civil war in 1860, it was too weak to protect the freedoms of blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities for some time, and struggled for a long time to protect people’s rights to vote. At this juncture the federal government needs to strengthen its arm once again and make its elections system for the president fully federalized and protect the will of the people as a whole on who they choose as president. The Democrats have been incredibly patient with the presidents talking control without majority votes. If the shoe were on the other foot and Democrats were taking the presidency on minority voters, there would be violence on the streets and the US would be beating a second civil war. We know who many of these voters are, we saw them on Jan. 6, 2021. Abolishing the electoral college is the responsible thing to do to avert legitimacy crises and mass chaos.
Georgis,
“Our republic was designed to avoid true democracy, or the rule of the mob, or the dictatorship of the people.”
Oh so we’re a republic and not a democracy. That’s what people against civil rights used to say. A republic is a representative democracy. I’m not proposing that legislation be made by referenda and that everyone vote on every last issue. I’m proposing that people continue to elect representatives and that who represents us is determined by the vote of a majority or plurality of people as is the case in every state and every other liberal democracy on earth.
“This is a denial of the rule of law”
The rule of law was denied when Trump was allowed to run again in spite of participating in an insurrection. Article 14 of the Constitution is quite clear: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
Brad D, it may well be true that people opposed to civil rights used to say that we’re a republic and not a democracy, and yet it is still true. Just because bad people make a statement in support of an bad argument doesn’t make the statement bad. We are a democratic republic: we elect legislators who represent us, which is the definition of a republic: per one dictionary, “a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.” I think that defines us.
Your proposal, should Trump win the electoral college but lose the popular vote, to do everything possible to chase Trump from office and to put Harris in office seems to me to be a denial of the rule of law. That would be denying and working to overturn a legitimate election. As for the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that only Congress can enforce the insurrection provision. One may disagree with the Supreme Court’s logic, but it is the law of the land, and we are a country who espouses the rule of law. Congress passed an insurrection statute many years ago, I don’t believe that a single criminal charge of insurrection has been charged against Trump. He has certainly not been convicted of insurrection by any court to my knowledge, and in our system one is generally held to be innocent before conviction. So the insurrection argument doesn’t appear to have any legal merit, but I’m no attorney. I get that you feel viscerally that he should be disqualified, but I respectfully don’t see that your argument wins under our law. The best way to keep Trump from office is to vote for Harris, and for her to win in the electoral college.
I couldn’t read the Atlantic article, but I did go to it and saw the picture of Trump Utah’s Senator Lee. Senator Lee seems to want to be a Captain Moroni figure, saving our people from destruction, but his Trumpish sycophantism almost turns my stomach. Heaven help us if he’s appointed as Attorney General or to the supreme court. That alone might be an excellent reason to vote for Harris.
Georgis, my argument was that the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches all act in tandem to make the winner of the majority of votes the president in the event that Trump wins without the popular vote. Don’t they all together determine what is legal and constitutional? If they all acted in one accord, it would be the rule of law, wouldn’t it? The reason would be to validate the will of the people and prevent further legitimacy crises in the US. Not to mention bar a criminal and insurrectionist from talking office. But I’m arguing what should happen. Even if I’m quite sure it won’t.
Furthermore, you’re arguing that my idea is Trumpist. How? Trump incited violence to overturn an election where he lost the majority vote. My proposal is nonviolent and involves all three branches of government to prevent a dictator and insurrectionist from seizing power again. So nice try. But your gotcha failed. And you still don’t appreciate the danger at stake.
There’s always someone, it seems.
Insurrectionists were armed and broke through the Capitol building in several areas. They damaged and vandalized the building throughout. A number of insurrectionist coordinators were found guilty of seditious conspiracy. They posed threats to all members of Congress, particularly Democrats forcing all to go into hiding. I have no doubt in my mind that the insurrectionist in Nancy Pelosi’s would have seriously hurt or even killed Representative Pelosi given the chance. They insurrectionists routinely cited Trump as the reason they were there. Trump did nothing to call them off.
grizzerbear, you and other Trump voters on here breathe in so much misinformation and lies it is truly sad. I’m happy to talk with any Trump voter and convince them of the error of Trump’s and MAGA’s ways. But so many are lost in some sort of angry irrational frenzy. It is tragic that they could be instrumental in the unraveling and destruction of the very country they claim to love. It is a phony sense of patriotism. You folks are driven by rage and hatred and delusion.
Brad D, I agree that what happened on January 6th was reprehensible. I am glad that many of the protestors who broke into the Capitol have been tried and convicted of various crimes, including seditious conspiracy, as you mentioned. I support these prosecutions and convictions.
Here’s what I don’t understand. There is a federal criminal statute that defines insurrection, passed by Congress in 1948 and amended in 1994. Our Department of Justice under President Biden has, if I am informed correctly (and I might not be), charged precisely zero people with insurrection. Is it possible–and I am not an attorney–that the smart attorneys in the Department of Justice looked at the statute on insurrection and determined that they could not properly bring a criminal charge of insurrection? I don’t have another explanation. I understand that Department of Justice policy is, and has been for some time, to charge the maximum number of crimes possible, and they have chosen not to charge any Jan 6 people with insurrection. While what happened was bad, is it possible that it does not rise to the crime of insurrection as defined by Congress? If yes, is it possible that we err when we call them insurrectionists? Should we find a term that fits? For example, I refuse to call an abortionist a murderer, because abortionists are not murderers.
Georgis, what term do you propose calling them? A Colorado judge in November 2023 found Trump “engaged in insurrection.” It became the basis for removing his name from the Colorado ballot by ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, although that ruling didn’t stand. I think there is a lot more to be explored from a legal standpoint when it comes to insurrection. I, too, am not an attorney, and I wouldn’t be able to engage the issue through legal argument. In the arenas of political science and history, however, this is insurrection through and through. Failed insurrection, but insurrection attempt no doubt. Trump and a group of his ardent supporters tried to illegitimately seize control of the government. I can’t see how that’s not insurrection.
I’ll add one more comment on the electoral college. Imagine if Trump won the majority vote and lost the electoral college. Do you think for one second that he and almost the entire Republican Party wouldn’t declare victory and proceed to install themselves back into the White House? They would push over the electoral college faster than Trump cries victim every time he’s criticized. So spare me outrage when I say that Democrats should use all legal mechanisms at their disposal to continue to hold executive power in the event that Harris wins the majority but loses the electoral college.
Georgis, this letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany on August 26, 1816 (easily found through google) refutes any notion that the founders considered the US not to be a democracy (bold added):
“In answer to your enquiry as to the merits of Gillies’s translation of the Politics of Aristotle, I can only say that it has the reputation of being preferable to Ellis’s, the only rival translation into English. I have never seen it myself, and therefore do not speak of it from my own knolege. but so different was the state of society then, and with those people, from what it is now & with us, that I think little edification can be obtained from their writings on the subject of government. they had just ideas of the value of personal liberty; but none at all of the structure of government best calculated to preserve it. they knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy, or a tyranny, independant of the people. it seems not to have occurred that where the citizens cannot meet to transact their business in person, they alone have the right to chuse the agents who shall transact it; and that, in this way, a republican, or popular government, of the 2d grade of purity, may be exercised over any extent of country. the full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was and is still reserved for us. the idea (taken indeed from the little specimen formerly existing in the English constitution, but now lost) has been carried by us, more or less, into all our legislative and Executive departments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the ramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing not responsible to the people: whose rights however to the exercise & fruits of their own industry, can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their controul at short periods. the introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost every thing written before on the structure of government: and in a great measure relieves our regret if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other antient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. my most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular controul pushed to the maximum of it’s practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure & perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations.”
Here, Jefferson does claim that the United States it not the full democracy of the Athenians, and acknowledges the shortcomings of this ancient system. However, he posits that the United States is a new system of representative democracy that is novel and superior to anything ever tried in government. The author of the Declaration of Independence himself and one of the greatest and most influential thinkers on government considered in 1816, after decades of hindsight of what had become of the US since 1776, the US to be a representative democracy and that it was his hope that this experiment “be pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise” in order to maintain the government in perpetuity. The idea that we’re a republic and not a democracy is a myth through and through, appealed to almost exclusively by the right-wing as a justification for 1) minority rule and 2) stripping minority groups of their freedoms and right to vote.
Brad D, maybe you’re talking semantics and trying to prove an argument where no disagreement exists. You acknowledge that we are not a pure democracy, as ancient Athens was. I did not claim that we were a republic. Rome was a republic, where some acted for others, but membership in their Senate was based on birth and wealth. What I said was that we are a democratic republic, where we have representatives who vote for the people, and who are answerable to the people. I gave one dictionary’s definition of a republic: “a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.” I think that describes us.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4). This doesn’t say that the federal government is a republic, but it suggests it since it is what the Constitution promises to all of the states. The Constitution never uses the term democracy. In a democracy, the people are supreme and their voice is the supreme law of the land. In our democratic republic, the will of the people is checked by the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution. Thus neither the people, nor the Congress on behalf of the people, may do anything that the majority wants. There are checks and balances in a republic, limits to which the people have consented, whereas in a democracy there can be no checks on the majority.
I think that we agree more than we disagree. I agree with Jefferson that our representative democracy is the best government ever established. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a republic:
(1) James Madison wrote in Federalist 39 in 1788, titled The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles: “The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.”
(2) George Washington wrote in 1783 in a letter to the States: “Nothing can illustrate these observations more forcibly than a recollection of the happy conjuncture of times and circumstances under which our Republic assumed its Rank among the Nations.” Clearly he was speaking about our United States.
(3) Abraham Lincoln thought we had a republic. He wrote in an 1861 letter: “You have kindly adverted to the trial through which this Republic is now passing. It is one of deep import. It involves the question whether a Representative republic, extended and aggrandized so much as to be safe against foreign enemies can save itself from the dangers of domestic faction. I have faith in a good result.”
(4) In his 1944 State of the Union Address, President Roosevelt said: “This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
(5) John F Kennedy, while senator running for president in 1960, gave a speech where he spoke about “the most difficult and dangerous time, that this Republic has ever faced,” and that our nation was “the youngest republic in the world in many ways.”
(6) In his 1963 speech at the Lincoln Memorial, the Rev. Martin Luther King said: “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir…”
(7) In 1980, Edward Kennedy addressed the Democratic National Convention, saying that the Democratic Party was “the largest political party in this republic.”
(8) In his speech dropping out of the presidential race on July 24, 2024, President Joe Biden said: “But whether we keep this republic is now in your hands. History is in your hands, power is in your hands. So let’s act together to protect our democracy.” Biden acknowledged that we have a republic, and that we have a democracy.
(9) Even Thomas Jefferson thought we had a republic. In an 1816 letter he wrote, while introducing a thought: “At the birth of our republic, I committed that opinion to the world…” He also wrote in the same letter: “their object is to secure self-government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the people.”
Lots of great Americans said that we have a republic, Jefferson among them. Jefferson wrote that we had a representative democracy and that we had a republic. He’s right on both counts. What we don’t have, as I wrote in my first post on this chain, is a “true democracy, or the rule of the mob, or the dictatorship of the people.” When most of us use the term democracy to describe our government, we accept the checks and balances that remove absolute power from fifty percent plus one. So I agree that we have a democracy, but we also have a republic. I think that you and I are in near perfect agreement.
Sorry to others for the length. I will bow out of this discussion!
Georgis:
I agree that we have both a representative democracy and a republic. I also understand all the definitions and history and the noble use of words to describe what we have. I used to think it was God-ordained and that it needed to stay the way it was written, but as I’ve studied both the Constitution and History more, I’ve come to the conclusion that while the Constitution may have been inspired by God, it had flaws. Its inability or unwillingness to deal with Slavery is one example, but it also caused ripple effects like the Electoral College to both get the Constitution to pass and “protect” the rights of smaller states, the minority. Since we know this now, I think we should fix it. A representative government makes perfect sense. Protecting the rights of minorities also makes sense, but using the power of the minority to rule over a majority is a problem that needs to be addressed.
You spent a lot of time arguing that the US is a republic. Yes. Of course. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. A republic is a form of representative democracy, as Jefferson indicates in the letter I attached. Still, however, you seem to be gunning for the argument that minority rule is inherently legitimate within a republican system, particularly when you write, “we accept the checks and balances that remove absolute power from fifty percent plus one.” 1) There is nothing inherent within a republican system that legitimates minority rule. 2) Minority rule is illegitimate since the president should be able to claim power by virtue of gaining more votes than any other person at a specified time. If the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would be toss aside the electoral college without hesitation. They have no scruples. They were the ones who said that President Obama couldn’t nominate a SCOTUS justice so close to an election and then crammed Amy Coney Barrett through right before the 2020 election. They would cast aside the electoral college in a heartbeat if it did not redound to their benefit, since they support so many unpopular positions and have so many unpopular, hated people leading their party. The electoral college system is nothing more than an antiquated relic that should be done away with. Still, my prediction is that Kamala will win and will win all swing states.
I like President Oaks view on this topic. In conference a couple years ago he said the constitution was designed so it could be changed. See “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution” April 2021.
The Book of Mormon, Mosiah 29:26 also encourages rule by the majority of the people.
“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.”
As someone outside the US the first thing you need is an electoral commission. They set electorate boundaries so they have close to the same number of voters throughout the country. They conduct the election, count the votes, and announce the winner. No question.
Instead of the electoral college how about the party with most members in congress appoints the president that way he /she will be able to get legislation passed.
You might also consider optional preferentional voting where you order contestants from 1 to. That way you can cast a protest vote but your vote will get to a major party if you want.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
I’m going to close comments on this thread now. With the election tomorrow, there will quickly be new election related topics to discuss and new posts at W&T to address them. See you there!