We are going through a strange and unexpected (but in some ways not unprecedented) era in the history of American politics. The strangeness is mostly about Donald Trump and his supporters who, one might say, are so determined to “win” elections that they are willing to undermine basic features of the U.S. system of politics and elections, as evolved, to rig the system for Trump or whoever takes over the leadership of the Trumpist movement, whatever the heck that stands for and is or will become.
Hang on to that little aside in the sentence above, the one that said “as evolved,” so I can bring up, in my self-appointed capacity as both a history nerd and a Constitution nerd, a few lesser-known historical features of our system of politics and government.
Did you know, for example, that the United States Constitution, from its beginning and until today, does not require a popular election in connection with the choice of a president. The 1787 Constitution merely said (and still says):
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
Note, there is no constitutional requirement of a popular vote involving the ordinary citizens of any state. In fact, many states in the early days skipped the popular vote. And that was perfectly constitutional. Legislatures in those states would just “appoint” a slate of electors who would cast the only votes that mattered (what we now call the “electoral votes”).
I assume that any state that nowadays decided not to hold a popular vote in a presidential election year would cause a big negative backlash, bordering on scandal. But, in the immediate post-Trump moment, it’s possible that the Trumpiest of legislators may be wondering whether they could get away with it. Scandal or no, it would be consistent with the constitutional language, according to your humble and obedient nerd.
In fact, in states that in the early years did not hold a popular election for president, the electors (under the Electoral College system) would be chosen directly by the state legislatures without direct input from average citizen-voters.
Gradually, allowing at least the white, male property owners to cast a vote for a presidential candidate became the new normal (although still not a constitutional requirement). The last holdout was South Carolina, one of the 13 original states, which did not hold a popular election in connection with the choice of a president until the 1868 election, the 21st presidential election in U.S. history, in the strange days of so-called Reconstruction immediately after the Civil War. And that was almost a full century into the constitutional era.
But the Constitution, as I mentioned, has never been amended to require a popular vote in a presidential election year.
The normative pressure to hold such an election would be pretty powerful, and I have no idea how a state that tried to skip the whole messy and annoying popular election thing would fare. Poorly, I hope.
But as far as anyone can tell, the Trumpist element is not going away quietly. And in their efforts to rig things for Trump or whoever succeeds him in the leadership of his cult, they have not exactly felt bound by mere norms, including the norm of allowing the ordinary voters of each state to decide how its electoral votes would be awarded.
In fact, when you hear some of the buzz about those purplish red states in which Republican legislatures or state officials are concerned about what might happen next time, you can get the idea that a Republican-controlled Legislature, unhappy with the outcome of the 2024 vote in their state, might assert some weird version of their ancient right to ignore the voters and just award the state’s electoral votes to the Republican ticket even in contradiction of the outcome of the popular vote.
Is that where we are now?
“Is that where we are now?”
Probably not. Just because you fear such a possibility does not make it likely nor possible.
As for Repubs trying to game the system, Dems are hardly less willing to break the rules. Meanwhile Dems have long forgotten how to organize, nor even to speak to the economic concerns of regular people.
That said, Dems mostly misread “Trumpism” and what it really represents, which is a backlash against politics as usual of the past 40 years that has been so devastating to wage earning people, specifically, global trade benefiting corporations and their executive and salaried staff and investors, and billionaires, at the expense of wage earning Americans; tacit acceptance of illegal immigration keeping wages low; and the vast expansion of the regulatory state that benefits corporations and monopoly at the expense of small business.
Probably not?
Think about this for a moment. We’re talking about the hallmark of our democracy. The thing that most separates us from dictatorships around the globe. And you (as well as others) come up with a resounding, emphatic, unambiguous, decisive “probably not”.
But you’re right. Given the suggestions (and at least one attempt) in the last election to have state legislatures appoint electors, given recently passed and proposed laws to give state legislatures power over the choice of electors and the election process (Georgia, Texas, Arizona), a “probably not” is the best we can do.
Regardless of the beginnings of “Trumpism” – and you left out the racism and xenophobia – what it stands for now is the subversion of democracy.
“Regardless of the beginnings of “Trumpism” – and you left out the racism and xenophobia – what it stands for now is the subversion of democracy.”
It is most interesting to me that Democrats do not acknowledge that Trump in 2020 got 26% of the minority vote, and his numbers improved in every ethnic category from 2016…except white men.
There is Trump, and then there is the portrayal of Trump in the media. Your quote is more the media version than the reality among the majority of his voters. That said, Trump merely was the first politician to tap into the economic discontent of the majority of citizens, which will define the next generation of elections, which politicians tap into that who are not so easily demonized by the media – or contrarily, that media demonization improving their numbers because there is so little faith remaining in legacy media.
You really are quite the conspiracy theorist, all these little hardware stores are in a big cabal with the grocery stores and the flower shops and the convenience stores, mom and pop restaurants, gas stations, lawn mowing, in every state across the entire country, etc. etc. etc!
If expressing the reality that our laws facilitate consolidation and monopoly and investment money, while effectively penalizing employment by taxing it more than any other thing, then yeah, I guess I am a conspiracy theorist.
Now go and ask ANY small business owner, what is their greatest complaint about trying to run a small business in America, and I will bet you just about anything, the two most prominent answers will be the cost of employment (usually about 150% the cost of wages) and excessive regulation.
Benefits (mostly medical) as a part of compensation rather than social welfare is an American phenomenon. Of course, Europeans pay higher taxes to cover benefits provided by their governments.
And without regulation, their liability insurance would cost more.
The interesting thing is that if the situation in the US today were presented as happening in some other country, it would be taken as evidence that the other country is not a real democracy.
“The constitution calls for elections that are theoretically democratic, but the rulers of the country have the discretion to disregard results that meet with their disapproval and to install their own candidates. Members of the Big-endian Party have also implemented electoral measures to ensure that no opposition party has a realistic chance of winning an election.”
One of the mysteries of January 6th was what was Trump actually getting at? What was the scenario that he wanted that he never got to? He wanted the vote interrupted, but what then? No one knew then, and I don’t think there is much reason to think we will evern know what Trump had in mind, assuming he had anything in mind at all.
Going forward to 2024, I am not much worried that any state will try to foreclose voting altogether, and provide for the legislature to choose the electors. What does concern me more is that by 2024, confidence in our electoral system will have been so undermined that the legislatures will feel free, to discard the votes and send electors of their own choosing to the electoral college. The stage for that is being set now in the rhetoric we are hearing. We are now told that what actually happened is less relevant than what we think might have happened. That confidence in the honest our electoral process is more important than whether our elecgtions are actually honest. And that however honest they might be, we can throw away the results if we choose to think they are not honest.
Your argument is the same as saying that the economic stagnation of wages and benefits the majority of Americans of all races have had to deal with for 40+ years means nothing. It reinforces the economic status quo. Calling it a social issue only is an argument used by elite of both parties to divide working people and disempower them.
How then do you explain his earning 26% of the minority vote in 2020? They were certainly not motivated by a “changing culture”. So then is it possible that not EVERY white person who voted for him did so out of fear of a changing culture, that just maybe a lot of them were angry and are angry about being treated like they and their economic concerns don’t matter?
I’m interested in your source for the 26% of “minority” voters you say voted for T****.
Pew Research has one of the most thorough assessments of the 2016 vote, but I can’t tell what “minority” would mean in all their slices and groupings by college education, gender, urban rural, age and consistent ideology…
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
40% of voters did not vote. Education level seems to be the most significant stat for predicting support for a candidate.
Where did you get your analysis?
Here is an interesting article from the BBC breaking down the increase in the minority vote he got from 2016-2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54972389
Here is MSN breaking it down as well.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-wins-highest-percent-of-nonwhite-voters-of-any-republican-in-60-years-doubles-lgbtq-support-from-2016-exit-poll/ar-BB1aJJJS
You seem not to understand that there is a segment of the non-white vote which is xenophobic as well. Since the main publicly-stated policy position of Trumpism is anti-immigrant sentiment, these (mostly male) non-whites responded to this, just as While Nationalists did. This is the actual draw of Trumpism.
Your idea that “Trump is the first politician to tap into the economic discontent of the majority of citizens” ignores most of US history, unfortunately. And the idea that Trump and Trumpism benefited “working people” and not just plutocrats is so counter to the actual evidence that no response is really necessary. Hell, in the last month of his regime Trump’s Treasury issued new rules aiding the taxation concerns of “private equity” barons! That’s rightwing “populism” for you, WHD!
More like a changing demographic.
The dominant ‘people of color’ (Hispanics) has become economically and culturally varied; many of them categorize themselves as ‘white’ and tend towards Republican economic sentiments.
Mr. Duncan would be well-served by reading Heather Cox Richardson’s “How the South Won the Civil War.” I’m inclined to agree with his railing against the takeover of most of the wheels of government by the plutocracy – and it’s a truism that any and every group that comes into political power makes rules that benefit itself, so the wealthy have, naturally enough, devised rules that benefit them – but the devil is in the details, and I part ways with Mr. Duncan on many of those. Just for starters, the notion that Trump and his cronies somehow represent the economic interests of “ordinary Americans” and not the plutocracy is laughable. One need only look at who benefits (by far) from the single legislative achievement of the Trump administration – the massive tax cut provided to the upper 1% and corporations with 500 or more employees. Beyond that, Trump is merely a garden-variety racist, misogynistic thug, like innumerable criminal figures of both fact and fiction. If Trump got 26% of the votes of people of color, it’s merely a demonstration of the effectiveness (not the truth, but the effectiveness) of right wing propaganda, and in case Mr. Duncan haven’t noticed, 26% is a small portion of the votes in question. Not infinitesimal, but a small portion, nonetheless.
Ray, I have never said Trump and his cronies represent working people, or have their best interests in mind. I have said that Trump is the first politician who tapped into the deep economic discontent among working people, which discontent the media and most politicians assiduously ignore. Just because you think so poorly of Trump’s does not invalidate that discontent, and it will not go away because Trump lost 2020.
As for 26% of the minority vote is not a small portion, it is 1 invert 4 minority voters. So either they are propagandized and mistaken or they see something in his message that isn’t what the media would represent. It at the very least puts holes in the general theory that Trump voters were ONLY motivated by racism, bigotry and misogyny.
To repeat: “If Trump got 26% of the votes of people of color, it’s merely a demonstration of the effectiveness (not the truth, but the effectiveness) of right wing propaganda, and in case Mr. Duncan haven’t noticed, 26% is a small portion of the votes in question. Not infinitesimal, but a small portion, nonetheless.”
I confess I don’t agree that Trump somehow “tapped into the economic discontent” of millions of voters. Were that the case, those voters would have seen – and would have demanded – more benefit from Trumpist policies. Let’s try to imagine the Trumpist response to several thousand left-wing demonstrators, especially from large urban area – led by leaders or spokespersons for people of color as well as whites – who have likewise been left behind by the funneling of wealth to the top 1%. I think it more likely that Trump tapped more obviously (meaning without subtlety, using fewer “dog whistles”) into the racism and misogyny that’s been part of the campaigns of other recent Republican candidates, and part of the mind set of a portion of the public, going back at least to Ronald Reagan’s pejorative “welfare queen.”
It’s an interesting irony that Jennifer Carnahan, of Korean descent, is the current head of a state political party that’s hostile to both immigrants and women, a party in which a sizable portion of the membership would prefer that she not be here at all, much less in a position of influence. The cognitive dissonance she has to deal with would be pretty depressing if it were me.
In 2016, there was a populist surge on the Left and the Right, and the two leading candidates were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Not a few of those who would have voted for Bernie, disgusted by the DNC and Media treatment of Bernie, effectively fixing the process in Ms Clinton’s favor, voted for Trump. Probably one of the reasons he didn’t win 2020 was he didn’t get that Bernie bounce, even though even the Intelligence community joined the DNC and Media and Obama and Clyburn, to shut Bernie out.
I suspect had the DNC and Media not fixed the primary, Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016. But then I suspect many liberal moderates hate Bernie even more than Trump, so maybe not.
Otherwise Biden has an opportunity to really do something for working people. If he fails though, my guess is the minority vote for Republicans, if there is a Trump-like candidate who is more about economics than social issues, might continue to climb, which would be a problem for Dems. Particularly if all this anti-racism talk does not lead to economic gains for the average working poor black person.
I didn’t know that the primary was broken.
As for Bernie not getting the nomination; mainstream parties seldom nominate extreme positions, particularly when the person is not even a member of their party.
June 15th, still Trump talk. Just as I predicted months ago. Feel free to look it up…
Strangely, I did not see any response by you to the recent Jeanette Rankin piece at EB Ink, Tom.
As for your vaunted crystal ball, Trump’s unprecedented refusal to go away (unlike all past presidents) and his party’s dedicated indentured servitude to him pretty much decrees the “Still Trump!” news environment…
Didn’t read it, I just check in about monthly to see if it is still all Trump all the time.
I don’t really associate with any party but you know the saying about assuming… The former President has been banned from tweeting and the only reason people still talk about him is because the media (including the author) are floundering without being able to write about him every day. The meal ticket should be over, but with ratings and readership tanking , our media continue to force feed us Trump. As if there is nothing else in the whole wide world to talk and write about. Former President Trump is over, just like you wanted. Why won’t you let him go?
Maybe people are talking about him because he has so far managed to escape accountability for things like January 6. The Republicans in Congress whom you support/don’t support are pretending they don’t hear anything about it, and some have even managed to convince their more gullible supporters that, all evidence to the contrary, it was just a harmless lark by a few tourists.
Maybe people are talking about him because we are waiting to see the outcome of the criminal investigations against him in Georgia and New York.
Maybe people are still talking about him because he is still worshipped and glorified by a substantial part of what used to be a political party but which has now devolved into an authoritarian personality cult.
Maybe people will stop talking about him when there is accountability. Unless/until that happens, yes, let’s remind Americans of the lawless lowlife who was installed as President.
Yes, Repubs will not be ready in 2024 to take any state back to 1792. And I think that almost all states now have laws that require there be a popular vote for president (and senators), so that’s a further restraint on such 1792 dreams and schemes. But there is no doubt that heavily gerrymandered Repub legislatures in purple states (WI, MI, PA, GA, AZ, perhaps NC) will be looking at all possible ways to disregard their state’s popular vote for president in 2024.
So the main thrust of Mr Black’s piece is certainly correct: today’s Repubs will utilize and deploy every anti-democratic mechanism that is contained in the sclerotic constitution of 1789 to manufacture rule by minority faction. And the democratically-illegitimate “conservative” Supreme Court super majority installed by Trump and McConnell’s Minority will back whatever anti-voter scheme that the Repub party elects to pull.
Today’s “conservatives” are pulling at the seams of the constitution so hard that it must tear under the pressure. They are doing everything they can to bring it into disrepute and disdain, because they desire power much more than they revere the idea of democracy. (Cue now the “it’s a republic, not a democracy” blather…)
The fact that perhaps 70 million Americans believe the last election was stolen and that so many Republican legislators are acting on that lie to pass laws sabotaging the right to vote in the next election tells me that the Spirit of Liberty and Democracy has died in the hearts of these Americans. The Constitution can only be a false hope to save this country. I’m reminded of a speech by Judge Learned Hand, on May 21, 19444-“I Am An American Day” -in New York City’s Central Park:
“I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few – as we have learned to our sorrow.”
Couldn’t have said it better. It wasn’t just his Hand that was Learned.