As 'Upper Houses' go, the US Senate is much more democratic than some - see for example the House of Lords in the UK, or the Senate in Ireland. Of course the US Senate does have stronger powers than either of those two.
 

Ah, yes, Democrats "gaming the system" and making things "less fair" by... increasing democracy. Puerto Rico is not even guaranteed to elect Democrats (link):

Here are the facts: Puerto Rico’s current governor is a Republican; the island’s lone representative in the U.S. House of Representatives is a Republican; the Speaker of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives and the President of the Puerto Rico Senate are both staunch conservative Republicans. The island has elected Republicans to statewide office in the past as well. The statehood movement as well as the local statehood party on the island were founded by members of the Republican Party.

I do agree that we will be seeing more political violence in the years ahead. Because of Republicans.
 

No, because of Azuriel and people like him. If you believe that your side can do no bad, and the other side can do no good, you are primed for civil war.

(And I said Washington DC, not Puerto Rico.)
 

I think Hawaii is a slightly better example than California, although even Hawaii has voted Republican (albeit not recently). Alaska voted Democrat in 1964.

The UK had a voting system which explicitly locked the majority of people out of voting for well over 200 years and was fairly stable in that time (more so than it was in the previous 200 years, certainly), so I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. Indeed almost all democratic countries could make similar claims (generally for slightly shorter times).
 

The biggest problem in the US is related to information....or more accurately, the vast level of disinformation disguised as news services. This has been going on since the Fairness Doctrine was terminated, and has been exploited consistently. The policies of Newt Gingrich and his era of reform in the GOP only made things worse. The voting issue is a scrambling attempt by the two party system to wrestle control in the midst of growing cultural rifts caused by a complete bifurcation of the population into two groups that are trapped in internet echo chambers and have lost their ability to empathize with the population as a whole.
 

(And I said Washington DC, not Puerto Rico.)

No you didn't. You text clearly says:

...like Washington D.C. or Puerto Rico...

Anyway, statistics is clearly in favor of Azuriel: as of right now we have one group of republicans fanboys using violence to attack political opponents vs zero for democrats. We'll see at the next elections.
 

Well, the left won now, so the right is using violence. When the right will win again, the left will use violence.

And there *was* left-wing political violence during the Trump administration, only that Democrats decided that the 19 deaths during those protests somehow don't count.
 

This 'left-wing political violence' had nothing to do with elections or their results but was instead a reaction to the killing of George Floyd. Indeed, it is quite conceivable that someone (a black person, perhaps) who leans Republican for economic and even cultural (e.g. religious) reasons might have felt outraged enough by police brutality to take part in it.

No 'left-wing political violence' that I'm aware of took place when Trump got elected in 2016, despite that election being very close and a massive, unexpected blow to a lot of people. No preparations for 'left-wing political violence' have been retroactively unearthed by the FBI in the eventuality of Trump winning again in 2020 - in contrast to the communications of right-wing extremists in the run up to the November vote.

And I have to echo what Azuriel says - Democratic political advantage happens to align with maximum enfranchisement. If we accept maximum enfranchisement as a good-in-itself, then Democratic and Republican political manoeuvres on this issue are not morally symmetrical. The only on-merits arguments Republicans have against more democracy are 'voter fraud', and 'felons shouldn't get to vote'. Voter fraud has been shown repeatedly as minuscule (see, e.g., Justin Levitt's research, and last year's survey by Goel et al in APSR) and all the very well-heeled right-wing think-tanks have been unable to offer a decent study to the contrary, instead perfecting the delivery techniques of emotive myths.

Felons not being allowed to vote is a value judgement, but most major democracies (the UK excepted) do allow convicted felons to vote without deleterious consequences.
 

@Tobold

It's a bit tricky when you start counting deaths occurring during nationwide protests against police brutality. For example, your link is light on details on the circumstances of the deaths. Meanwhile, the Wiki page has more context like this:

May 27: In Minneapolis, one mile (1.6 km) from the main protest site, Calvin Horton Jr. died after being shot at a pawn shop that was being looted.[48][49] The owner of the pawn shop was initially arrested in connection with incident, but he was later released without charges and the case remained open as of late June 2020.[89]

...And...

In Oakland, California, amid unrest, a Federal Protective Service officer, David Patrick Underwood, was fatally shot outside a federal courthouse in a drive-by attack that also wounded another guard.[53] Underwood had been providing security at the courthouse during a protest.[51] The Department of Homeland Security labeled the shooting an act of domestic terrorism.[94][54] Boogaloo movement member Steven Carrillo was charged with the murder on June 16. He was also implicated in the murder of a Santa Cruz County deputy. The white van allegedly used in the murder had "Boog" and "I became unreasonable" written in blood on the vehicle's hood. Investigators also found Boogaloo symbols including a ballistic vest with a US flag with an igloo instead of stars.[95]

Boogaloo is the opposite of left-wing, btw...

May 30
In St. Louis, Missouri, 29-year-old protester Barry Perkins died after being run over by a FedEx truck that was fleeing from looters.[55][56]
In Omaha, Nebraska, 22-year-old protester James Scurlock was fatally shot outside of a bar.[57] The shooter was Jacob Gardner, the bar-owner, who had a scuffle with some protesters and fired several shots, one of which killed Scurlock; the altercation outside and shooting were caught on surveillance video.[57] Two days later, authorities announced that there would be no charges for the bar's owner and that he had opened fire in self-defense. However, after pushback, the matter was referred to a grand jury for review.[58]

...and...

In Vallejo, California, Sean Monterrosa, a 22-year-old man, was shot and killed by police while on his knees. Monterrosa lifted his hands, which revealed a 15-inch hammer tucked in his pocket police said they mistook for a handgun. A police officer in a vehicle then fired on him five times through the windshield.[75] Monterrosa later died at a local hospital. The police were responding to a call over alleged looting at a Walgreens, according to police chief Shawny Williams.

So... shop owners killing looters is left-wing political violence? Cops killing protesters on their knees surrendering is left-wing political violence? Going through the list, there were indeed incidents when protesters killed counter-protesters. Maybe it's semantics, but I don't see that on the same level as groups who actively plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan though. To which the President of the United States said "maybe it's a problem, maybe it's not."

But, anyway, none of that is particularly relevant. What is relevant is that one political party is consistently trying to take away voting rights, promoting conspiracy theories about stolen elections, and unapologetically recruiting the support of white supremacists. There is not a "bOtH sIdEs!" on these points. Or perhaps you could enlighten us?
 

Azuriel, what I am trying to express here is not some sort of moral equivalence. If I had been living in the USA, I would have joined some of the more peaceful BLM protests. And I think America would be a better place right now if Trump had been indicted.

But I am not so blind to believe that "every Republican is evil", or "every Democrat is good". The one statement where "both sides" certainly is an absolute truth is that politicians from both sides over the years have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or up the skirt of their interns.

And most certainly I am not stupid enough to believe that two wrongs make a right. We can't allow Democrat politicians to do bad things with the argument that their Republican adversaries are doing even worse things. Yes, Democrats do *less* evil stuff that tries to game the American election system than Republicans do, but that doesn't mean that this is a good idea.

What America *should* do is to completely reform their election system to make every vote count equally, electing their president based on popular vote. That is unlikely to ever happen. Trying to get a system in place in which the shenanigans of unfairness in voting balance themselves out between Democrats and Republicans is a fool's errand, and can only result in political violence. I am absolutely certain already that the 2024 election will see more political deaths than 2020 did, and that without even knowing who the candidates will be.
 

@Tobold you write like someone who does not have to talk to hard core right wing citizens in the US every day, who are incredibly blind to the idea that their party or view could in any way, shape, or form be wrong on some level (or need reform). Meanwhile, the left is a seething mass of various groups who's only common alignment is that they are not on the left, and more than half of them do not even like the Democratic Party but tolerate it simply because it is the lesser evil in the two party system.

I am not entirely convinced (but I am getting there) that the electoral college is the villain here, and the recent attempt to contest the election shines a light on the real problem with a popular vote system (the electoral college was an effective innoculation against that attempt by the GOP to steal the election). But as I see it, a major issue here is actually our two party system, which bears no room for variance on the two sided coin of interests it represents.
 

Sorry, correcton: "Meanwhile, the left is a seething mass of various groups who's only common alignment is that they are not on the right,"...
 

As I am reading a wide range of sources from CNN to National Review, I’m not convinced that the right is actually more united than the left is. I think both left and right extremists hate politicians and only vote fir them because they are even more afraid of the other team’s politicians.
 

@Doctor Futurity you write like someone who does not have to talk to the hard core left wing citizens in the US every day, who are incredibly blind to the idea that their party or view could in any way, shape or form be wrong on some level.

People like you and Azuriel are who the moderates left and right are terrified of. We fear your blindness means you are working behind the scenes to create the Red Guard all over again. It's easy for everyone to clearly see the KKK and neo nazis, and know they are evil. They are out in the open and can be dealt with. It's the shadowy self righteous leftists who are trying to overthrow everything that are the real scary ones.
 

It's interesting to see how one side has some hard data, while the other materializes their paranoia:

Tobold:
Well, the left won now, so the right is using violence. When the right will win again, the left will use violence.

So you have no hard data, you didn't even read the link you put in that answer (contrary to Azuriel and me), but you still want to believe that it's what will happen. Believing it doesn't make it true.

BugHunter:
It's the shadowy self righteous leftists who are trying to overthrow everything that are the real scary ones.

Ah yes, the "leftists" which want to "overthrow everything". Got some example of that? I mean some REAL example? As with Tobold, no hard facts, just what you want to believe.
 

@Helistar: You truly believe what you said. That is why I'm afraid of you.

The fact you that you want to be feared is what makes you dangerous.

 

@Helistar: What kind of hard data do you want? There has been a lot of left wing political violence in America since 1968, you pick. And yes, there also has been a lot of right wing political violence in America. All I'm saying is that neither side is saints. That has nothing to do with "belief", that is just observation.

And yes, I count all death equally in political violence. I do count the deaths of rioters on January 6, not just the dead policemen, and I do count all deaths during the BLM protests.
 

@Tobold: well for example some kind of clearly political violence as the one observed during the last elections, complete with support from the leaders? Or the never-ending claims that the election was rigged without any proof?
Of course neither side is saints, but during Trump's presidency we had explicit support of white suprematists, do you have an equal example in the case of the left? And a recent one please, 1968 was 53 years ago.

I completely agree that all death count equal, there are no "good victims" and "bad victims", but when as an example of left-wing violence you link an article which lists death like:

"Marquis M. Tousant, 23, Iowa: Tousant was found dead at the same scene as Kelly, outside the Davenport Walmart, where authorities say a police ambush unfolded."

Where do you see a relation to left-wing violence here?

@BugHunter: ....and you avoid the question.
 

@Helistar: Somebody obviously made a connection, otherwise the entry wouldn’t be on that Wikipedia page about violence connected to the BLM protests. Or are you telling me that Wikipedia is a right-wing fake news outlet?

So why exactly aren’t you counting for example the Portland riots as political violence? Do you need links to the photos showing the protesters with their clearly political signs? Or are you saying that because Biden didn’t tell them to riot, this doesn’t count? For me it is pretty clear: There were left-wing political protests, some of the protesters weren’t peaceful, things escalated, looting happened, some people got killed. If Republicans “steal the vote” of these people, they will be on the streets again, and there will be deaths again.
 

@Tobold: the problem with your answer is the last phrase: again you're mixing real facts with your projections.

I find that the trigger for the BLM protests was racial and not political, but I agree with this: For me it is pretty clear: There were left-wing political protests, some of the protesters weren’t peaceful, things escalated, looting happened, some people got killed.

But the following answer is you imagining things: If Republicans “steal the vote” of these people, they will be on the streets again, and there will be deaths again.

When Trump was elected I don't remember Obama going around claiming anything of the kind and I don't remember left-wing violence against government seats.
 

@Helistar: You are right, it is a projection. In 2016 we had a relatively mild "not my president". In 2020 we had the far more serious "stop the steal" and the January 6 riots. Seeing how today partisanship is only getting worse and worse, I think it is a very reasonable projection that whoever side loses the 2024 election will claim the result to be invalid, and political protests will happen.
 

Seeing how today partisanship is only getting worse and worse, I think it is a very reasonable projection that whoever side loses the 2024 election will claim the result to be invalid, and political protests will happen.

A projection with all the mathematical elegance of 'on average, a human being has an ovary and a testicle'.

The two sides are not qualitatively equal, or even similar. Any analysis that treats them as such lacks predictive and explanatory power.

Incidentally, your prescription for fixing the problem (presidency via popular vote and, dare I assume, some impartial committee of statisticians/psephologists to draw Congressional district borders) is wildly left-wing by American standards. It would ensure Democratic dominance of the federal government (if not most state legislatures) until the Republican party reoriented itself to survive, in effect shifting the American Overton Window a significant distance to the left.
 

/i “ The two sides are not qualitatively equal, or even similar. Any analysis that treats them as such lacks predictive and explanatory power.”

Every civil war starts with the assumption that the other side is not qualitatively equal, or even similar. It is *your* words about the other side that confirm my suspicion that your side would find a justification for political violence.
 

> Every civil war starts with the assumption that the other side is not qualitatively equal, or even similar. It is *your* words about the other side that confirm my suspicion that your side would find a justification for political violence.

So, do you think that the northern states were wrong in the civil war of 1861-1865, and the southern states should have been left to freely enslave millions of people?

Or... to take another example, the Dutch were clearly wrong in their revolt and civil war against the Spanish that started in 1568, because they were probably just as bad as the Spanish inquisition.
So, there should be no independent countries Belgium and Netherlands, and those lands should still belong to the Spanish empire.
 

First of all, the US civil war was about the question of secession, and only in 1865 did the north decide that freeing slaves would be a consequence.

Second, you really scare me if you compare today's Republican party with slaveholders (especially given that during the civil war they were the abolitionist party). And again, you thinking like that enforces my belief that this will end in violence.

99% of voters for the Republican party are indistinguishable from 99% of the voters for the Democrats. They are holding a lot of the same values. They disagree on some issues, but non of those issues raise to the moral equivalence of slavery. It is by blowing up these political differences with hyperbole to a "Nazis vs. Communists" level that political violence is created.
 

> First of all, the US civil war was about the question of secession, and only in 1865 did the north decide that freeing slaves would be a consequence.

The emancipation proclamation was issued on September 22, 1862.
Besides, the main reason for the secession was the disagreements between the sates on the topic of slavery, and the fear of the southerners that the election of president Lincoln will lead to legislation against slavery.

> today's Republican party with slaveholders (especially given that during the civil war they were the abolitionist party)

Today's Trumpian Republican party has almost nothing in common with the Republican party from the time of Lincoln.
The parties have more or less switched their positions on race following the civil rights movement, when the southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) left the Democratic party and went into the Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

I agree that there is a high risk of more political violence in the coming years.
But - is it possible for just one side to deescalate it, if the other side continues to escalate it?
In the 2000 election, Bush win was based on just 537 votes after the Florida recount was stopped by the Republican-dominated Supreme Court. But the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, gracefully accepted defeat in the name of unity of the nation. Compare that to the 2020 election when Trump is still upholding the lie that the election was "stolen" and that he is the legitimate president. That lie was the direct cause of the January 6th violence.




 

First of all, the US civil war was about the question of secession, and only in 1865 did the north decide that freeing slaves would be a consequence.

The trigger for this 'question' in 1860 was the election of Lincoln, who was an avowed abolitionist. Though he was in favour of restriction and gradual elimination of slavery (more carrot than stick, really), most of the slave-owning states felt sufficiently threatened economically and politically to secede. To hold that the issue of slavery was an afterthought in the Civil War is... unusual, and I invite you to read the contemporary declarations of immediate causes of secession drafted by the Confederate states. For a representative example, here is the preamble from the Mississippi declaration, 1861:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

99% of voters for the Republican party are indistinguishable from 99% of the voters for the Democrats.

99%! Most reassuring, though slightly contrary to your earlier assertion that partisanship is getting worse and worse and reaching some generic boiling point.

Of course, it's not true, in very literal demographic terms. There remains a commonality at the centre, but on nearly every axis - urban/rural, young/old, diverse/white, more-educated/less-educated, female/male - the parties are arranged as opposites. This duality extends to things like veneration of toughness, belief in the rightness of taking up arms against perceived tyranny, a fondness for guns, a sense of ownership of America that is threatened by change. These traits are present on the right and simply not replicated on the left.

As to the seriousness of the differences... I suppose your mileage may vary. Deliberate disenfranchisement of black people is not quite the same as slavery, but it is quite bad. Excluding trans people from civil rights protections (especially around medical issues) is quite bad. The policy of deliberate family separations at the border to discourage immigration is quite bad. These are things that go beyond genteel arguments over market vs planned economies or what to put in an infrastructure bill.
 

@Tobold: I'm sure that after the next elections we'll have the chance to talk about the result here and see who is right. My prediction is the opposite of yours: if Democrats lose they'll accept the result and not push their voters into violence. And they'll condemn it clearly if it happens.

(the last point is somewhat important: if you've followed demonstrations in Europe you know that independently of right or left, there's a fringe which infiltrate both to use the chaos for looting, which is why in addition to looking at what happens I also look at who's supporting or condemning it)