I would like to see you take a few steps back, Sam, and put out an initial entry (to be updated from time-to-time) that discusses some set of core values that you would like to see represented in a "good" democracy. I would particularly like to see commentary on how the system set up by the founders might conflict with those values.
For example, should every decision for the U.S. be made at the federal level and reflect what 50+delta percent of the voters would want? If Texas wants to be gun permissive and abortion banning, and California wants to be gun banning and abortion permissive - should the state with more people get to inflict its will on the other? But, more generally, what framework should we look to when answering that question?
Often I see you write a great detailed piece of "if we-do-x then we-get-y" followed by an unclear leap about why y is good or bad and thus supporting or opposing x ... but leaving me a little bit confused about the value judgement on y.
Thanks for the taking a closer look at the partisan implications of Moore v Harper (NC apologizes, again....), but could you address the impact on election procedures more generally? As I understand it, the independent state legislature takes courts out of federal (biennial) elections entirely. There are lots of ways for legislatures to put their thumbs on the election scales other than gerrymandering (voting schedules, absentee rules, all that "targeting Black voters with surgical precision" stuff). This case could pretty much let them run wild on all those important "time and manner" details without worrying that state courts would put a check on their election-rigging.
Congrats on the newsletter!
I would like to see you take a few steps back, Sam, and put out an initial entry (to be updated from time-to-time) that discusses some set of core values that you would like to see represented in a "good" democracy. I would particularly like to see commentary on how the system set up by the founders might conflict with those values.
For example, should every decision for the U.S. be made at the federal level and reflect what 50+delta percent of the voters would want? If Texas wants to be gun permissive and abortion banning, and California wants to be gun banning and abortion permissive - should the state with more people get to inflict its will on the other? But, more generally, what framework should we look to when answering that question?
Often I see you write a great detailed piece of "if we-do-x then we-get-y" followed by an unclear leap about why y is good or bad and thus supporting or opposing x ... but leaving me a little bit confused about the value judgement on y.
Thanks for the taking a closer look at the partisan implications of Moore v Harper (NC apologizes, again....), but could you address the impact on election procedures more generally? As I understand it, the independent state legislature takes courts out of federal (biennial) elections entirely. There are lots of ways for legislatures to put their thumbs on the election scales other than gerrymandering (voting schedules, absentee rules, all that "targeting Black voters with surgical precision" stuff). This case could pretty much let them run wild on all those important "time and manner" details without worrying that state courts would put a check on their election-rigging.