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.
First, thank you for making the leap from PEC to here. I will continue to post there, and share content across platforms as I explore what Substack can do.
Your suggestion is good one. I do want to get into the bigger picture: what do we want from our democracy? What has gone off the rails lately? Some of your questions I won't be able to address fully, but I can at least show the uses of the kind of tools I have at hand.
One cut at the problem is understanding what has gone wrong in recent years. I am very interested in the issue of dimensionality: as we sort geographically and ideologically, we fall along a single axis of political variation - and that opens the way to unstable dynamics. See this article by co-authors and me: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2102154118
So, this article cleanly represents what I worry about.
In the Aristotelian sense, it begs the question.
Really, is American democracy not getting the job done? You assume it is bad based on people's self-reported unhappiness.
(Or, more likely, because of the threat that Trumpism takes us the way of Argentina ...)
But take the entire world and discard all 90% white countries - or, really, all ethnically very homogeneous countries.
How does the U.S. do at delivering [ whatever is good ] for its diverse people?
The U.S. seems to be the #1 most desirable place for citizens of the world to live - and it ain't white males who are flocking here from abroad, now, is it?
Is elite polarization bad?
Are unresponsive representatives bad?
If a minority can gum up the federal government and leave things to the states, is that bad?
Kinda feels these things should be bad, but empirical evidence does not support those conclusions.
You quote the usual articles that median wages in the U.S. have not advanced in real terms in 50 years.
But, during those 50 years the U.S. went from 0 percent Hispanic to 20 percent Hispanic.
The wages of the median of the American population haven't risen, but the wages of the median American have.
The U.S. is absorbing poor people and bringing them up to American standards - is that not a great win?
And, again - it is not white males who find the U.S. is the place they want to move to.
I am looking for some sort of fundamentals ... what do we really want to change that won't make things worse?
Anyway, just thinking aloud .. don't take me too seriously, but don't take me "not at all" either ...
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.
That is a huge topic. I recommend two essays by Rick Pildes of NYU Law School. Among other things, I gather that (a) the doctrine would upend enormous swaths of election administration and voting rights, (b) it might lead to separate treatment of state and federal elections, and (c) legislatures do still have to comply with federal law.
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.
Dear Paul,
First, thank you for making the leap from PEC to here. I will continue to post there, and share content across platforms as I explore what Substack can do.
Your suggestion is good one. I do want to get into the bigger picture: what do we want from our democracy? What has gone off the rails lately? Some of your questions I won't be able to address fully, but I can at least show the uses of the kind of tools I have at hand.
One cut at the problem is understanding what has gone wrong in recent years. I am very interested in the issue of dimensionality: as we sort geographically and ideologically, we fall along a single axis of political variation - and that opens the way to unstable dynamics. See this article by co-authors and me: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2102154118
More soon,
Sam
So, this article cleanly represents what I worry about.
In the Aristotelian sense, it begs the question.
Really, is American democracy not getting the job done? You assume it is bad based on people's self-reported unhappiness.
(Or, more likely, because of the threat that Trumpism takes us the way of Argentina ...)
But take the entire world and discard all 90% white countries - or, really, all ethnically very homogeneous countries.
How does the U.S. do at delivering [ whatever is good ] for its diverse people?
The U.S. seems to be the #1 most desirable place for citizens of the world to live - and it ain't white males who are flocking here from abroad, now, is it?
Is elite polarization bad?
Are unresponsive representatives bad?
If a minority can gum up the federal government and leave things to the states, is that bad?
Kinda feels these things should be bad, but empirical evidence does not support those conclusions.
You quote the usual articles that median wages in the U.S. have not advanced in real terms in 50 years.
But, during those 50 years the U.S. went from 0 percent Hispanic to 20 percent Hispanic.
The wages of the median of the American population haven't risen, but the wages of the median American have.
The U.S. is absorbing poor people and bringing them up to American standards - is that not a great win?
And, again - it is not white males who find the U.S. is the place they want to move to.
I am looking for some sort of fundamentals ... what do we really want to change that won't make things worse?
Anyway, just thinking aloud .. don't take me too seriously, but don't take me "not at all" either ...
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.
That is a huge topic. I recommend two essays by Rick Pildes of NYU Law School. Among other things, I gather that (a) the doctrine would upend enormous swaths of election administration and voting rights, (b) it might lead to separate treatment of state and federal elections, and (c) legislatures do still have to comply with federal law.
The two essays are here:
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=131074
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=131215