Comment by esafak

16 hours ago

Even people who openly aim to violently overthrow the government and abolish elections?

Yes, why not? If they are a minority, then there's no issue. If they are a majority (or close to it), then perhaps they have a point.

  • This makes me think the other comment in this thread about mandatory voting may be on point. Part of our problem is that not only can we elect petty dictators with less than 50% of the vote, we can do it with way less than 50% of the adult citizenry when people cannot be bothered to vote.

    Make voting mandatory, and require vote-by-mail. Or if that is too 'risky' then mandate a sufficient number of voting locations with a maximum travel distance from their voters (and maybe allow voters to go to any location convenient for them) and make it a paid federal holiday.

    Pipe dream, of course. One party is too strongly incentivized to suppress the vote. They could just moderate their positions somewhat to attract more centrists, but for some reason that has not occurred to them.

    In a sane world, we could compromise. I would hate to give up vote-by-mail, but as part of a grand compromise I would accept it. Empower the FEC to issue ID for voting (and only voting), give them the budget and mandate to go roving around the country periodically like the census and track down every last citizen and give them an ID. Then require that ID for in-person voting. Ostensibly this should also satisfy the GOP, but of course it won't, because it isn't actually about the ID.

If they're an electoral majority then you already have a problem.

But the point is they're less likely to get there if they're part of the power structure.

A presumed but frequently not mentioned component of democracy is the peaceful transition of power once a decision is made.