"A working majority of Americans—meaning a majority of their electors—will have indicated that they're not particularly bothered by Trump's trampling of the fundamental principle of democracy." Many, including myself, believe the democratic party is as much or more of an enemy of democracy as Trump. Therefore, a vote for one candidate is not as much about supporting them as it is denouncing the other. Unfortunately, the options people have been given lately are, in my opinion, terrible. I do think that the more one side flows to the extreme, the more the other side flows to the opposite extreme in response. This dynamic is what I believe is pulling down democracy, most of it due to this two party system that is designed to keep others out. This allows for too much focus on how bad the other "team" is, and less focus on the positive aspects. A no-vote is a vote in itself, but political parties and pundits seem to ignore that fact. Our democracy is far too course to extract many good conclusions out of votes and non-votes.
To the question you pose in your penultimate paragraph, how one comes down on the issue depends, I think, on whether one believes that voting is a privilege or a responsibility. In American Federalism, created and shaped by our Constitution and its Amendments, all of them, I am convinced that voting is a necessity.
...genuinely enjoy your writings because of the authority made effervescent from presumed facts. My lone question in this post regards it's accuracy relating to the commentary on who will likely riot with violence in a Trump loss or Harris loss. Prior to the "January 6" riot, Conservatives made the same comment about "Liberals" being so prone to violence with political affairs. What would you proffer if I introduced an "Agent of Chaos" angle for either argument (of who is likely to riot in violence)? I'm working on a thesis (sometimes) about Agents of Chaos being a significant factor in the Civility versus Chaos balance of Life. Do you have any historical insights I can ruminate, regarding such "agents" (individuals or otherwise) being significant in the attempts for U.S. or other societies to be civil?
If they want everyone to vote, they need to make it mandatory to do so at a certain day and time, as Australia does (and they make it fun!).
"A working majority of Americans—meaning a majority of their electors—will have indicated that they're not particularly bothered by Trump's trampling of the fundamental principle of democracy." Many, including myself, believe the democratic party is as much or more of an enemy of democracy as Trump. Therefore, a vote for one candidate is not as much about supporting them as it is denouncing the other. Unfortunately, the options people have been given lately are, in my opinion, terrible. I do think that the more one side flows to the extreme, the more the other side flows to the opposite extreme in response. This dynamic is what I believe is pulling down democracy, most of it due to this two party system that is designed to keep others out. This allows for too much focus on how bad the other "team" is, and less focus on the positive aspects. A no-vote is a vote in itself, but political parties and pundits seem to ignore that fact. Our democracy is far too course to extract many good conclusions out of votes and non-votes.
To the question you pose in your penultimate paragraph, how one comes down on the issue depends, I think, on whether one believes that voting is a privilege or a responsibility. In American Federalism, created and shaped by our Constitution and its Amendments, all of them, I am convinced that voting is a necessity.
...genuinely enjoy your writings because of the authority made effervescent from presumed facts. My lone question in this post regards it's accuracy relating to the commentary on who will likely riot with violence in a Trump loss or Harris loss. Prior to the "January 6" riot, Conservatives made the same comment about "Liberals" being so prone to violence with political affairs. What would you proffer if I introduced an "Agent of Chaos" angle for either argument (of who is likely to riot in violence)? I'm working on a thesis (sometimes) about Agents of Chaos being a significant factor in the Civility versus Chaos balance of Life. Do you have any historical insights I can ruminate, regarding such "agents" (individuals or otherwise) being significant in the attempts for U.S. or other societies to be civil?
I will have to give that some thought.
Awesome. Thanks for reading my comment/inquiry. Cheers.