Aside from the cost in human lives (which is not trivial), the problem is that basically this would be an operation to intentionally provoke the craziest people in the state of Oregon into violence, in order to have an excuse to use violence against them.
It’s the opposite of de-escalation.
To be fair, escalation is something American police are supremely good at… It’s sick that they’ll use de-escalation tactics against violent armed militias, but escalate the hell out of a poor kid accidentally walking out of a toy store with a doll.
Also, isn’t Oregon known for being the state that is all about direct to voter referendums? Just put a fix for these rules on the next ballot. Apparently the majority of Oregonians would support them, so…
If the question is: “Do we change it so a minority of the legislature can hold the state hostage, or do we leave things as it?” with yes and no as the only options, it can’t get any worse.
They are but usually as a way to stop good legislation, not enable it. Measure 103 failing is a good example of how people in Oregon fail to vote in their best interests due to successful campaigning from the opposition. The people have tended to vote correctly on most things but shown too much willingness to fall for good marketing.
Back at RIT, there was a guy we all knew and all called Commie Dave. We called him this because he had a soviet hat that he wore when it was cold. One time I decided to talk politics with Commie Dave, and he said: “The best form of government is benevolent dictatorship”
Every time government devolves to the fundamental question, which do you prefer, tyranny of the majority or a minority holding the majority hostage, I see Commie Dave as having been maybe smarter than it would have appeared at the time.
This isn’t a failure of the concept of democracy itself. This is a failure of the devilish details. The problem is that the very specific rules in Oregon allow a minority to stonewall and prevent the majority from enacting its will. That’s actually proof that democracy is good. Oregon’s legistlature is simply undemocratic!
Any concept, no matter how sound in principle, will fail if not implemented properly.
Case in point. If Americans were fairly and proportionately represented:
Al Gore was our president after Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton was our president after Al Gore
Democrats continuously control the House of Representatives for Obama’s second term
There are two liberal SCOTUS appointments instead of two evil stolen ones
Shelby County v. Holder is likely decided differently or potentially legislated around, meaning the southern states are not able to simultaneously enact the regressive voter restrictions they put in place thanks to the ruling.
Ohio and Wisconsin, without gerrymandering, are blue states and do not pass the voter restrictions they put in place independent of the VRA ruling above
Fair representation prevents most of the problems we’ve had today. But instead, we unfairly over-represent empty land and our government is in ruins.
Benevolent dictatorship is insufficient. You can have the best intentions and fuck everything up. Informed benevolent dictatorship is what you want. But no single person can gather all the information, they need well intentioned subordinates to gather and organize the information. If anyone isn’t benevolent and isn’t held in check by a benevolent actor, they could cause the benevolent dictatorship’s failure. So unless you trust everyone (and you shouldn’t), you have to assume there are potential bad actors at work. Especially on the modern scope of society that has to deal with the fact we could wipe out the entire population and possibly everything else. We’re not lords and peasants level, we’re on the cusp of solar system explorers or self-annihilating species.
If the Supreme Court had come out against Partisan Gerrymandering AND had allowed the Citizenship question to be on the census, I think that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court would have been called into question (more than it already is).
Roberts is a long term strategist, so by ruling against the Citizenship Question, but saying that the Supreme Court can’t involve itself in Partisan Gerrymandering, he can maintain the veneer of impartiality for the Supreme Court, but still help Republicans.