Well, whatever...I've said all I can say to try to convince you that we're not "headed for civil war". A reverse result in our election hasn't happened "multiple times" since 2000. It's happened only once since 2000---in 2016.
That's a bit nitpicky.... I am counting 2000 as one of the times it happened "since 2000", since there is no defined time of "when 2000 occured". (Jan1 2000? Dec 31?)
Historians usually cite five instances out 59 where such a reversal (winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college) occurred. However, 1824 and 1876 aren't really good examples (for reasons I won't get into) so it's been 1888, 2000 and 2016. Three times out of 59.
Yes, and 2 of those times were within the last decade. That was my point. What was a rare event that might have occurred once in a person's life time has now happened twice in under 2 decades.
And gerrymandering notwithstanding, there are similarities between your 2019 federal election and ours in 2016. Such as the fact that you have a prime minister in office whose party won less popular votes but more seats, which is why I have heard some Canadians clamoring for proportional representation, so you don't end up with a winner with less popular support. As you did in 2019, and as the US did in 2016. I did not say the situations were exactly the same, just that there are similarities.
The similarities are so minor (and dwarfed by the differences) that the comparisons don't really mean much.
The electoral college: it's done state by state, and only 2 states (with 9 votes between them) elect one elector from each congressional district and a bonus of 2 for the state overall. Everyone else is winner-take-all, and congressional districts are not factored in, in the remaining 48 states and DC. So gerrymandering has little or nothing to do with presidential elections, only elections for the House of Representatives.
Never claimed it did affect presidential elections. But controlling the house is a pretty big thing. (Perhaps not as big as controlling the senate, but Biden is still not going to get any legislation passed if the republicans retake the house in 2022.)
As far as the Senate the boundaries of the states have been relatively fixed so you cannot "gerrymander" the Senate.
Again, never said you could.
As I said before, the problem with the senate is that small/less populated states (like Wyoming) have just as much power in the senate than larger states like California. Given the fact that you're supposed to have "equality", the fact that your average Wyoming voter has more influence than a California voter seems a bit... questionable.
(Now, its common when this is brought up, for people to bring up this poetic "The U.S. is a union of states", or whatever, but from a pragmatic point of view, its problematic.
I cannot stand the Republican Party and that's why I left it some years ago. It's not in my interests anymore. But I am not a patriot to my party. Nor do I see it as the great savior from the right-wing devils.
Moscow Mitch and the republicans, despite their senators representing fewer voters than Democratic voters, were able to block Obama's judicial nominees. Their advantage in the electoral college gave them the presidencies of both the Shrub and Stubby McBonespurs. They now have a 6-3 control of the supreme court (based on the above factors). Control of the courts means that voter suppression laws and gerrymandering in red states are allowed to stand, giving them further advantages in both congress and the white house.
If control were based more on popular vote none of that would have happened. Bush and Trump would never have got into power. (Not unless the republicans altered their policies to have widespread appeal.) They would never have been able to block the Garland nomination. You would be looking at a supreme court where the majority were nominated by Democrats.
So instead of having 1 presidental term since 2000 (including the 2000 election), they have had 3. Instead of a minority on the supreme court they have a solid majority, and probably will for a generation.
So yeah, those flaws in the system are saving the republicans.
If America is really heading for civil war, it won't be as one-sided as you seem to think.
It may not be "1 sided", but I think 1 side will be largely responsible for instigating it.
And despite the fact that I despise the man, Trump won't be solely responsible.
Actually, I agree... The decline of the republican party has been going on for decades. (It may have even begun with the republican adoption of the southern strategy and their embracing of the evangelicals.) Trump just seems to be accelerating the process. (And the current republicans in congress are culpable. They could have stopped him, but chose not to.)
There was a crap-ton more unrest in the sixties and seventies (you mentioned the Nixon Presidency). And by the way, some of the more recent unrest was not under Trump but under Obama. Not blaming it on either of them, mind you.
The difference between the 60s and now is that back then you didn't have the same sort of right-wing echo chambers that you do now. (Things like facebook/twitter allow disinformation and radicalization to spread. Back in the 60s, when information sources were more limited (and they had more of an incentive to "get things right") people might have protested about government actions, but you didn't get that dangerous feedback.
ETA: Also, consider this: Yes, Nixon tried to engage in certain... questionable... tactics back in the 70s, but republicans stood up to him and the system 'worked'. Trump engages in activities that were far more problematic than Nixon (blackmailing a foreign government to interfere in an election, fomenting a violent uprising, not to mention working with Russia to get elected, violating the emoluments clause, multiple security breaches, etc.) Yet republicans said "That's fine".
The system worked in the 70s with Nixon. The system no longer works now. That's why the U.S. is at a greater risk of civil war.
I very much doubt the brutality of the police in those instances is going to turn into something that will create a civil war.
It might not just be police brutality alone that triggers the civil war. Its police brutality (favoring the political far-right), combined with declines in democratic institutions, spurred on by misinformation.
The purpose of my OP was that many democracies are showing some anti-democratic tendencies.
You are right.. many other countries ARE showing anti-democratic tendencies. (Even Canada has dropped a little in the democracy index.)
We are more concerned about the U.S. because
1) Their decline has been pretty steady (many other democracies might be declining, but their rankings on the democracy index fluctuate)
2) Its "gun culture" might accelerate violent conflicts
Yes, the constitution of 1787 was written...in 1787, when slavery was legal. But it's also been amended to prohibit slavery since then. And the voting rights of women, minorities, and young adults. That's what I meant about its adaptability and flexibility.
Again, its not only the changes in who can vote that is the issue. Demographic shifts are a significant problem (and the constitution has not changed to reflect those).
Plus, as I pointed out before, the constitution is not like some book of magic spells that can cure all the problems of the country if you just recite the correct passage. People ignore the constitution. The supreme court interprets it to be favorable to certain segments of the population.
The problem with calling any country a "flawed democracy" is that they are all flawed in some way. I'm sure you have heard the expression that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. Whoever said that wasn't kidding. The US is a flawed democracy. I'll be the first to admit that. But headed for civil war? Not anytime soon and not exactly as you think.
Please point out all the other countries where, as a result of a legitimate election, the loser of the election attempted to overthrow the results by fomenting a violent insurrection.
Also take into account the US president has nowhere near the internal power of your PM. Even Trump couldn't get away with everything he wanted to do.
You are right... in theory the Canadian PM has more power within the government than the U.S.
The fact that we haven't really had the same sort of populist uprising in Canada is likely due to the nature of our media.... without the equivalent of a "Fox News", far-right misinformation does not get spread easily.
ETA: Just to add, another reason why Canada hasn't gone the U.S. populist route is probably because the evangelical movement does not have the same influence here as it does in the U.S.
But that doesn't mean the U.S. isn't in trouble. It just means that an authoritarian leader has to make sure he has the proper lackeys in congress (which Trump is working to achieve.)
Plus, what exactly do you think Trump wanted to do but couldn't? He destroyed both financial and environmental regulations, turned the U.S. into an international laughing stock, gave tax cuts to millionaires. What else do you think he wanted to do? (About the only major thing he was defeated on was health care, but despite their inability to repeal obamacare, they still managed to attack significant portions of it... enrolments declined, the mandate was dropped, etc.)
By the way, here's an article that also describes some of the issues that takes a similar pessimistic view...
From:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/next-us-civil-war-already-here-we-refuse-to-see-itThe United States today is, once again, headed for civil war, and, once again, it cannot bear to face it.... The legal system grows less legitimate by the day. Trust in government at all levels is in freefall, or, like Congress, with approval ratings hovering around 20%, cannot fall any lower. Right now, elected sheriffs openly promote resistance to federal authority. Right now, militias train and arm themselves in preparation for the fall of the Republic. Right now, doctrines of a radical, unachievable, messianic freedom spread across the internet, on talk radio, on cable television, in the malls....The Capitol police have seen threats against members of Congress increase by 107%.
...
The Vietnam war, civil rights protests...all were national catastrophes...But the United States has never faced an institutional crisis quite like the one it is facing now. Trust in the institutions was much higher during the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act had the broad support of both parties. JFK’s murder was mourned collectively as a national tragedy. The Watergate scandal, in hindsight, was evidence of the system working. The press reported presidential crimes; Americans took the press seriously. The political parties felt they needed to respond to the reported corruption. You could not make one of those statements today with any confidence.
...
Two things are happening... Most of the American right have abandoned faith in government as such. Their politics is, increasingly, the politics of the gun. The American left is slower on the uptake, but they are starting to figure out that the system which they give the name of democracy is less deserving...
...
...by 2040, 30% of the population will control 68% of the Senate. Eight states will contain half the population. The Senate malapportionment gives advantages overwhelmingly to white, non– college educated voters. In the near future, a Democratic candidate could win the popular vote by many millions of votes and still lose. Do the math: the federal system no longer represents the will of the American people....Hard right organization have now infiltrated so many police forces – the connections number in the hundreds – that they have become unreliable allies... in 2019, 36% of active duty soldiers claimed to have witnessed “white supremacist and racist ideologies in the military”, according to the Military Times.