 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:09:13 |
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted Alabama death row inmate Willie Smith’s request to have his pastor present at his execution, rejecting the state’s claim that having a spiritual adviser present interferes with prison security. Tune in to hear how the Supreme Court’s religious liberty ruling in Dunn v. Smith might affect future death penalty cases. On today’s episode, our hosts also chat about Yuval Levin’s latest piece in National Review on the sorry state of Congress and the New York Times’ 2020 Hulu documentary about Britney Spears.
Show Notes:
-Dunn v. Smith, federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case Morse v. Frederick.
-“Congress’s Day” by Yuval Levin in National Review and “Transcript: Ezra Klein Interviews Yuval Levin About the Future of the Republican Party” in the New York Times.
-Framing Britney Spears Hulu documentary.
Sarah and David are the best, and obviously quite brilliant. So I am reluctant to question their conclusions, especially on election and political strategies. However, I would very much like to hear why Sarah believes that election reform proposals (i.e. Levin's ranked choice voting idea or proportional representation changes) are "never going to happen." I understand that both major parties would oppose these changes tooth and nail because they threaten their duopoly on elections. But that seems entirely the point. We need to threaten these parties from exactly this angle to force them toward compromise by strengthening a threat from the center. Alternatively, they could simply run toward their extremes as a moderate party of sorts took shape, leaving them solely the extremists.
The logical strategy seems to be an end run around the two dominant parties through ballot initiatives. This movement is already racked up some small success in 2020 (Alaska's Ballot measure 50.5% for, 49.5% against) and defeats that seem within striking distance with more funding, education, and advertising (Florida Amendment 3 57% against, 43% for; Massachusetts Question 2 55% against, 45% for). Maine seems to have avoided any catastrophe with its experiment with ranked choice voting in this last election.
I am genuinely curious why the reaction to movements such as these is that they have no chance at success? What is stopping electoral reform from becoming an issue that outpaces the will of the two principal political parties? What are the key differences between gay marriage ballot initiatives or marijuana legalization initiatives (that also overturned established resistance in state legislatures) and these efforts?
I need to review Levin's approach and podcasts, as perhaps he is arguing for reform at the national level, which I agree would be highly unlikely. But federalism and the change of only a half dozen states election method could make for a fascinating moderate rump party. At the very least, such voting systems could make it more likely that the Joe Manchins and Jeff Flakes of the world could survive speaking their mind and voting with conviction. I have to think that is an idea worth considering more carefully, or at least explaining more thoroughly why it is a pipe dream.
Why would Sarah opine that rank choice voting is not something that can happen over the long term when Maine and Alaska have recently adopted this method?