United States, Donald Trump, Oakland discussed on Forum
Voter suppression, excuse me, even before Trump. You say was a hero some game and pose. But it's gotten so much worse under Donald Trump for the reasons you're articulating and more. I have in my book, as you know, a list of what I call the autocrats twelve step program. What do you do when you really wanna turn a democracy into an autocracy and you start with the media and you condemn? On them, as enemies of the people, and you try to de-legitimize them, and gradually road, their freedom and their independence. Then you go after the courts and you try and hyper politicized them. Then you go after civil society, you, demonize the opposition and you just keep working you try to row, the integrity of the, of the professional bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies mistake, and it's politicize demonize and aggrandize executive power. And when you look at the list, it is worrisome, that the current president of the United States is doing a number of these things now are checks, and balances are stronger than in Poland or Hungary, but how strong will they be if we don't they when you've got subpoena power from the house of representatives in not being as being defied. I think we need to recognize Michael our democracies being test. Sted now. And we cannot be complacent about it. Complacency is, maybe the biggest enemy and you go into arguments about what needs to be done for democracy to be vital into to be reinforced, and revamped the United States. You talk about stopping voter suppression. You talk about enforcing the Voting Rights Act. Talk about ending gerrymandering almost sounds forgive me, like a wishlist, and you have to get these things through and have the political will in the bite to get them through. But the thing that you put as a centerpiece in this as ranked choice voting and that kind of surprise me in some ways, because despite Maine, which has had some success with ranked choice voting. It's been a lot of complaints about it. Just locally in Oakland and San Francisco, for example. Well, we can come back to the other elements. Let's just talk about rain choice because that's part of the kind of master plan of understand. So I let me say about Oakland, you know, the first time it was used in a mayoral election. Residents in Oakland felt it was kind of quirky and didn't produce a very good ineffective result. I think people in Oakland would have a different attitude. Now, I don't hear a lot of complaints made. You're living in San Francisco. Maybe you do, but, you know there was a three way contest, and San Francisco, I'd say a pretty admirable, individual London breed emerged as the mayor by winning a majority of the vote in the instant runoff that ranked choice voting produces. And think about the logic of ranked choice voting, which I actually think is more powerful when you rise up above the municipal level, which is not generally part. Physician election in most cities in the United States to the level of state legislature, governor, even president of the United States when you can rank your candidates, one two, three four rather than just by voting for a single one, then you've got the opportunity to vote for maybe an independent, maybe like the green party. Maybe you're a libertarian and not waste your vote. If your first choice doesn't make it, and nobody wins a majority, then your vote will be transferred your second choice and this. When people win a winning candidate has to win a majority of the vote in order to win the election, if necessary by the instant runoffs through ranked choice voting. They have to appeal to a broader range of the electorate and I think this may help us transcend our crippling polarization. Now in fact, you say it gets rid of the sore loser phenomenon which well. We'd actually need. Yes. I it does in one sense. It gets rid of the spoiler problem, but there's also a sore loser rule that keeps people who lose primary elections from getting on the ballot in the general election. And so if you could get rid of the sore loser rule in the forty five states in the United States, including California, that have it, you might get to a situation where, you know, take Jeff flake in Arizona, who stood up virtually the only Republican Senator who did stand up against Donald Trump in the floor of the Senate. And he thought to himself now after I've done that how can I possibly win a Republican primary, if he'd contested in the Republican primary and lost. And there was no sore loser rule in Arizona, and there was ranked choice voting in Arizona. He might have been able to come back in the general election run as an independent. And say to the Republican party, the heck with you. I'm now an independent, I'm liberated. I'll return to the Senate as an independent, Joe Lieberman. Well, that's what Lieberman did in Connecticut. Because Connecticut is one of five states in the United States that doesn't have the sore loser rule. Again, we're talking with Larry diamond and he's a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution is new book is out. It's called Il wins saving democracy from Russian rage Chinese ambition and American complacency, and it'll be at the Commonwealth club this afternoon, at noon, and ask you came up earlier an interview I did with Carter. Former secretary of defense, and I happen to see Bill Maher last night, in an interview with Cuomo. And he was talking about the fact that Trump and Nancy Pelosi's brought this of even Michael Cohen brought it up in his testimony that if Trump loses an election, he made simply say, I'm not leaving this is rigged election. And it's unfair and it's et cetera et cetera. And I refused to leave and I don't get it. Conspiracy theories here but it's a plausible scenario, what would the democracy, be able to do if a commander in chief, is a lame duck said, I'm still the president, and I'm going to retain my presidency. Well, I think in the end the question is, what would the courts do, and what worries me is, you know, we do have a somewhat politicised judiciary and often. I don't think this is a realistic scenario if it's a fairly clear election as a political scientist. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that Trump will lose the popular vote as he did last time. But he's got a pretty darn good chance of winning the electoral college again, and doing so very narrowly, which you would like to see done away with. Yes, of course. But realistically, I think it's going to happen anytime soon. And so keep in mind, he won the three states that put him over the top in the electoral college, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by total seventy seven thousand votes. Now magin. He loses those three stay in polls, he is losing them. Now, of course, long wait till the. Yeah. But imagining loses them by maybe one or two by fifteen thousand votes. Then we could enter a Florida scenario in which he tries to drag this out on the question is, what are the courts do? But I want to tell you this one thing. I have gotten to know a lot of military officers in the United States. Many of them spend a year at Stanford before they go back to their military commands. I've interacted with Minarik and so on. I really have enormous admiration for the United States armed forces and for their commitment to the ethic of, of, of constitutional rule, and civilian control of the military on the rule of law. And I, I really believe the, the, the, the, the United States civil service FBI, you know, armed forces and ultimately the supreme court. I don't think.