US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

The answer is impeachment, but when Congress is stuffed with boot licking toadies, then there is no recourse.

* s/impeachment/“conviction by the Senate”

Impeachment by itself has been shown to accomplish nothing. There is no other mechanism except conviction by the Senate to address constitutional or legal violations made by the president.

Also no president has ever been impeached by a House which is controlled by a majority of the same party of the President. If Congress had a full Republican majority during Nixon’s years, he would not have been impeached. If Congress had a full Democratic majority during Clinton’s years, he would not have been impeached.

Edit: “Approval voting” is the appropriate escape hatch from 2-party politics. It lets you get rid of primaries entirely and run all the top-n candidates who have the greatest number of valid nomination signatures. Its advantage over range-voting/etc is that it is dead-simple to explain to voters: Put a checkmark next to any candidate that you're "okay" with. The candidate with the most checkmarks wins.

https://rangevoting.org/CompChart.html

A good point. The people who sit in parliament are very often just machines of the party. Yes yes TECHNICALLY they are elected by the people and have a mandate but your career is over if you speak out.

You have to be a very special kind of person to break rank.

This mostly shows that political parties are the problem themselves rather than the political mechanics of the system themselves.

Except that 2 parties emerge like clockwork from the political mechanics of the system. Winner-takes all almost guarantee a two-party system.

Maybe you didn't mean the system as broadly.

Now we are talking. And the dynamic that makes political parties so toxic IMO is “first past the post” voting.

If it’s your team or the “worse” team, you tolerate any flaw in your team.

If there was a pressure valve where another party can simply take over (for example see Reform vs Conservative parties in the UK, not that I am thrilled with the underlying direction) then there is an alternative: cut bait and condemn what used to be “your team”, and start a new one.

The political mechanics of the system result in a two-party system, because no other party ever stands a chance of getting seats. Coalition systems may be less stable, but when you need at least three parties to form a government, they tend to keep each other in check better.

Yes, I know that there are exceptions, but seats should be proportional to the vote. If you have 100 seats, that party only getting 5% of the votes should also have 5% of the seats.

In the country where I live, people do consider themselves leftist, centrists, or right-wing, but a vast majority only decides what specific party to vote during the campaign.

We have the opposite issue, since there is not electoral threshold, we now have a lot of small and middle-sized parties, making it harder to form a coalition. (Would be possible to address with an electoral threshold of 2-5%.)

Which is the flaw of the impeachment/conviction process. It heavily relies on elected officials having a strong moral compass. It's what the founders got the most wrong about the US as it's basically a worthless process. It really doesn't matter what evidence gets presented or what a president does. The result will always be a party line vote.

If a population decides to let themselves be run this way then who is at fault?

People get the leaders they deserve

>If Congress had a full Republican majority during Nixon’s years, he would not have been impeached.

That's at best "unclear". Attitudes were different, and there is some evidence of principled intentions even by the Republicans. If I were pressed for an answer, I'd say that the Republicans would have impeached, just weeks later than the Democrats. But, during that era Congress still thought itself coequal to the presidency and wanted to preserve their own power, which might have had something to do with that too.

>If Congress had a full Democratic majority during Clinton’s years, he would not have been impeached.

Which is funny if you ask me. They still defend him to this day, despite the fact that he opened the presidency up to extortion by any intelligence service competent enough to have caught on to his behavior.

We love to blame the common clay, don't we. You can win a majority of voters and lose an election. There are systemic problems, starting with money in politics, two senators per state, the electoral college and gerrymandering.

I don't really understand why people still talk about impeachment.

It has been very clearly shown to be a futile formality that only makes the ones doing it look even more powerless and worthy of mockery in the eyes of the other side and their supporters.

In a bygone era, impeachment would rely on concepts of shame, responsibility and public duty - it would be unimaginable that person that was impeached does not step down from the position and likely from political foreground fully - from the moral and social weight of that consequence.

We've seen last 2 times how thoroughly that weight no longer exists in modern society/politics.

Without criminal responsibility, there is no responsibility left at all.

> If there was a pressure valve where another party can simply take over

That's exactly what happened though -- the MAGA party took over. Conservatives "cut bait" with traditional Republicans, condemned them (see how they talk about Liz and Dick Cheney or even GWB, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, their own presidential nominees), and started a new party within the rotting corpse of the old GOP. There's still some "Republican" branding around but if you pay attention they're not waving "Republican" flags or wearing "Republican" hats anymore.

> They still defend him to this day

Older democratic voters generally do seem to defend him but a growing number of younger democratic voters seem to identify his actions as tantamount to statutory rape, and support his impeachment in principle. The establishment Democratic politicians also generally seem to defend him or at least refuse to condemn his actions, but most of the politicians also lean older.

Most people I talk with about it seem divided along the lines of morality in terms of the interaction and level of consent, rather than along debate over the security risks. Security risk seems like a valid point of concern to me.

That risk could be mitigated by a president being open about their promiscuity with both family and the public during their campaign - e.g. when both Russia and USA attempted to sextort and blackmail Sukarno (the president of the Philippines) he was delighted that his encounters were filmed and requested extra copies of the kompromat.

Impeachment is the first step before conviction and removal. That’s why it’s talked about.

Political parties were infamously called out by the first US President over 200 years ago, the only one to not have a political party:

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/past-proj...

Having a bad system is one thing. Having a bad system and no one able or willing to fix it is worse.

>but a growing number of younger democratic voters seem to identify his actions as tantamount to statutory rape,

I've picked up on that too. Which, in my opinion is strange... she was 22 or 23 wasn't she? We just have to wait another 2 generations, and those will think themselves still children at 35.

Unfortunately taking over a dominant party was the easiest way to have a "different" party that could actually win. Both parties have built a mountain of obstacles to prevent a third party from ever getting close to challenging them.

We already bastardized the senate by electing senators by popular vote. Senators are supposed to represent each states government, not the people of the state. As a single member of the union a state doesn't need more senators. Making ingredients the proportional to population just makes the senate another house. The people have the house. The cap of representatives has also been harmful to the voice of the people being heard. Representatives are the face for too many people for them to truly represent their constituents.

Rather than age differential, I think that view is primarily founded in the belief that the President's implied power over the career of their employee (a White House intern) makes it a particularly difficult choice to risk the ire of the President by refusing their advances.

I don't get the impression from talking with younger Democratic voters that they would generally be as concerned with issues of consent if it was a 22 year-old sex worker (where it's purely a transactional relationship) or 22-year old pop star (where their career isn't particularly threatened by the President's favor).

With a White House intern, there's a potential element of silent or implied coercion which puts into question whether enthusiastic consent was freely given. Similar to the national security risk - regardless if it was/wasn't, it also calls into question the President's judgment for why they would engage in such morally ambiguous behavior - it would also be fairly difficult for the President to even know themselves whether the intern is feeling coerced or not.

You can win a majority of voters and lose an election, but that's not what happened. 77 million people voted for Trump, and it's not like he acted like a mild mannered constitutional conservative with a sensible reform package and turned into a vindictive, chaotic wannabe autocrat whose closest thing to a redeeming feature is is stupidity afterwards. The electoral college and gerrymandering may be ludicrous, but that's not why he won, and nor is lack of funds for opponents. The system of checks and balances isn't what they were cracked up to be, but the reason he's dismantling it is because when he telegraphed that he was going to do it the people of the land cheered him so loudly anyone else that wanted their votes stepped in line.

Yet the people of the state continue to allow this state of affairs to persist

It’s either free and people are actively choosing this or they are not free and choosing comfort of slavery than risking death for freedom

Trump was impeached twice.

George Carlin said it best:

“Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.’”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/78321-now-there-s-one-thing...

Video version: https://youtu.be/rVXekzwkz10?si=90VqlzOLiUS_7yFx

I wonder, then is there a path to getting what you want by making the parties more democratic rather than making more parties?

I find it best to view parties like any other faction or gang. They don't want challengers to their current power. Primaries are supposed to be the democratic way to steer a party but we've seen how that goes. They aren't going to change unless it is from within. So,remove all obstacles to being on the ballot and let the existing parties whine about it when they start to lose.

Sukarno was Indonesian.

Well, yes, the senate is useless. It was useful to check the South’s power in the Great Conpromise, but now the most deliberative body is not needed when the House can slow things down all by itself. Unicameral works for me.

Representatives would be more representative if not for gerrymandering.

It’s not a good safety valve though - sure, in a 2-party system, one of the parties can be taken over from within. But it’s uncommon and hard to achieve, and risks alienating voters while the civil war is going on.

On the other hand, with IRV or preference voting, second parties can form without spoiling the vote for their ideologically most aligned alternatives. This allows for a much more seamless shift.

Really in the US there should be at least 4 parties formed from the corpses of the big two, if not more.

It doesn't for me. That is an acceptance that we are a single federal government and the states are nothing more than administrative units of that federal government. For states to remain as sovereign entities that have collectively created the federal government the entity of the state must have representation at the federal level.

As for returning back to the original state appointment of senators, that is required for the senate to appropriately represent the state government at the federal level.

The original house apportionment had representatives that had about 35000 people. The size of the house was locked at 435 in 1913. Before then the number of representatives grew slower than population but still grew. After the last 2020 census there are 761,000 people per representative. The unevenness of how many constituents a representative from Wyoming has vs a representative from California has is a point of contention in higher population states. The complaint is that the representatives from smaller states have more proportional power. I think that is a bit ridiculous but that is what some Californian's told me. Increasing the size of the house to have a more proportional representation would alleviate that point of contention between states.

Gerrymandering is a side effect of not increasing the size of the house.