This was a Twitter engagement I had this morning.
I’m going to try and reiterate my point here:
Our democracy functions with the peaceful transition of power when both sides, the winner and loser, agree that the voting system operated fairly and the election of the winner was the will of the majority (either direct or Electoral College, depending on the race) of the people.
That is supposed to temper our politics.
Thr losing side, ideally, will anend it’s positions to appeal to the majority next time. The winner, depending on their margin of victory, would also try and appeal to the majority so they don’t lose next time.
Fairness and moderation.
What happens when that fails?
What happens when the losing side feels that the system isn’t fair and they lost unjustly?
They are not inclined to trust the system. They feel disenfranchised.
And what about the winning side?
Are they tempted to moderation to appeal to the majority in reelection or are they tempted to go to extremes because their victory doesn’t require appealing to voters because they can manipulate the system?
What ultimately happens in this situation?
History shows us perfectly clearly: violence.
Political violence is held at bay by a properly functioning, fair and transparent political system.
Take that away and the losing side has every motivation to circumvent the system with force.
This happened in America, in the great state of Tennessee in the Battle of Athens (the McMinn County War).
Jim doesn’t understand the bear that he is poking.
“Hey, remember when I said I was concerned about the process that caused my candidate to lose and you said I was a sore loser and my concerns were stupid? Good, now get on your knees and face the ditch.”
I’d rather avoid the political violence, but I guess he doesn’t.
Like this:
Like Loading...