Now the Democratic Party has launched a counter-offensive on all fronts under the slogans of democracy and modernized anti-fascism, and the fight against dictatorship.
They demand Trump's immediate impeachment, and no matter how it ends, demoralized Republicans are backing down. Democrats after the election got all the branches of the executive and legislative power, including the Senate, and I think they will try to reform and absorb the Supreme Court. Then they will reform, abolishing the archaic system of electors, and introducing a 1-person-1-vote system that gives them a huge advantage. Perhaps they will also give citizenship to 10 million migrants. All of these measures, or even one of them, could take away Republicans ' chances of coming to power in the next 10 or 20 years. I also think that the Democrats will increase censorship in the media and hold show trials of Trump supporters.
I think that under the guise of democracy and anti-fascism, they will create a so - called "one-and-a-half-party system" (when formally there are many parties, but one party rules for decades, because other parties have a marginal agenda and / or are excluded from the media - this was in Japan and Italy after the second imperialist war, as well as in Israel and India after these countries gained independence).
In addition, if Trump paid attention to the traditional energy sector, the Democrats, on the contrary, will make huge investments in the green energy sector, which can change the structure of the largest groups of the bourgeoisie in USA. On the other hand, the Democratic Party can be seen as a conductor of the influence of transnational global capital, green energy and giant media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, etc), while the Republicans today are associated with the military-industrial complex and traditional energy and with the policy of protectionism. Thus, the ongoing changes can be considered as an important part of the global process of structural changes within large capital and as manifestations of the struggle between its various factions.
In a word, everything is as usual. "Fascism" and "anti-fascism" change their disguises and masks, but they always remain elements of the bourgeois system and serve different capitalist interests. Their game perpetuates the system .
***
Conspiracy theories themselves arise for various reasons and can be the result of a mental disorder (for example, q-anon or the belief that all judges, including Republicans, and lawmakers conspired with sociologists, Chinese, and Communists to rig the U.S. election). However, widespread belief in them may be the result of alienation. People understand that they do not control the management processes, and this is true. But they do not understand why, they do not see that representative democracy itself is a fake, just in case of fair elections. But it just doesn't occur to them. In addition, add to this the anger caused by economic woes, pandemics, lockdowns, social inequality, and various ethnic problems. And we will see the anger of people who really do not control anything. They just don't know how to express it in any other way than in a primitive and almost psychiatric form. So Trump himself is the banner of this movement, expressing the same grounded anger in primitive and psychiatric forms.
Interesting, though I doubt
Interesting, though I doubt the present Democratic Party leadership will go anywhere near as far as meerov21 suggests in that first paragraph even if that would make sense for them as a longer term strategy.
Abolishing the Electoral
Abolishing the Electoral College would require amending the US constitution which requires 2/3 majorities in each chamber of Congress then ratification by 3/4 of states which is why it happens so infrequently.
As I wrote, Democrats can
As I wrote, Democrats can take advantage of the situation because Republicans are demoralized and divided. I will not claim that they use all of the above measures. But they can apply some of them. Even just legalizing 10-15 million migrants and expediting their citizenship could wipe out Republicans ' chances in national and local elections for years to come. At the same time, you can remake the Supreme Court and people associated with the Democrats told me about such plans. And in 10 years it is possible to carry out other reforms. However, you are right that the big political machines have a lot of inertia and perhaps the democrats and those factions of the bourgeoisie that stand behind them will not do anything.
bastarx Abolishing the
bastarx
Abolishing the Electoral College would require amending the US constitution which requires 2/3 majorities in each chamber of Congress then ratification by 3/4 of states which is why it happens so infrequently.
The Democratic Party may try to work around this. There is a way they could do it.\
The agreement, called the Interstate Agreement on Popular Nationwide Voting, calls for states to cast their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote as soon as enough states join the agreement.
So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have approved the pact, covering 196 electoral votes out of the 270 needed to win.
The states that approved the treaty accession act agreed that it would not take effect until the 270 threshold was reached. Once that happens, those states will have the right to use their electoral college votes to elect the winner according to the popular vote.
If the Democrats radically dominate the divided Republicans and control all branches of political power, they can try to accelerate these changes.
Since it was created as
Since it was created as Article II, Section 1 of 12th Amendment of the Constitution in 1787, there have been 700 proposals to change or abolish the Electoral College (the closest it ever came to being removed was in 1970, but Southern filibusters derailed it in the Senate). All have failed. Changing the Constitution is complex (implementing Article V), but it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and approval by the legislatures of 3/4 of states. Since gaming the Electoral College got Trump elected in 2016, despite losing the popular vote, it will get significant pushback from Republicans. So, 2/3 vote of the Senate is impossible and 2/3 of the House of Representatives is even more improbable. Getting 3/4 of the states is the most impossible. To be blunt, it ain't gonna happen.
I hadn't heard of that before
I hadn't heard of that before and while not as much of a long shot as amending the constitution it seems unlikely.
I have already explained
I have already explained above how this could become possible now and why it does not require a giant majority in Congress. Today it is not as impossible as before. I won't say that it will happen tomorrow. For example, tomorrow the Democrats can accelerate the granting of citizenship to 10-15 million migrants, and then, a few years later, having achieved an advantage in many states, they can make this reform that I wrote about. On the other hand, Actual rejection of the electoral college may not even be necessary due to the change in the US ethnic balance and the movement of population to megacities - both trends reduce the chances of Republicans. If you add censorship and control over the media, the results may be exactly what I write about.
And I will add that President
And I will add that President Obama said after the 2016 election that this reform was necessary.
Immigration reform in the
Immigration reform in the U.S. is another "dead-in-the -water" issue that won't change any time soon. Just look back at Republican Jim Sensenbrenner's HR 4437 in 2006, which would have criminalized immigration -- with amendments even making undocumented migration a felony -- and made anyone providing mutual aid guilty of misdemeanors (thankfully the massive nationwide May Day general strike killed the bill). The rightward swing, even among Democrats, makes it near impossible for at least a generation. The Republicans, through explicit voter suppression and gerrymandering, have rendered their strengthened position of "minoritarian rule." That won't change with Biden, nor will the extremely slim majorities in the House and Senate change much. Even right-wing West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin is blocking the $2000 per person stimulus checks, that the rest of the Democratic Party are pushing for right now. Even with VP Harris casting her vote, in the Senate it would probably follow party lines and die 50-51. Showing how precarious the balance of power in Congress will be, even under Biden/Harris. The only major change in Washington DC is the return to the pre-Trump status quo. Simply a victory for a different faction of capitalists.
In the 1980s, I attended a talk where I heard something that succinctly defines this:
Gore Vidal
I'd make the addendum:
H
I'd say a big part of the
I'd say a big part of the reason the Republicans are so riled up is that they know they are heading towards being out of power for decades. But the Democrats probably don't want massive majorities either because then their voters might start to demand that they actually do things for them.
The Republicans might be out
The Republicans might be out of power in the future, but they did pretty damn well in down-ballot races in the November 2020 election, like flipping 14 seats in the House (the Dems flipped 3, retaining a slim 11 seat majority) and in statehouse races across the country. And Trump pulled 74,000,000 votes (46.8%) and those zealots aren’t going away. Just saying . . .
New York Times article on why
New York Times article on why the Electoral College advantages Republicans and why they’ll defend it: https://nyti.ms/2Y7SdX9