Recycling some old posts…
Electoral corruption is a one-way ratchet.
Get control of the legislatures, use that control to impose gerrymandering / disenfranchisement / voter suppression, then use that electoral advantage to ensure that the legislature remains controlled. And then use that legislative power to neuter any potential challenge from the judiciary.
It’s why I’ve been pushing for non-electoral responses. Those aren’t easy or safe options, but the easy and safe route is no longer available.
Sustained, massive, non-violent non-destructive disruptive civil disobedience. Targeted at the money of the 0.01%. Shut the country down.
It isn’t a protest, it’s a revolution.
But I feel like a 1990’s climate scientist. There is an obvious catastrophe approaching, and there is a way to avoid it. However, that way is difficult, costly and risky; nobody wants to do it. They’d rather wait and see if the situation is really as bad as it looks.
And every day that they wait, the solution becomes more difficult, more costly and less likely to succeed. Once the Reichstag is burning, it’s too late.
The delay/danger curve is exponential, and it’s increasingly in the vertical part of the graph.
Questions:
At what point, if any, would you accept that the US voting systems are sufficiently corrupt for electoralism to no longer be a viable response?
What would you do if you reach that point?
If a non-electoral response is required, is it better to pursue that option as early as possible, or instead wait for the last minute? Does the difficulty of that response increase over time?
2 Likes
