Democracy (Theory and Philosophy)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Has a Master Plan for Destroying the ‘Deep State’

      by

      I study government bureaucracies. This is not normally a key political issue. Right now, it is, and everyone should be paying attention.Donald Trump, the former president and current candidate, puts it in apocalyptic terms: “Either the deep state destroys America or we destroy the deep state.” This is not an empty threat. He has a real and plausible plan to utterly transform American government. It will undermine the quality of that government and it will threaten our democracy.A second Trump administration would be very different from the first. Mr. Trump’s blueprint for amassing power has been developed by a constellation of conservative organizations that surround him, led by the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025. This plan would elevate personal fealty to Mr. Trump as the central value in government employment, processes and institutions.It has three major parts.The first is to put Trump loyalists into appointment positions. Mr. Trump believed that “the resistance” to his presidency included his own appointees. Unlike in 2016, he now has a deep bench of loyalists. The Heritage Foundation and dozens of other Trump-aligned organizations are screening candidates to create 20,000 potential MAGA appointees. They will be placed in every agency across government, including the agencies responsible for protecting the environment, regulating workplace safety, collecting taxes, determining immigration policy, maintaining safety net programs, representing American interests overseas and ensuring the impartial rule of law.These are not conservatives reluctantly serving Mr. Trump out of a sense of patriotic duty, but those enthusiastic about helping a twice-impeached president who tried to overturn the results of an election. An influx of appointees like this would come at a cost to the rest of us. Political science research that examines the effects of politicization on federal agencies shows that political appointees, especially inexperienced ones, are associated with lower performance in government and less responsiveness to the public and to Congress.The second part of the Trump plan is to terrify career civil servants into submission. To do so, he would reimpose an executive order that he signed but never implemented at the end of his first administration. The Schedule F order would allow him to convert many of these officials into political appointees.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Trump Threat Is Growing. Lawyers Must Rise to Meet This Moment.

      by

      American democracy, the Constitution and the rule of law are the righteous causes of our times, and the nation’s legal profession is obligated to support them. But with the acquiescence of the larger conservative legal movement, these pillars of our system of governance are increasingly in peril. The dangers will only grow should Donald Trump be returned to the White House next November.Recent reporting about plans for a second Trump presidency are frightening. He would stock his administration with partisan loyalists committed to fast-tracking his agenda and sidestepping — if not circumventing altogether — existing laws and long-established legal norms. This would include appointing to high public office political appointees to rubber-stamp his plans to investigate and exact retribution against his political opponents; make federal public servants removable at will by the president himself; and invoke special powers to take unilateral action on First Amendment-protected activities, criminal justice, elections, immigration and more.We have seen him try this before, though fortunately he was thwarted — he would say “betrayed”— by executive branch lawyers and by judges who refused to go along with his more draconian and often unlawful policies and his effort to remain in office after being cast out by voters. But should Mr. Trump return to the White House, he will arrive with a coterie of lawyers and advisers who, like him, are determined not to be thwarted again.The Federalist Society, long the standard-bearer for the conservative legal movement, has failed to respond in this period of crisis.That is why we need an organization of conservative lawyers committed to the foundational constitutional principles we once all agreed upon: the primacy of American democracy, the sanctity of the Constitution and the rule of law, the independence of the courts, the inviolability of elections and mutual support among those tasked with the solemn responsibility of enforcing the laws of the United States. This new organization must step up, speak out and defend these ideals.Leaders of the legal profession should be asking themselves, “What role did we play in creating this ongoing legal emergency?” But so far, there has been no such post-mortem reflection, and none appears on the horizon. Many lawyers who served in the last administration — and many on the outside who occupy positions of influence within the conservative legal community — have instead stood largely silent, assenting to the recent assaults on America’s fragile democracy.We were members of the Federalist Society or followed the organization early in our careers. Created in response to left-liberal domination of the courts, it served a principled role, connecting young lawyers with one another and with career opportunities, promoting constitutional scholarship and ultimately providing candidates for the federal bench and Supreme Court.But the Federalist Society has conspicuously declined to speak out against the constitutional and other legal excesses of Mr. Trump and his administration. Most notably, it has failed to reckon with his effort to overturn the last presidential election and his continued denial that he lost that election. When White House lawyers are inventing cockamamie theories to stop the peaceful transition of power and copping pleas to avoid jail time, it’s clear we in the legal profession have come to a crisis point.We are thankful that there were lawyers in the Trump administration who opted to resign or be fired rather than advance his flagrantly unconstitutional schemes. They should be lauded.But these exceptions were notably few and far between. More alarming is the growing crowd of grifters, frauds and con men willing to subvert the Constitution and long-established constitutional principles for the whims of political expediency. The actions of these conservative Republican lawyers are increasingly becoming the new normal. For a group of lawyers sworn to uphold the Constitution, this is an indictment of the nation’s legal profession. Any legal movement that could foment such a constitutional abdication and attract a sufficient number of lawyers willing to advocate its unlawful causes is ripe for a major reckoning.We must rebuild a conservative legal movement that supports and defends American democracy, the Constitution and the rule of law and that incentivizes and promotes those lawyers who are prepared to do the same. To that end, we have formed a nonprofit organization, the Society for the Rule of Law Institute, to bring sanity back to conservative lawyering and jurisprudence.There is a need and demand for this new legal movement that the legal profession can readily meet. Pro-democracy, pro-rule-of-law lawyers who populate our law school campuses, law firms and the courts decry what is happening in our profession. They deserve an outlet to productively channel these sentiments.Originally formed in 2018 as Checks & Balances during what we took to be the height of Mr. Trump’s threat to the rule of law, the organization spoke out against his transgressions. Since then, the legal landscape has deteriorated to a degree we failed to imagine, with Mr. Trump and his allies explicitly threatening to upend fundamental tenets of the American constitutional system if returned to power.We believe it is necessary to build a legal movement with the capability to recruit and engage dues-paying members, file legal briefs, provide mentorship and career opportunities, convene supporters and speak out as vocally and forthrightly as is necessary to meet the urgency that this moment requires.First and foremost, this movement will work to inspire young legal talent and connect them with professional opportunities that will enable them to fulfill their vast potential without having to compromise their convictions.Second, the movement will focus on building a large body of scholarship to counteract the new orthodoxy of anti-constitutional and anti-democratic law being churned out by the fever swamps. The Constitution cannot defend itself; lawyers and legal scholars must. Conservative scholars like the former federal appellate judges Michael McConnell and Thomas Griffith and the law professor Keith Whittington, who joins Yale from Princeton next year, are models for a new and more responsible conservative legal movement.Third and most important, we will marshal principled voices to speak out against the endless stream of falsehoods and authoritarian legal theories that are being propagated almost daily. To do otherwise would be to cede the field to lawyers of bad faith. We have seen in recent years what the unchecked spread of wildly untrue and anti-democratic lies gets us. We lawyers have a gift for advocacy and persuasion; we must use it.While those in the pro-democracy legal community — many of them progressives — might disagree with our overall legal philosophy, we welcome them with open arms. We are at a point when commitment to fundamental classical liberal tenets of our republican form of government is far more important than partisan politics and political party — and even philosophical questions about the law. Our country comes first, and our country is in a constitutional emergency, if not a constitutional crisis. We all must act accordingly, especially us lawyers.The writers are lawyers. George Conway was in private practice. J. Michael Luttig was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991 to 2006. Barbara Comstock represented Virginia’s 10th District in Congress from 2015 to 2019. They serve on the board of the newly formed Society for the Rule of Law Institute, formerly called Checks & Balances.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Senate Is Getting Less Democratic by the Minute

      by

      Democrats and the independents who caucus with them will be playing defense in 23 of the 34 Senate seats on the ballot in the 2024 congressional elections. Four of the 23 are in swing states that President Biden won narrowly in 2020. Three are in states that Donald Trump won in both 2016 and 2020.If Democrats were to lose all seven, a catastrophic defeat, they would start the next session in Congress with a weak minority of senators — its smallest number since the days of President Herbert Hoover — who would nonetheless represent nearly half the population of the United States.Depending on where you stand in relation to partisan politics in this country, you may not find this disparity all that compelling. But consider the numbers when you take political affiliation out of the picture: roughly half of all Americans, some 169 million people, live in the nine most populous states. Together, those states get 18 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate.To pass anything under simple majority rules, assuming support from the sitting vice president, those 18 senators would have to attract another 32 votes: the equivalent, in electoral terms, of a supermajority. On the flip side, it is possible to pass an item out of the Senate with a coalition of members who represent a small fraction of the total population — around 18 percent — but hold an absolute majority of the seats. And this is before we get to the filibuster, which imposes a more explicit supermajority requirement on top of this implicit one.Last week, The Washington Post published a detailed look at the vast disparities of power that mark the Senate, which was structured on the principle of equal state representation: Regardless of population, every state gets two members. A carry-over from the Articles of Confederation, the principle of equal state representation was so controversial that it nearly derailed the Philadelphia Convention, where James Madison and others were trying to build a national government with near total independence from the states.It is not for nothing that in the Federalist Papers, neither Madison nor John Jay nor Alexander Hamilton attempts to defend the structure of the Senate from first principles. Instead, Madison wrote in Federalist No. 62, you should consider it a concession to the political realities of the moment:A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.Today, the Senate is a distinctly undemocratic institution that has worked, over the past decade, to block policies favored by a large majority of Americans and even a solid majority of senators. And while there’s no immediate hope of changing it, a cleareyed analysis of the chamber’s structural faults can help answer one of the key questions of American democracy: Who, or what, is this system supposed to represent?As the Post piece notes, equal state representation has never been equitable: “In 1790, Virginia, the most populous state, had roughly 13 times the population of Delaware, the least populous, with a difference of about 700,000 people.” But as the country has grown larger and more diverse, the disparities have grown greater and more perverse. The population difference between the states is so large now that a resident of the least populous state, Wyoming, as many observers have pointed out, has 68 times the representation in the Senate than does a resident of California, the largest state by population. In fact, a state gets less actual representation in the chamber the more it attracts new residents.There is not just a disparity of representation; there is a disparity in who is represented as well. The most populous states — including not only California, but New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas — tend to be the most diverse states, with a large proportion of nonwhite residents. The smallest states by population — like Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire — tend to be the least diverse. And the structure of the Senate tends to amplify the power of residents in smaller states and weaken the power of those in larger states. When coupled with the potential for — and what is in truth the reality of — minority rule in the chamber, you have a system that gives an almost absolute veto on most federal legislation to a pretty narrow slice of white Americans.One response to these disparities of power and influence is to say that they represent the intent of the framers. There are at least two problems with this view. The first is that the modern Senate reproduces some of the key problems — among them the possibility of a minority veto that grinds governance to a halt — that the framers were trying to overcome when they scrapped the Articles of Confederation. The second and more important problem is that the modern Senate isn’t the one the framers designed in 1787.In 1913, the United States adopted the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, providing for the direct election of senators at the ballot box rather than their selection by state legislatures. This change disrupted the logic of the Senate. Before, each senator was a kind of ambassador from his state government. After the amendment went into effect, each senator was a direct representative of the people of that state.If each member was a kind of ambassador, then you could justify unequal voting power by pointing to the equal sovereignty of each state under the Constitution. But if each member is a direct representative, then it becomes all the more difficult to say that some Americans deserve more representation than others on account of arbitrary state borders.This brings us back to our question: Who, or what, is the American system supposed to represent? If it is supposed to represent the states — if the states are the primary unit of American democracy — then there’s nothing about the structure of the Senate to object to.It’s plain as day that the states are not the primary unit of American democracy. As James Wilson of Pennsylvania observed during the Philadelphia Convention, the new national government was being formed for the sake of individuals rather than “the imaginary beings called states.” And as we’ve expanded the scope of democratic participation, we have affirmed — again and again — that it is the people who deserve representation on an equal basis, not the states.There is no realistic way, at this moment, to make the Senate more democratic. But if we can identify the Senate as one of the key sources of an unacceptable democratic deficit, then we can look for other ways to enhance democracy in the American system.I know that, given the scale and scope of the problem, that does not sound very inspiring. But we have to start somewhere.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      We Did an Experiment to See How Much Democracy and Abortion Matter to Voters

      by

      Yes, the economy is important, but we found that election subversion attempts appear to matter more to voters than polling suggests.Voters usually penalize those supporting electoral subversion.Ashley Gilbertson for The New York TimesDo abortion and democracy matter to voters?If you look at the results of New York Times/Siena College polling, the answer often seems to be “not really.”Around 40 percent of voters agreed that Donald J. Trump was “bad” for democracy in our latest poll. Only around a quarter said that issues like democracy and abortion were more important to their vote than the economy.But in election after election, the final vote tallies seem to tell a very different story. Last fall, Democrats excelled when abortion and democracy were at stake, even though our pre-election polls offered little indication that these issues were driving voters. It raises the possibility that the usual poll questions simply failed to reveal the importance of abortion, democracy and perhaps other issues as well.With that in mind, we tried an experiment in our latest Times/Siena poll. We looked at the persuadable voters — those who were undecided or who said they were open to supporting the other candidate — and split them into two groups. We gave each group a set of two hypothetical Republican candidates based on views on abortion and democracy.While only an experiment, the findings suggest that democracy has the potential to be an extremely important factor in people’s voting — even among voters who say it’s not important to them at all.Here’s the democracy matchup:Hypothetical A: Would you be more likely to support a Democratic candidate who says Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy, or a Republican candidate who tried to overturn the 2020 election?Hypothetical B: Would you be more likely to support a Democratic candidate who says Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy, or a Republican candidate who says we should move on from the 2020 election?If democracy didn’t matter to voters, these two hypotheticals might not yield very different results.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Crisis in Issue Polling, and What We’re Doing About It

      by

      A poll can be very close to the actual result but miss the key story line. We’ll try new question forms; we might even try an experiment or two.Protecting democracy has been a potent message in recent elections. Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesBy the usual measures, last year’s midterm polls were among the most accurate on record.But in harder-to-measure ways, there’s a case those same polls were extraordinarily bad.Poll after poll seemed to tell a clear story before the election: Voters were driven more by the economy, immigration and crime than abortion and democracy, helping to raise the specter of a “red wave.”In the end, the final results looked just about like the final polls, but they told a completely different story about the election: When abortion and democracy were at stake, Democrats excelled. And while the polls had sometimes or even often showed Democrats excelling, they almost always failed to convincingly explain why they were ahead — making it seem that Democratic polling leads were fragile and tenuous.Take our own Times/Siena polls. Our results in states like Pennsylvania and Arizona were very close to the final results and showed Democrats with the lead. By all accounts, abortion and democracy were major factors helping to explain Democratic strength in these states, especially against election deniers like Doug Mastriano or Kari Lake.But although these polls performed well, they simply didn’t explain what happened. If anything, the polls were showing the conditions for a Republican win. They showed that voters wanted Republican control of the Senate. They showed that a majority of voters didn’t really care whether a candidate thought Joe Biden won the 2020 election, even though election deniers wound up being clearly punished at the ballot box. Voters said they cared more about the economy than issues like abortion or democracy, and so on.The Times/Siena polling wasn’t alone in this regard. Virtually all of the major public pollsters told the same basic story, and it’s the opposite of the story that we told after the election. If we judge these poll questions about the issues by the same standard that we judge the main election results — a comparison between the pre-election polls and what we believe to be true after the election, with the benefit of the results — I think we’d have to say this was a complete misfire.If you do this exercise for previous elections, issue polling failures look more like the norm than the exception. There just aren’t many elections when you can read a pre-election poll story, line it up with the post-election story, and say that the pre-election poll captured the most important dynamics of the election. The final CBS/NYT, Pew Research and ABC/Washington Post polls from the 2016 election, for instance, barely shed any light at all on Donald J. Trump’s strength. They contributed essentially nothing to the decade-long debate about whether the economy, racial resentment, immigration or anything else helped explain Mr. Trump’s success among white working-class voters in that election.With such a poor track record, there’s a case that “issue” polling faces a far graver crisis than “horse race” polling. I can imagine many public pollsters recoiling at that assertion, but they can’t prove it wrong, either. The crisis facing issue polling is almost entirely non-falsifiable — just like the issue polling itself. Indeed, the fact that the problems with issue polling are so hard to quantify is probably why problems have been allowed to fester. Most pollsters probably assume they’re good at issue polling; after all, unlike with horse race polls, they’re almost never demonstrably wrong.In fairness to pollsters, the problem isn’t only that the usual questions probably don’t fully portray the attitudes of the electorate. It’s also that pollsters are trying to figure out what’s driving the behavior of voters, and that’s a different and more challenging question than simply measuring whom they’ll vote for or what they believe. These causal questions are beyond what a single poll with “issue” questions can realistically be expected to answer. The worlds of political campaigning and social science research, with everything from experimental designs to messaging testing, probably have more of the relevant tools than public pollsters.Over the next year, we’re going to try to bring some of those tools into our polling. We’ll focus more on analyzing what factors predict whether voters have “flipped” since 2020, rather than look at what attitudes prevail over a majority of the electorate. We’ll try new question forms. We might even try an experiment or two.We already tried one such experiment in our latest Times/Siena battleground state poll. We split the sample into two halves: One half was asked whether they’d vote for a typical Democrat against a Republican expressing a moderate view on abortion or democracy; the other half was given the same Democrat against a Republican expressing more conservative or MAGA views on abortion or democracy.In the next newsletter, I’ll tell you about the results of that experiment. I think it was promising. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      When It Comes to Disdain for Democracy, Trump Has Company

      by

      It makes perfect sense to treat Donald Trump as the most immediate threat to the future of American democracy. He has an ambitious plan to turn the office of the presidency into an instrument of “revenge” against his political enemies and other supposedly undesirable groups.But while we keep our eyes on Trump and his allies and enablers, it is also important not to lose sight of the fact that anti-democratic attitudes run deep within the Republican Party. In particular, there appears to be a view among many Republicans that the only vote worth respecting is a vote for the party and its interests. A vote against them is a vote that doesn’t count.This is not a new phenomenon. We saw a version of it on at least two occasions in 2018. In Florida, a nearly two-thirds majority of voters backed a state constitutional amendment to effectively end felon disenfranchisement. The voters of Florida were as clear as voters could possibly be: If you’ve served your time, you deserve your ballot.Rather than heed the voice of the people, Florida Republicans immediately set out to render it moot. They passed, and Gov. Ron DeSantis signed, a bill that more or less nullified the amendment by imposing an almost impossible set of requirements for former felons to meet. Specifically, eligible voters had to pay any outstanding fees or fines that were on the books before their rights could be restored. Except there was no central record of those fees or fines, and the state did not have to tell former felons what they owed, if anything. You could try to vote, but you risked arrest, conviction and even jail time.In Wisconsin, that same year, voters put Tony Evers, a Democrat, into the governor’s mansion, breaking eight years of Republican control. The Republican-led Legislature did not have the power to overturn the election results, but the impenetrable, ultra-gerrymandered majority could use its authority to strip as much power from the governor as possible, blocking, among other things, his ability to withdraw from a state lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act — one of the things he campaigned on. Wisconsin voters would have their new governor, but he’d be as weak as Republicans could possibly make him.It almost goes without saying that we should include the former president’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election as another example of the willingness of the Republican Party to reject any electoral outcome that doesn’t fall in its favor. And although we’ve only had a few elections this year, it doesn’t take much effort to find more of the same.I’ve already written about the attempt among Wisconsin Republicans to nullify the results of a heated race for a seat on the state Supreme Court. Voters overwhelmingly backed the more liberal candidate for the seat, Janet Protasiewicz, giving the court the votes needed to overturn the gerrymander that keeps Wisconsin Republicans in power in the Legislature even after they lose a majority of votes statewide.In response, Wisconsin Republicans floated an effort to impeach the new justice on a trumped-up charge of bias. The party eventually backed down in the face of national outrage — and the danger that any attempt to remove Protasiewicz might backfire electorally in the future. But the party’s reflexive move to attempt to cancel the will of the electorate says everything you need to know about the relationship of the Wisconsin Republican Party to democracy.Ohio Republicans seem to share the same attitude toward voters who choose not to back Republican priorities. As in Wisconsin, the Ohio Legislature is so gerrymandered in favor of the Republican Party that it would take a once-in-a-century supermajority of Democratic votes to dislodge it from power. Most lawmakers in the state have nothing to fear from voters who might disagree with their actions.It was in part because of this gerrymander that abortion rights proponents in the state focused their efforts on a ballot initiative. The Ohio Legislature may have been dead set on ending abortion access in the state — in 2019, the Republican majority passed a so-called heartbeat bill banning abortion after six weeks — but Ohio voters were not.Aware that most of the voters in their state supported abortion rights, and unwilling to try to persuade them that an abortion ban was the best policy for the state, Ohio Republicans first tried to rig the game. In August, the Legislature asked voters to weigh in on a new supermajority requirement for ballot initiatives to amend the State Constitution. If approved, this requirement would have stopped the abortion rights amendment in its tracks.It failed. And last week, Ohioans voted overwhelmingly to write reproductive rights into their State Constitution, repudiating their gerrymandered, anti-choice Legislature. Or so they thought.Not one full day after the vote, four Republican state representatives announced that they intended to do everything in their power to nullify the amendment and give lawmakers total discretion to ban abortion as they see fit. “This initiative failed to mention a single, specific law,” their statement reads. “We will do everything in our power to prevent our laws from being removed upon perception of intent. We were elected to protect the most vulnerable in our state, and we will continue that work.”Notice the language: “our power” and “our laws.” There is no awareness here that the people of Ohio are sovereign and that their vote to amend the State Constitution holds greater authority than the judgment of a small group of legislators. This group may not like the fact that Ohioans have declared the Republican abortion ban null and void, but that is democracy. If these lawmakers want to advance their efforts to restrict abortion, they first need to persuade the people.To many Republicans, unfortunately, persuasion is anathema. There is no use making an argument since you might lose. Instead, the game is to create a system in which, heads or tails, you always win.That’s why Republican legislatures across the country have embraced partisan gerrymanders so powerful that they undermine the claim to democratic government in the states in question. That’s why Republicans in places like North Carolina have adopted novel and dubious legal arguments about state power, the upshot of which is that they concentrate power in the hands of these gerrymandered state legislatures, giving them total authority over elections and electoral outcomes. And that’s why, months before voting begins in the Republican presidential contest, much of the party has already embraced a presidential candidate who promises to prosecute and persecute his political opponents.One of the basic ideas of democracy is that nothing is final. Defeats can become victories and victories can become defeats. Governments change, laws change, and, most important, the people change. No majority is the majority, and there’s always the chance that new configurations of groups and interests will produce new outcomes.For this to work, however, we — as citizens — have to believe it can work. Cultivating this faith is no easy task. We have to have confidence in our ability to talk to one another, to work with one another, to persuade one another. We have to see one another, in some sense, as equals, each of us entitled to our place in this society.It seems to me that too many Republicans have lost that faith.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Las denuncias de fraude electoral de Milei emulan las estrategias de Trump y Bolsonaro

      by

      El economista libertario de extrema derecha Javier Milei podría ganar la presidencia de Argentina el domingo. Si no lo consigue, ya ha planteado que sería por fraude.Las denuncias de Donald Trump sobre fraude electoral ya habían ayudado a inspirar a un líder sudamericano, el expresidente de Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, a sembrar dudas sobre la seguridad de las elecciones de su nación, lo que provocó disturbios en la capital de Brasil este año.Ahora, a 2400 kilómetros al sur, hay un nuevo político latinoamericano que denuncia un fraude electoral con escasas pruebas, socavando la fe de muchos de sus partidarios en las elecciones de su país de este domingo.Javier Milei, economista libertario de extrema derecha y personalidad televisiva, compite en una segunda vuelta electoral para convertirse en el próximo presidente de Argentina. Durante la campaña, ha aceptado con beneplácito las comparaciones con Trump y Bolsonaro y, al igual que ellos, ha advertido repetidamente de que si pierde, podría ser porque le hayan robado las elecciones.Milei ha afirmado, sin pruebas, que papeletas robadas y dañadas le costaron más de un millón de votos en las elecciones primarias celebradas en agosto, es decir, hasta el 5 por ciento del total.Milei afirmó que un fraude similar podría haber amañado también la primera vuelta de las elecciones generales del 22 de octubre, en las que quedó segundo con el 30 por ciento de los votos. “Hubo irregularidades de semejante tamaño que ponen en duda el resultado”, declaró en una entrevista televisiva la semana pasada.El miércoles, su campaña intensificó las acusaciones. La hermana de Milei, que dirige su campaña, presentó una denuncia ante un juez federal en la que alegaba un “fraude colosal” y afirmaba que, en las votaciones previas, funcionarios argentinos anónimos cambiaron papeletas de Milei en favor de su oponente. Dijeron que la información procedía de fuentes anónimas.El ascenso de Milei de incendiario comentarista de televisión a líder político a las puertas de la presidencia de Argentina ya ha sacudido la política de este país de 46 millones de habitantes. Sus promesas radicales de sustituir la moneda argentina por el dólar estadounidense y cerrar el banco central del país han hecho que los argentinos se preparen para lo que podría ocurrir si gana.Pero ahora, con sus alegaciones preventivas de fraude, los argentinos también se preparan para lo que podría ocurrir si no gana.Milei ha prometido modificar radicalmente el gobierno y la economía de Argentina, al eliminar el banco central del país y reemplazar su moneda por el dólar estadounidense.Sarah Pabst para The New York TimesLas encuestas apuntan a un empate técnico entre Milei y su oponente, Sergio Massa, ministro de Economía de centroizquierda.Muchos de los partidarios de Milei ya han empezado a quejarse, culpando al fraude de su segundo lugar el mes pasado y saliendo a la calle al menos tres veces para protestar lo que según ellos son planes de la izquierda para robar las elecciones. El jueves, sus partidarios anunciaron planes para protestar ante la autoridad electoral del país el día de las elecciones.Hasta ahora, las protestas han sido relativamente pequeñas y pacíficas, pero los observadores electorales señalan que podría deberse a que Milei sigue en la contienda.“No me preocupa que el sistema electoral argentino esté en riesgo”, dijo Facundo Cruz, politólogo argentino que ha seguido de cerca las denuncias de fraude. “Pero sí que ciertas prácticas que vimos en Estados Unidos y en Brasil se repitan”.El aprieto de Argentina sugiere que los esfuerzos de Trump para revertir las elecciones estadounidenses de 2020 no solo dejaron una marca duradera en la democracia estadounidense, sino que también siguen reverberando mucho más allá de las fronteras de EE. UU., donde algunos líderes políticos están recurriendo al fraude como una nueva excusa potencial para la derrota electoral.“En 40 años de democracia, nunca hemos tenido críticas serias ni idea alguna de fraude como la que se denuncia ahora”, afirmó Beatriz Busaniche, directora de la Fundación Vía Libre, una organización argentina sin fines de lucro que ha trabajado para mejorar los sistemas de votación del país. (Argentina estuvo bajo el control de una dictadura militar de 1976 a 1983).“Todas las personas que creen en el sistema electoral, la democracia y la transparencia están muy preocupadas”, añadió Busaniche.Las autoridades electorales argentinas afirman que no hay pruebas de fraude. En la votación del 22 de octubre, recibieron un total de 105 denuncias de papeletas perdidas o dañadas, una cifra habitual.Las autoridades electorales afirmaron que tampoco han recibido ninguna queja formal de la campaña de Milei en relación con un posible fraude. La autoridad electoral argentina, en un comunicado, calificó sus declaraciones de “invocaciones de fraude sin fundamento que en estos días desinforman a la opinión pública y socavan a la democracia como sistema de creencias compartidas”.En Argentina, los ciudadanos votan introduciendo una papeleta del candidato de su preferencia en un sobre y depositando el sobre cerrado en una urna. Las campañas distribuyen sus papeletas en los centros electorales. Milei y sus aliados afirman que algunas personas han estado robando sus papeletas de los centros electorales, impidiendo a sus partidarios votar por él.Sin embargo, cuando se les ha presionado, Milei y su campaña no han presentado muchas pruebas. Después de que el fiscal electoral argentino pidiera a la campaña de Milei que presentara pruebas, esta declaró que había respondido con videos y fotos de las redes sociales.El hombre que coordina la respuesta de Milei a los funcionarios electorales, Santiago Viola, director jurídico nacional de la campaña, dijo en una entrevista que había recibido entre 10 y 15 quejas por escrito de personas que afirmaban que en sus centros electorales habían faltado papeletas con el nombre de Milei.Viola dijo que creía que funcionarios de campaña de otras partes del país habían recogido otras quejas, pero que él no las había visto. No pudo verificar la afirmación de otro funcionario de la campaña el mes pasado de que había 4500 denuncias de papeletas desaparecidas. El mes pasado votaron más de 26 millones de personas.“Javier maneja los números mejor que yo”, dijo Viola refiriéndose a Milei.Milei afirma que hay “estudios” que demuestran que le robaron el 5 por ciento de los votos en las elecciones primarias, pero no los ha compartido.Argentina utiliza boletas de papel en las elecciones.Daniel Jayo/Associated PressMilei ha dicho que un indicio de fraude es que, al votar, algunos centros electorales no reportaron ningún voto a su favor. Milei afirma que eso es estadísticamente imposible. En realidad, los tres candidatos más votados el mes pasado obtuvieron cero votos en casi el mismo número de centros electorales —aproximadamente 100 cada uno—, sin contar los centros que no registraron ningún voto. Existen 104.520 centros de votación.“No salí a denunciar fraude”, dijo en una entrevista Massa, oponente de Milei. “Puede que haya mesas o urnas donde nadie te vote”.Massa dijo que Milei está siguiendo un manual ya conocido. “Es la misma metodología de Bolsonaro, la misma metodología de Trump”, afirmó.Milei se ha mostrado proclive a las teorías conspirativas. Ha calificado el cambio climático de complot socialista. Ha dicho que duda de los resultados de las elecciones de 2020 y 2022 en Estados Unidos y Brasil. También ha afirmado que los subsiguientes ataques de manifestantes contra edificios gubernamentales de EE. UU. y Brasil no tuvieron nada que ver con Trump o Bolsonaro.En septiembre, Milei dijo a The Economist que se había demostrado que lo ocurrido en Brasil fue organizado por el propio gobierno brasileño. Sin embargo, hay pruebas claras y abundantes de que los partidarios de Bolsonaro asaltaron la capital de Brasil en un intento de revertir la derrota electoral de Bolsonaro.Partidarios de Bolsonaro saquearon el Supremo Tribunal Federal y otros edificios gubernamentales durante un motín en enero.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesComo candidato presidencial, Milei tiene mucho menos poder del que tenían Trump y Bolsonaro como presidentes en ejercicio cuando denunciaron fraude. Sin embargo, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Brasil, las instituciones gubernamentales que controlaban resistieron en gran medida las acusaciones de fraude.En su lugar, fueron sus partidarios —quienes habían escuchado durante meses denuncias de fraude electoral— quienes asaltaron los edificios del poder.Tras conocerse los resultados de la primera vuelta el mes pasado, Julián Ballester, trabajador de construcción de 21 años, se plantó ante el cuartel general de la campaña de Milei la noche de las elecciones, convencido de que los números estaban amañados. “Tiraron muchas boletas”, dijo, afirmando que había visto fotos en grupos de WhatsApp. “Es evidente el fraude”.La situación en Argentina se ha vuelto más tensa en el último año a medida que la economía se ha ido desmoronando. La inflación anual supera el 140 por ciento, mientras que la pobreza y el hambre han aumentado. Milei ha construido su campaña en parte sobre la afirmación de que una secta oculta de la élite, liderada por Massa, está robando a los argentinos de a pie.El año pasado, un hombre movido por teorías conspirativas apretó el gatillo de una pistola a escasos centímetros de la cara de la vicepresidenta argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, aliada política de Massa.El arma tuvo un desperfecto y no disparó.Milei dijo esta semana que su campaña planeaba combatir el fraude el domingo armando a los 103.000 supervisores electorales de su campaña con boletas, para que pudieran reponer las existencias en los centros electorales en caso de que se robara alguna.Milei afirmó que era una tristeza que su campaña tuviera que recurrir a esas medidas. “¿Te das cuenta las locuras que estamos discutiendo?”.Jack Nicas es el jefe de la corresponsalía en Brasil, que abarca Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay. Anteriormente reportó de tecnología desde San Francisco y, antes de integrarse al Times en 2018, trabajó siete años en The Wall Street Journal. Más de Jack Nicas More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Ahead of Argentina’s Presidential Election, Milei Is Already Pointing to Fraud

      by

      Javier Milei, a far-right libertarian economist, could be elected Argentina’s president on Sunday. If he is not, he has already pointed to fraud.Donald J. Trump’s claims of election fraud already helped inspire one South American leader, former president Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, to sow doubt about the security of his nation’s elections, leading to a riot in Brazil’s capital this year.Now, 1,500 miles to the south, there is a new Latin American politician warning of voter fraud with scant evidence, undermining many of his supporters’ faith in their nation’s election this Sunday.Javier Milei, a far-right libertarian economist and television personality, is competing to become Argentina’s next president in a runoff election. On the campaign trail, he has embraced comparisons to Mr. Trump and Mr. Bolsonaro, and, like them, has repeatedly warned that if he loses, it may be because the election was stolen.Mr. Milei has claimed, without evidence, that stolen and damaged ballots cost him more than a million votes in a primary election in August, or as much as 5 percent of the total.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More