musingsfromoceanview.com

While mid-decade gerrymandering has attracted more attention, another initiative with potentially broader impact on voting is advancing largely under the radar. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is a proposed agreement among states to award each participating state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide regardless of whether that candidate won the popular vote in that state. Its premise is that presidential elections should be decided by direct popular vote rather than the current electoral college process.

The NPVIC movement began in 2006, inspired mainly by the 2000 presidential election in which George W. Bush narrowly lost the popular vote to Al Gore but prevailed in the electoral college. There have been four other instances, most recently 2016, when the presidential winner lost the popular vote.^[1]Donald Trump in 2016, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and John Quincy Adams in 1824. Adams lost both the popular vote and in the electoral college but was elected by the House … Continue reading By its terms, the NPVIC will take effect only if it attracts enough states to control 270 electoral votes, the number needed to decide presidential elections. According to its website, 18 states and the District of Columbia, now holding a total of 222 electoral votes, have signed up so far. The most recent addition is Virginia, which joined just this year. The NPVIC currently needs to add states having only 48 more electoral votes to become operative.^[2]The exact number is subject to change since the allocation of electoral votes among states will undergo revision following the 2030 census.

A reasonable case can be made that the NPVIC would advance democratic principles. Electing the president by popular vote certainly seems more democratic. It’s fair to argue that the electoral college is anachronistic and the Constitution would instead provide for direct popular election of the president if it were written today. Presidential elections by popular vote should also enhance citizen engagement since the competition would truly be nationwide rather than limited in practice to the handful of swing states that now tend to determine the electoral college winner.

However, the NPVIC also carries many potential downsides. For starters, there are profound issues over its constitutionality. It’s an obvious attempt to circumvent the state-based process adopted by the framers of the Constitution, who specifically rejected presidential election by direct popular vote. Indeed, it would  nullify the formula for allocating electoral votes the framers carefully crafted to strike a balance between larger and smaller states.

While the Constitution grants states broad discretion over how to choose their electors, it’s questionable whether this extends to making themselves irrelevant by scrapping the state-based system that is central to the Constitution’s design and essentially outsourcing their electoral vote to other states. Another issue is whether the Constitution’s Compacts Clause requires congressional consent to the NPVIC.^[3]See here and here for a detailed discussion of these and additional legal issues.

Elections subject to the NPVIC would present many practical complications as well. A system in which every vote in every state is in play would likely increase election challenges and recount demands exponentially, perhaps requiring nationwide recounts. Simply arriving at initial national vote totals would be a protracted process.^[4]It took California five weeks to certify its 2024 popular vote. All this could leave the presidential election outcome in limbo for an inordinate period.^[5]See here and here for more on these and other practical challenges.

Additionally, the NPVIC has a pronounced partisan tilt. While the initiative has received scattered bipartisan support, its proponents lean heavily Democratic. Every state to adopt the NPVIC so far as well as the District of Columbia is deep blue or blue-leaning. Democrats held a “trifecta” (control of both legislative chambers and the executive) in 17 of the 19 jurisdictions.^[6]In another, Hawaii, the Democratic legislature overrode the Republican governor’s veto of the bill to join. Public opinion polls also show a sharp partisan divide. While a majority of Americans favor popular election of the president, support is much higher among Democrats than Republicans.^[7]See the 2024 polls by Pew and Gallup. Importantly, these polls were taken before the 2024 presidential election.

Another question is whether citizens would readily accept the consequences of the NPVIC if it took effect. It’s one thing to favor direct popular election in the abstract, but would majority voters in states whose electoral votes went to the candidate they opposed really be OK with that? While Democrats apparently feel that popular vote election gives them an edge, they should be careful what they wish for. Trump won the popular vote in 2024; thus, under NPVIC he would have won the electoral vote from all solid blue states whose majorities voted against him. His narrow popular vote margin over Kamala Harris (about 1.5 percent) would have translated to a landslide win in the electoral college.

Finally, there’s a clearly legal, less convoluted alternative to the NPVIC that would achieve the democratic benefits of presidential election by popular vote while preserving the Constitution’s current electoral college framework as well as the integrity of each individual state’s electoral vote. It would also avoid many of the NPVIC’s practical complications.

The fundamental problem with our current system isn’t the electoral college per se but the fact that most states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. This problem could be solved if each state instead allocated its electoral votes to reflect as closely as possible the popular vote within that state. For example, if the presidential candidates split the popular vote in a state with 10 electoral votes 60 to 40 percent, the winner would receive six of those electoral votes with the losing candidate getting the other four. This approach would consistently align electoral college and nationwide popular vote results, and it’s clearly constitutional. In fact, two states, Maine and Nebraska, now use a variant of it.

Alas, preferable as this approach might be, it seems politically infeasible in our current polarized, hyper-partisan environment. Implementing it would require a degree of collaboration between red and blue states that is hard to envision. Solid Republican and Democratic states would have to cede a significant portion of their now reliable electoral votes to the other party. Nevertheless, those who genuinely seek more democratic presidential elections might at least consider it.

 

 

 

 

 

Confusion abounds over exactly why the United States started the current war on Iran, what its strategic objectives are, and what the war’s likely outcome and long-term consequences will be. Major military operations are necessarily complex and unpredictable; hence the term “fog of war.” However, the evolving and frequently inconsistent explanations by the Trump administration along with President Trump’s erratic threats, actions and increasingly unhinged rants compound the inevitable uncertainty.

Two accounts–one unverified but plausible, the other clearly true–do shed light on how the war came about. Both are troubling. 

A remarkable New York Times story offers a detailed narrative of the presidential decision-making process. It suggests that the pivotal event was a February 11 White House meeting at which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made a “hard sell” for the war to Trump and a small circle of his advisors. Netanyahu insisted that the war could be completed quickly and would result in ousting Iran’s radical regime. He discounted the risk that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz or attack neighboring countries. After listening to Netanyahu’s pitch, Trump supposedly replied “sounds good to me.”

Of Trump’s advisors, only Defense Secretary Hegseth shared his enthusiasm; the rest expressed varying degrees of skepticism. Over the following days, U.S. intelligence officials assessed Netanyahu’s prediction of an uprising leading to regime change as “detached from reality” and “farcical.” Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine warned Trump that a major campaign against Iran would drastically deplete U.S. weapons stockpiles and emphasized the risk of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Vice President Vance opposed the operation outright.

The timetable for reaching a decision was pushed up by intelligence that Iran’s ayatollah would be vulnerable to assassination on a particular day. In the end, none of Trump’s advisors pushed back significantly against his initial inclination to go to war despite their reservations. According to the article, all deferred to Trump’s instinct that the war would be a quick and decisive win.

If even the gist of this account is true, it presents a disturbing picture: Trump launched a major military action based largely on his own instincts, favoring the rosy scenario pushed by Netanyahu over cautionary assessments by military and intelligence officials as well as mainly skepticism by the few advisors he consulted. While its accuracy can’t be established definitively, this account does align with Trump’s consistent tendency to operate mainly by whim with little interest in or tolerance for opposing views. 

The second disturbing feature, which is clearly true, is the absence of any consultation with Congress. The Constitution explicitly vests the power to declare war in Congress. Over time, war powers have shifted dramatically from Congress to the president. Nevertheless, the total absence of congressional participation in this case is striking. Law Professors Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith describe the Iran war as “among the most consequential [congressionally] unauthorized presidential uses of force in all of American history,” probably second only to the Korean War, and also “a new nadir in the decline of Congress’s check on presidential war.”

The lack of congressional input is more than an abstract legal concern. Bauer and Goldsmith note that the constitutional authority to declare war was assigned to Congress “to ensure a democratic check on unilateral presidential military adventurism.” They see a direct connection between the absence of consultation with Congress before or since the Iran war began and the volatility with which the administration has conducted it. They submit that “the need to justify and explain [the war] to government leaders outside the presidential bubble might have surfaced the many problems that have become apparent over the last month and counseled a steadier course.”  

Nothing illustrates this better than the conundrum over Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Most experts regard this tactic by Iran as entirely foreseeable. General Caine reportedly highlighted the risk to Trump, but Trump brushed it aside and his “bubble” offered little resistance. They now face a variant of Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn rule (“you break it, you own it”). One expert submits that the crisis Trump created regarding the Strait may have caused the war to morph from one of choice to one of necessity.

Trump’s varying responses to the closure have ranged from asserting that reopening the Strait is someone else’s problem, to saying it will somehow reopen itself, to making the reopening an essential part of any settlement of the war. He has now ordered the U.S. military to conduct its own blockade of the Strait.

How the war turns out remains to be seen, but all outward signs along with the above reporting suggest that Trump started it with no coherent, realistic strategy. Moreover, he is operating without either internal or congressional guardrails.

Clearly, the U.S. military is performing at a high level; perhaps the war will achieve strategic outcomes justifying its huge costs and other consequences. However, surely this is not the way to initiate and conduct a major war. The track record of U.S. military actions over recent decades is not good even when undertaken by more conventional presidents with more serious advisors than the ever more bizarre Trump and his gang of sycophantic enablers.       

 

One downside (among many) of the age of Trump is the tendency of his opponents to stoop to his level, adopt his tactics, and join him in a race to the bottom. Virginia’s radical gerrymandering proposal is a case in point:

• • It would debase Virginia’s redistricting process from one of the fairest in the Nation to the least fair.
  • It would make Virginia the most extremely gerrymandered of all states.
  • While promoted as a “temporary” measure to counter Trump, it would remain in effect for at least three election cycles, well after Trump leaves office, and perhaps longer.
  • It’s unlikely to significantly impact the net outcome of the 2026 House elections.
  • What it’s certain to do is devalue the constitutional voting rights of hundreds of thousands of Virginians and further degrade our already abysmal politics.

The official explanation for the proposal on the April 21 ballot is a Trump-worthy masterstroke of misinformation. The claim that its purpose is “to restore fairness in the upcoming elections” is patently false. The proposal would do precisely the opposite by restoring the unfairness of gerrymandering that the independent redistricting process it overrides was designed to prevent. Indeed, it would change Virginia’s grade on the nonpartisan Princeton Gerrymandering Project’s Redistricting Report Card from an A to an F.

The other claim in the official explanation, that the proposal would only “temporarily” supersede the independent process, is highly misleading. The gerrymandered districts would remain not just for the 2026 elections but for at least the following two election cycles reaching into the next decade. By then, those districts and their incumbents would be entrenched. If Democrats still control the state government, they will almost surely try to keep their advantage by putting off the independent process again. Conversely, if Republicans control the state, they will be itching for payback and anxious for a gerrymander of their own, invoking the Democratic “precedent.”

The new map that has already been enacted by Virginia Democrats is extreme even by gerrymandering standards. If it works as intended, it would flip one-third of the state’s U.S. House seats from a fairly balanced 6-5 split in favor of Democrats (reflecting Virginia’s political makeup) to 10 Democrats and only one Republican. This would make Virginia the most gerrymandered state in the Nation, with Republican-leaning voters more underrepresented than minority party voters in any other heavily gerrymandered state, red or blue. For example, Republicans would hold a higher proportion of House seats in deep blue Illinois than in Virginia; Democrats would be more proportionally represented in deep red Texas (even with its new gerrymander) than Republicans in Virginia.^[1]Virginia Republicans would have about the same minimal proportional  representation as California Republicans (taking California’s new gerrymander into account), but of course Virginia has a far … Continue reading 

Even proponents find the proposal distasteful but justify it as necessary to counter Trump’s mid-decade gerrymander push. Democratic Congressman Don Beyers conceded that while the proposal “seems unfair in Virginia,” voters should “hold their nose” and support it. But the justification that this is only a defensive measure to counter Trump is belied by the fact that Virginia’s gerrymandered districts would continue for at least four years after Trump leaves office.

Moreover, it’s doubtful that the proposal would significantly affect the national election outcome in 2026. Trump’s gerrymandering push lost steam after Texas and California cancelled each other out. Even if other states belatedly join in, most experts think the most likely nationwide outcome from any additional gerrymandering will be a wash or at most a net gain of only a seat or two for one side or the other. Whether Democrats win a House majority in 2026 depends on many factors that are much more influential than newly gerrymandered districts.

In sum, there is no substantive or high-minded justification for this major assault on the constitutional voting rights of Virginians. Approval of the proposal would be a huge step backward for Virginia and yet another step lower in our national politics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees are now receiving their pay again is, of course, a good thing. For weeks they had been unfairly forced to work without pay, imposing great hardships on themselves and major inconvenience to the public, because Washington politicians refuse to do their jobs. However, the method of payment is patently illegal.

This inconvenient and somewhat obscure problem has attracted little attention given the popular outcome, but it sets a terrible precedent. If the president can bypass Congress and pay TSA salaries after Congress fails to act on the specific appropriation for this purpose, he can dip into the treasury and spend money directly for a host of other purposes he favors without congressional approval and even in the face of congressional opposition.

By way of background, the appropriation for TSA employee salaries expired on February 14 as part of the current partial government shutdown and remains nonexistent since Congress failed to agree on a carveout to revive it. Notwithstanding this, President Trump ordered the Secretary of Homeland Security in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to pay TSA employees from funds that have a “reasonable and logical nexus to TSA operations.”^[1]The order consists mainly of a political attack on Democrats.

This order contradicts the express terms of the Constitution (Art. I, § 9, Clause 7), which provides: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”  Where, as here, Congress fails to enact the specific appropriation for a particular object, the President can’t invoke another more general funding source that might arguably have some “nexus” to it. Obviously, doing so would effectively nullify the constitutional prohibition.^[2]See, e.g., here: An agency cannot use an appropriation account having a logical relation to an expense when another appropriation account specifically covers that expense.

The so-called Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) has been interpreted to permit the president to order essential employees to continue working during an appropriations lapse, receiving backpay after their appropriation is enacted. However, it does not permit such employees to actually be paid during the appropriations lapse. On the contrary, the Act restates the general prohibition against any federal officer or employee making or authorizing an expenditure exceeding the amount available in an appropriation. Indeed, the Act (31 U.S.C. § 1350) makes knowing and willful violations of this prohibition a crime.

Trump is probably oblivious to these legal constraints (or indifferent if he has been briefed on them). On the other hand, OMB Director Russell Vought surely is not. Vought undoubtedly knows that paying the TSA employees here is illegal. This is another all too familiar example of a fringe ideologue and sycophantic Trump enabler violating his oath of office to do Trump’s bidding.

Certainly, congressional leaders and at least senior members of both parties are likewise aware of this illegality. However, they appear willing to cynically ignore it since the end result eliminates one major cause of public outrage justifiably aimed at them for failing to perform their basic obligation to fund these important government services. Ending this significant pain point also eases pressure on them to come to their senses quickly and fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. (Congress is now on a two-week break.)

Once more, it’s great that TSA agents are being paid and airport screening delays are abating. But for anyone paying close attention this comes at a heavy potential cost to the proper functioning of our government whose ramifications remain to be seen.      

Parsing the decision-making of any president is difficult given the many complexities involved. Trump presents added challenges since he is a serial fabulist and the explanations he and his underlings offer frequently conflict and change radically. Could Occam’s Razor help? This principle holds that the simplest answer to a problem—i.e., the one with the fewest complexities, assumptions, and variables—is often the best. One straightforward, readily observable, and consistent theme goes a long way toward explaining Trump: virtually everything he does seems to be fundamentally about himself, specifically advancing his personal interests or feeding his insatiable ego.    

Allen Frances, a psychiatrist who helped write the criteria for a condition known as “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” (NPD), describes Trump as “an undisputed poster boy for narcissism” who “demonstrates in pure form every single [NPD] symptom.” Dr. Frances cautions that this does not mean Trump is mentally ill; indeed his main point is to criticize those who leap to this conclusion.^[1]For one thing, it is unethical under the so-called “Goldwater Rule” to diagnose anyone as mentally ill without examining them; for another, many politicians and other public figures exhibit NPD … Continue reading However, it is abundantly clear that Trump is a world-class narcissist.

According to the Mayo Clinic, people with NPD can exhibit the following symptoms:

• • Have an unreasonably high sense of self-importance and require constant, excessive admiration.
  • Feel that they deserve privileges and special treatment.
  • Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements.
  • Make achievements and talents seem bigger than they are.
  • Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate.
  • Believe they are superior to others and can only spend time with or be understood by equally special people.
  • Be critical of and look down on people they feel are not important.
  • Expect special favors and expect other people to do what they want without questioning them.
  • Take advantage of others to get what they want.
  • Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others.
  • Be envious of others and believe others envy them.
  • Behave in an arrogant way, brag a lot and come across as conceited.
  • Insist on having the best of everything.

They also have trouble handling anything they view as criticism; become impatient or angry when they don’t receive special recognition or treatment; easily feel slighted; react with rage or contempt; and belittle other people to make themselves appear superior.

Trump regularly displays most if not all of these characteristics in his public statements and behavior. To cite just a few examples:

• • He’s stocked his White House staff and administration with compliant, unquestioning sycophants.
  • He engages in unhinged rants against those who challenge his positions from political opponents, to media figures, to judges and Supreme Court justices.
  • He seeks vengeance against perceived enemies through frivolous legal attacks.
  • He names things for himself and covets awards and recognition.
  • He can’t accept his 2020 election loss and obsessively seeks ways to relitigate it.
  • He far exceeds former presidents in embellishing his accomplishments, frequently telling obvious lies.
  • He scorns foreign leaders who express insufficient praise and gratitude to him and favors those who flatter him.
  • His gratuitous, nonsensical, and cruel comments on the  murder of the Reiners and the death of Robert Mueller highlight both his need to make everything about himself and his total lack of empathy.

Moreover, there’s no obvious explanation for Trump’s behavior other than indulging his ego. He functions transactionally with no apparent core ideological beliefs. He flouts traditional democratic values and has no respect for the rule of law. Notably, he declared himself to be  constrained only by his own “morality.”

Nor does he adhere to any consistent policy agenda. He ran in 2024 on a platform of opposing illegal immigration, improving the economic lot of ordinary Americans, and keeping the nation out of foreign military entanglements. While he successfully secured the southern border, he pushed his anti-immigrant campaign well beyond what most of the public expected or wanted. He shows little interest in specific steps to improve the economic welfare of non-wealthy Americans, and some of his key policies do the opposite. 

Most surprisingly, he did a complete about-face on military adventurism. He sought to annex Greenland, he used the military to kill alleged drug smugglers, he attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, and he seized Venezuelan President Maduro. His most consequential action is the current war on Iran. Efforts abound from all ideological quarters to understand the rationale for starting this war, what its objectives are, and how it will end. These efforts are hampered by statements from Trump and others in the administration that are even more vague, shifting, and conflicting than usual.^[2]See, e.g., here, here, here and here.  

What is consistent in Trump’s words and actions is a focus on himself. According to Trump’s press secretary, he said he started the war because of a “a good feeling” that Iran was about to attack U.S. assets. He posted an image of himself captioned “the most badass president of all time.” He demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” He insisted that he must be personally involved in selecting Iran’s next leader. He declared the war will be over “any time I want it to end” and “when I feel it in my bones.” He said he “chose” not to wipe out Iran’s oil infrastructure on Kharg Island “for reasons of decency,” but later added that “we may hit it a few more times just for fun.”  

All of this points to an unserious person consumed by self-importance who operates by whim and caprice. It suggests that Trump’s ego played a major, perhaps pivotal, role in his decision to go to war. With the exception of his ludicrous Greenland escapade, Trump’s previous adventures worked well for him; they kept him in the spotlight and made him look macho, decisive, and formidable. These quick successes probably emboldened him to undertake the Iran war with the same aims in mind.

The war now rages on and its consequences expand while Trump contemplates his next potential adventure: Cuba. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a rare bit of good news for our politics, the grossly antidemocratic practice of gerrymandering subsided a little in recent years as several states shifted control of redistricting from partisan legislatures to independent commissions. Virginia was one such state. In 2020, it adopted a constitutional provision establishing an independent commission process in order to end racial and partisan gerrymandering. The Virginia process was enacted with broad bipartisan support and garnered widespread praise.^[1]See, e.g., here and here.

Unfortunately, gerrymandering has returned with a vengeance at President Trump’s instigation. Texas responded to his urging with a gerrymander that could shift five currently Democratic congressional seats to Republicans. California countered with a proposal to override its independent commission and shift five seats from Republicans to Democrats. To their credit, some red and blue states refused to participate in this gerrymandering frenzy; other states joined or are considering joining in on one side or the other. To its discredit, Virginia is one of the latter.

The Democratic-controlled Virginia General Assembly recently enacted a proposal, actively supported by Governor Spanberger, to amend the state’s constitution to reverse its independent redistricting process for 2026 and the following two election cycles. If approved by Virginia voters in an April 21 special election, the amendment would return control over redistricting to the legislature and give it free rein to once more gerrymander congressional districts.

The General Assembly has already developed a radically gerrymandered map designed to change the state’s congressional delegation from 6-5 to 10-1 in favor of Democrats. In the process, it would shift almost half the state’s voters to new districts and effectively disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Virginians with respect to their congressional vote.^[2]For background, see here, here, here, and here.

One of the most outrageous aspects of this regressive proposal is the disingenuous, indeed Orwellian way it is being sold to voters. The official description appearing on the April 21 ballot, which was dictated by the General Assembly on a party-line vote, calls it a measure “to restore fairness” in upcoming elections. Obviously, it would do precisely the opposite by restoring the unfairness of gerrymandered electoral districts that the independent commission was enacted to prevent. 

The proposal would penalize a very large portion of Virginia voters simply for being potential Republican supporters. The Democratic governor and legislative majority apparently rationalize unfairly disadvantaging these Virginians as an appropriate means to counter the unfairness imposed by gerrymanders on Democratic voters in other states. One might expect a state governor to put the rights and interests of her own constituents above national politics.^[3]Indeed, Ms. Spanberger said she had no intention of redistricting during her gubernatorial campaign last year. The fact that she did not shows how debased our current politics have become. It will only get worse as both parties continue their race to the bottom.

The additional rationalization by supporters that the proposal is only a “temporary” departure from the independent process should also be taken with a large dose of salt. As noted above, the gerrymander will remain in effect for three election cycles stretching into the next decade. The independent commission may well be viewed as an anachronism by that time, particularly as our politics become ever more polarized and extreme. If Democrats still control the General Assembly, they will likely be inclined to extend the by-then entrenched gerrymandered districts. Conversely, if Republicans control the legislature, they will likely look for gerrymander payback and engineer their own bypass of the independent commission.

In sum, the proposal is bad for Virginia and bad for our politics in general. While some may view gerrymandering as simply politics as usual, its fundamental purpose and effect is to undercut the constitutional right to vote by devaluing the votes of American citizens based on their disfavored political views.

Here’s hoping that Virginia voters see through the deceptive marketing and reject the proposal. Failing that, the courts may put it to rest. There are several legal challenges to the process by which the proposal was enacted. The Virginia Supreme Court opted to defer a decision on the merits, if necessary, until after the April 21 special election but acknowledged that it presents “weighty assertions of invalidity.” 

Our failing political duopoly

Despite the opposition of George Washington and others, political parties took hold from the early days of our republic. We’ve had a two-party system for most of our history. This system usually worked well, particularly when it consisted of a center-left and a center-right party. However, the current version is failing. Both parties are ever more polarized, ideologically extreme, aloof from most Americans, and distainful of democratic values.  

While the Republican and Democratic parties are increasingly hostile to each other, they have much in common when it comes to tactics. They share a single-minded focus on promoting themselves above all else, including the interests of the American public. They also share a taste for undemocratic methods to maintain a stranglehold on our politics.

The resurgence of gerrymandering

The revival of gerrymandering is a prime example of the parties’ shortcomings. Simply stated, gerrymandering enables politicians choose their voters rather than the other way around. Political parties employ what have become highly sophisticated techniques to manipulate the composition of electoral districts to maximize the impact of their presumed voters and marginalize citizens they expect to oppose them.

In a rare positive political development, this grossly antidemocratic practice seemed to be losing ground in recent years. Some states assigned redistricting decisions to non-partisan independent commissions, as have most Western democracies. While the U.S. Supreme Court shamefully washed its hands of the issue of partisan gerrymandering as a non-justiciable “political question,”^[1]Justice Kagan’s dissent is far more persuasive than the majority opinion. state courts continued to scrutinize and occasionally invalidate partisan gerrymanders.

Unfortunately, gerrymandering has returned with a vengeance. President Trump pushed red states to gerrymander aggressively in advance of the 2026 midterm elections—a stark departure from the normal practice of redrawing congressional districts only once a decade following the decennial census. Texas led the charge by producing a gerrymandered map that could flip five House seats to Republicans. California responded by overriding its independent redistricting commission in the hope of gerrymandering five additional Democratic seats. Virginia recently proposed bypassing its independent commission to gerrymander its House districts from 6-5 to 10-1 in favor of Democrats.

More states are poised to join the gerrymandering frenzy on one side or the other. It’s estimated that up to 15 states could potentially gerrymander in ways that would in the aggregate shift 16 congressional seats to Republicans and 14 to Democrats. For this net gain of two Republican seats, over a million American citizens across those 30 congressional districts could be effectively disenfranchised.

While some see gerrymandering as nothing more than politics as usual, it’s much worse than that. It’s a cynical assault on one of the most fundamental constitutional rights of citizens—the right to vote. It discounts the votes of citizens based on their disfavored political views. Gerrymandering as a form of race discrimination has long been recognized as unconstitutional. The harm is the same when votes are diluted based on voters’ political beliefs. Indeed, it’s often hard to tell whether gerrymanderers are motivated by racial or political animus. It shouldn’t matter; both are invidious and unworthy of our democracy.

How the gerrymander wars play out remains to be seen. A few courageous state legislators are resisting entreaties to gerrymander and there may be pushback from state courts. Sadly, however, what does seem clear is that both parties will gerrymander whenever they can get away with it. In a recent poll, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats expressed support for gerrymandering not just as a defense against the other party but also as an affirmative tactic to gain political advantage.

Other means of stifling electoral competition

Gerrymandering is hardly the only means by which the two major parties undermine democratic principles. Both seek to preserve their stranglehold by impeding independent voters and discouraging third parties, often with the help of state laws. Closed primaries allow only registered party members to choose candidates for the general election. At least one party conducts closed primaries in 23 states. This practice excludes millions of independent voters from what has become the decisive stage in most federal elections. (See below)

Winner-take-all election rules, where the candidate with the most votes wins even with only a plurality of votes, apply in all congressional elections and in presidential elections in all but two states. They strongly encourage voters to choose one of the major party candidates rather than “waste” their vote on a third-party candidate with little chance of winning.

Candidates outside the two major parties also face substantial legal and financial hurdles to getting their names on the ballot, fundraising disadvantages versus the major parties, and challenges to gaining equal media coverage including participation in debates.

The parties sometimes suppress competition from within as well as from the outside. Democrats did both during the 2024 presidential election, fighting against a third-party campaign by No Labels and blunting challenges to Joe Biden from fellow Democrats. They eventually crowned Kamala Harris as their nominee with no formal competition at all.   

The consequences for our democracy and governance

Gerrymandering and other antidemocratic practices by the two parties along with demographic residence patterns render most congressional seats noncompetitive. The Cook Political Report rates only 18 of 435 House seats as tossups and only another 42 as potentially competitive in the 2026 midterm elections. Of the 35 Senate seats at stake in 2026, only four are rated tossups and only another six as potentially competitive.

Noncompetitive elections harm our democracy by breeding cynicism and apathy. Minority voters in a gerrymandered non-competitive district may lose their incentive to vote and simply drop out. Even voters who align with the district’s majority party may view their votes as immaterial and refrain from voting.  

They also exacerbate many problems plaguing the workings of our government. The only real competition in one-sided districts takes place in the primaries. Primary elections are dominated by each party’s base voters, who are more partisan and ideologically extreme than general election voters. Candidates win primaries by appealing to those base voters and they remain in office by continuing to play to the base to avoid being “primaried” in the future.

In reality, these members of Congress represent their base voters rather than their constituencies as a whole and operate as loyal members of Team Red or Team Blue rather than open-minded legislators focused on the public interest. They have no incentive to work across the aisle or to compromise their team’s ideological tenets and every reason not to.

The once-popular notion that effective politics is the art of  compromise has no place in this environment. Instead, gridlock generally prevails in times of divided government and highly partisan steamrolling is the rule when (as now) a single party controls the presidency and both chambers of Congress. Either tends to foster poor governance.

The two parties are detached from the people

Our political duopoly might be more tolerable if the two parties between them reflected the interests and perspectives of most Americans. However, this is far from true today. Unlike either party, most Americans hold moderate, pragmatic views; in fact, there is broad public consensus on many issues that polarize the parties. Most Americans also much prefer collaboration, compromise, and problem-solving to ideological posturing.^[2]See, e.g., here, here, and here.

It’s thus no wonder that both parties are estranged from much of the public and held in low esteem. According to Gallup, a record high 45 percent of Americans identify as independents—almost twice the percentage that aligns with either party (27% each). They also  strongly disapprove of both the Republican (58-40% negative) and  Democratic (61-37% negative) parties. Even presidential candidates from both parties have grown more unpopular over the years, increasingly viewed as offering voters a poor choice.

The parties won’t fix themselves 

Either party could achieve great success by moving closer to the values of most Americans. Yet such change from within is unlikely. The Republican party is little more than the cult of Trump with no agenda beyond subservience to his every whim. It’s hard to know what will become of it once he leaves office. The Democratic party is searching for an identity but seems unable to shake the grip of its ideologically extreme advocacy groups and performative, out of touch liberal elites.^[3]See here and here.

The best, perhaps only, means of change is for ordinary Americans to shake off their (understandable) frustration and engage more actively in politics, particularly at the primary election stage, either to force the two parties closer to the center or to support independent candidates or third parties who better represent their values.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Constructive debate in a healthy democracy requires widespread agreement on at least a core set of values as well as mutual acceptance of objective facts. Both are in short supply in America today. One would struggle to identify a single important fundamental value, much less a set of values, that is widely shared among our current hyper-partisan, hyper-polarized political factions.

It’s often just as hard to find general acceptance of objective facts and obvious conclusions flowing from them. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s once-famous admonition that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts seems like a relic from a bygone era.

Consider the recent Quinnipiac poll of registered voters on the tragic killing of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis. Most respondents of all political persuasions had seen videos of the incident.^[1]Specifically, 74% of Republicans, 82% of Democrats, and 79% of independents. However, their responses differed drastically on whether the shooting was justified and whether the Trump administration’s account of the incident was honest.

On the question of whether the shooting was justified, a majority of Republicans said yes (55 to 20% with 25% undecided). An overwhelming majority of Democrats said no (94 to 2%) as did a most independents (66 to 14%). There was a similar disparity on the question of whether the Trump administration’s account was honest. Most Republicans said yes (60 to 19%) while almost all Democrats (93 to 2%) and most independents (65 to 20%) said no.^[2]One area of agreement was that the Pretti shooting should be subject to an independent investigation, but there were major disparities here too: Republicans 56 to 36% yes, Democrats 96 to 3%, and … Continue reading

Some suggest that the Pretti shooting and other politically controversial incidents resemble “political Rorschach tests.” But Rorschach ink blots are designed to be ambiguous with no right or wrong answers. There is little if any ambiguity in the available evidence regarding the Pretti shooting, particularly the videos.

One can certainly reject the claim by some that Pretti’s shooting constituted an  intentional “execution” or “murder.” Perhaps one could even argue that the agents who shot Pretti acted lawfully based on their perceptions since legal standards heavily favor law enforcement officers in such situations. But how could anyone who viewed the videos genuinely believe that the shooting was in fact justified or that the administration’s account was honest? Even key administration officials have backtracked from their initial claims.

Clearly, this is a case of willful blindness or knowing disregard of the facts by Republican respondents. There are countless other examples, some equally stark, where one political faction or the other ignores or denies the obvious. Donald Trump has no equal at this, but Democrats also engage in it. (See, for example, many tenets of wokeism.)

Constructive engagement and rational, good faith debate between political factions are almost wholly lacking now, leaving us with only hostility between the parties and polarized, dysfunctional government. If our democracy is to somehow right itself  both sides must accept that objective facts exist and matter in our public discourse, and start acting accordingly.         

The ongoing nightmare in Minnesota involving Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents versus Minnesota citizens now resembles Groundhog Day. Saturday’s tragic killing of Alex Pretti is eerily similar to the equally tragic killing of Renee Good just a few weeks ago. Pretti acted incredibly recklessly by interjecting himself into DHS operations while carrying a concealed firearm (albeit apparently legally). However, the agents’ response was highly problematic based on videos taken at the scene.

As in the Good case, federal officials immediately sought to justify Pretti’s killing, making claims for which they offered no support and which were clearly inconsistent with the videos in key respects. DHS Secretary Noem and Border Patrol Commander Bovino branded Pretti a “domestic terrorist” who “attacked” federal agents and intended to “do maximum damage and massacre” them. Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called Pretti a “would-be assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents.”

Federal officials claimed that Pretti “brandished” his gun at the agents, although videos show that he approached them with only a cell phone in hand. The videos don’t show Pretti ever reaching for his gun. Rather, they indicate that an agent confiscated Pretti’s gun moments before he was shot as many as ten times. As in the Good case, the feds initially barred state and local officials from participating in any investigation of Pretti’s shooting.

The Good and Pretti killings evoked polarized political reactions and overheated rhetoric from both sides and do present some gray areas. However, no reasonable, fair-minded person could contest the following:

Federal officials are responsible and accountable for the conduct of their agents but showed zero interest in assuming it here; instead, they took the opposite course. In both cases, they aggressively pushed narratives that are premature at best, lack any apparent evidentiary support, and at worst (and more likely) are blatantly false given available evidence.

They seem determined to stifle efforts to pursue the truth. They stonewalled state and local law enforcement officials. They declined even to investigate the conduct of the agent who killed Good, instead focusing their investigation on her.

Their statements in both cases exonerating the shooters and condemning the victims are highly prejudicial to any objective, credible investigation. No one can have confidence in an investigation when executive branch leaders have already announced the results.

While law enforcement officers deserve considerable leeway in the dangerous and rapidly evolving situations they face, they are not entitled to a total lack of accountability. The administration’s knee-jerk rejection of any possible wrongdoing by DHS agents is not only unwarranted but sends a terrible message both to the agents and the public.

These two cases also highlight broader issues that need urgent attention. By outward appearances, ICE and Border Patrol agents operate in extremely aggressive and confrontational ways. Even if ICE agents could ultimately claim justification for killing Good, they violated DHS protocols throughout their interactions with her. From start to finish, they escalated the situation, increasing the danger both to her and themselves. (See here and here.) Pretti’s intervention with Border Patrol agents came only after one of them threw a woman to the ground. There is no indication that he attempted to do anything but assist her. Even Stephen Miller suggested that the agents who shot him were not following their protocols.

There are many other instances in many places of DHS agents engaging in seemingly gratuitously aggressive, confrontational conduct that invites the left’s frequent portrayal of them as Nazi-like thugs. Clearly, ICE and the Border Patrol need intensive scrutiny. Among the questions to be asked:

Are agents out of control and lacking adequate training and supervision? They undoubtedly face difficult situations and provocations, perhaps even organized efforts to provoke and impede them as many on the right allege. However, professional law enforcement officers are trained to respond to such encounters in measured ways designed to de-escalate them.

Alternatively, are the agents simply doing what the Trump administration expects of them? The administration’s rhetoric coming from Trump on down, including their reflexive defense of the agents and aversion to seeking accountability, certainly suggests that Trump et al. encourage and embrace their hyper-aggressive tactics.

What law enforcement objective justifies the massive surge of DHS agents to Minnesota? It has a relatively low proportion of illegal immigrants compared to other states. The number of DHS agents there now far exceeds the total Minneapolis police force.

Is DHS really focusing on apprehending the “worst of the worst” illegal immigrants as DHS claims? While credible data is elusive, it appears that only about five percent of detainees have criminal convictions and only about half face criminal charges, which may or may not be serious. Many believe the current approach is just a massive, indiscriminate, quota-driven show of force that generates much publicity and chaos but few results that make the country safer.

If there is a silver lining here, the tragic deaths of Good and Pretti may provide an inflection point. Even Trump has backed off slightly from defending these outrages, and he placed “Border Czar” Tom Homan in charge of Minnesota operations.  Homan has his shortcomings, but may still be the closest the Trump administration has to a voice of reason on immigration enforcement.

But much more is needed. The DHS appropriations bill is part of a “minibus” package of bills pending before the Senate as the current continuing resolution nears expiration at the end of January. Democrats vow to oppose funding DHS unless it undergoes reforms. Will this finally be the moment that Republicans in Congress find the courage and integrity to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities by joining in crafting fixes to the DHS mess? We’ll see.

The death of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota is tragic in many ways and cries out for a comprehensive, objective investigation both as to its specifics and more broadly what it says about the Trump administration’s super aggressive immigration enforcement tactics. Sadly, the politicization of this incident makes it extremely doubtful that these issues will receive the full and fair scrutiny they deserve.

Politicians and ideologues on both sides are guilty of grandstanding and overheated rhetoric over the incident that creates more smoke than light. However, the primary blame falls squarely on federal officials who are responsible for finding the truth here. President Trump and his underlings, most notably Homeland Security Secretary Noem and Vice President Vance, have rushed to judgment with a narrative that lacks support in the evidence that has emerged so far and in fact seems blatantly false in key respects.

It appears that Good was using her SUV as part of a protest and effort to interfere with ICE operations by partially blocking a Minneapolis street. Videos recorded in the moments before her death show an ICE agent approaching her vehicle aggressively and trying to force open the door. Good initially backed her car up and then drove it forward and away from the agent. The car may (or may not) have made contact with another ICE agent standing in front of it who then moved away. The agent was not seriously injured if he was hit. This agent fired three shots, one through the windshield and apparently two through the driver side, killing Good.

From this, Noem proclaimed that Good committed “an act of domestic terrorism” by “weaponizing” her vehicle in an attempt to ram and kill the agent, who was therefore entirely justified in killing her in self-defense. Trump embraced and embellished this narrative in a Truth Social post, asserting that Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” He added, absurdly, that “it is hard to believe he is alive.”

No evidence has come to light that would support this narrative, which is now being dutifully echoed by Vance and other administration officials.^[1]One official, “Border Czar” Tom Homan, was at first a lone voice of reason urging that the investigation be allowed to play out before reaching conclusions. However, he later seemed to back off … Continue reading A more plausible take from the available videos is that Good was trying to escape the ICE agents when she was shot.

Good’s conduct was hardly exemplary. She was wrong to attempt to impede ICE operations as opposed to just protesting them and reckless to use her 4,000-pound SUV in the process. She should not have resisted the ICE agents, although her reaction under the circumstances may be understandable.^[2]One aspect that has been largely overlooked is the very aggressive action of the ICE agent who rushed to Good’s vehicle and reached inside it. This  certainly could have instilled fear and panic … Continue reading Also, one video shows Good’s wife taunting the agent who shot Good and apparently urging Good to drive away.

Obviously, much investigative work remains to be done. On the key issue of whether the ICE agent reasonably believed Good posed a threat justifying the use of lethal force, law enforcement officers are understandably accorded considerable deference. Regardless of his perceptions and their reasonableness, however, nothing revealed so far remotely suggests that Good was a “domestic terrorist” or that she in fact tried to attack the agent.

In sum, the narrative put forth by Trump and his supporters is premature at best regarding the ICE agent’s conduct and wholly baseless if not blatantly false regarding Good. It’s also highly prejudicial to the investigation. How can anyone have confidence in an FBI investigation when the president and other executive branch leaders have already announced the results? The fact that the FBI changed course and excluded Minnesota officials from participating further undermines the credibility of its investigation.

The administration’s knee-jerk rejection of any possible wrongdoing by ICE and its agents is not only unwarranted but sends a terrible message to both ICE and the public. Certainly, law enforcement officers deserve support and must be granted considerable leeway in the many dangerous and rapidly unfolding situations they regularly face. However, they are not entitled to a total lack of accountability. Mistakes are made and rogue actions do occur.

Amid all the issues and ambiguities over this incident, one crystal clear thing that stands out is the lack of integrity on the part of Trump and his supporters. They are singularly focused on absolving themselves of blame at all cost and hostile to seeking the truth. Indeed, they are doing all they can to demonize and suppress those who would dare to question their dubious narrative. Their reactions should be condemned by anyone with a conscience and a sincere desire to see justice done in this case.