SCOTUS is the best answer, IMHO. Evolve as marriage equality evolved, is my hope. Kennedy might be there, he has indicated.
1 Like
Thank you plucky! I love and respect everything you write, so I am humbled. 
There is a difference between the platform which is a wish list assembled by party insiders and the policies which a given candidate has told the people who voted for her that she will strive for. The later is the stronger moral obligation.
1 Like
The policies the candidateâs espoused prior to the convention inform the party platform - after the convention, the platform is what the candidateâs running on. That doesnât mean anyone expected the candidate to be promising to achieve every element of the platform.
2 Likes
No. The voice if the candidate to the voters is what democracy is based on: Elect me because I will try to do x.
That is the agreement. No group has a right to change that agreement.
Welcome to âRepresentative Republic, not a Democracyâ.
And once the platformâs finalized, after the convention, what youâll see is the candidate saying âI will try to do Xâ where âXâ is the items on the party platform, because thatâs what the platform is.
And btw, you also donât actually vote for the President, you vote for Electors who then decide on the President on or about Dec 18th. Christ on a cracker, why do people keep clinging to this mob rule fantasy like appealing to the masses is a good thing? Democracy would decimate the rights of anyone not in the majority.
1 Like
Did you see Jessica Williamsâ piece on the Daily Show the other day. She hilariously calls out Bernie supporters who say they will vote for Trump. Honestly, I donât think there are that many people in that camp. Itâs just that they are very vocal so it looks like this faction represents more people than it does.
You do? I think most liberals would be for abolishing the death penalty. I just found this Pew Report and it looks like, while a majority of Americans still favor the death penalty, the numbers have declined over the last few years.
Sure. Still the fundamental contract in any system of election of candidates is between the candidate who professes one thing and the voters who choose on that basis. Technically the political parties with their activists (who are activists precisely because they want something the voters have yet to give them) are not part of the intended structure of our government.
In a parliamentary system where the voter is more clearly voting for a party it is different.
Do I approve of the death penalty? No. It teaches that the state believes that people can commit wrongs for which they deserve to be killed. This tempts wrong individuals to take the role of informal executioner into their own hands. It is inevitably imperfect in the way in which it is carried out to such a degree that I believe it to be unConstitutional.
But the ability of the voter to trust that the candidate will attempt to do what they say they will do is fundamental. Otherwise why vote?
1 Like
One of the things I appreciate about TPM and the regulars here is that we can disagree without being disagreeable. I have a great deal of respect for everything you write, @pluckyinky. Iâm going to chime in with a couple of personal anecdata points and some closing thoughts.
One of the arguments used in favor of capital punishment is, âproviding closure to the survivors.â My aunt was murdered by her husband, because he suspected (correctly) that she was about to leave him. He died in jail awaiting trial.
His death changed nothing. It might even have harmed things â my father intended to attend the entire trial. Perhaps if the bastard had owned up to his actions and pleaded guiltyâŚ
My uncle was murdered in a home invasion by a woman out of her mind on meth. She attempted to run over sheriffâs deputies while trying to escape in my uncleâs car. The deputies responded with gunfire. She died at the scene. My uncle died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Her death changed nothing for my father or my cousins.
Weâve proven time and again we (as a government and a society) are incapable of administering capital punishment in any sort of fair and consistent manner. Factors other than the crime committed have much more to do with who receives a death sentence than the crime itself does.
We have certainly executed innocent people: Cameron Willingham is the tip of that particular iceberg. Most of the capital punishment supporters I know believe that, âThe punishment should fit the crime.â I can even agree with that ideal: my problem is that I look at the current situation and see far too many instances where the punishment was imposed because of flaws in the justice system. I canât support allowing such a system to access capital punishment.
3 Likes
Thank you for that, very well put. ⌠It boggles my mind when people are in favor of the death penalty. The state should only be concerned with preserving human life, not taking it away⌠And certainly not of its own citizenry.
2 Likes
I donât know a way to interpret your statistics to suggest that we wonât lose votes by pushing the abolishment of the death penalty. We (I like to think) will have the liberal vote no matter what we do. We need all of the votes in the middle too, if we want to take back the Senate and a big chunk of the House.
Former Justice Stevens called for ending the death penalty in his book. Also Pope John Paul ii. Its not that radical. A bunch of states do not have it.
1 Like
I donât think this is a vote losing issue. I donât see most people who think we should keep the death penalty caring enough about the Dems putting a plank in the platform to abolish the death penalty as something that would make them turn to another candidate. What that Pew Research is indicating is that there are more and more people who think itâs better to abolish the death penalty; itâs beginning to trend towards eliminating capitol punishment. Hell, even Nebraska, who could hardly be called a liberal state, got rid of it.
3 Likes
Sure. There was never any intention for political parties to exist - many of the Framers explicitly denounced the idea, including some who would go on to lead political parties. Unfortunately, political parties have long been (and remain) the best way to ensure uniformity of message across a disparate electorate.
In every cycle, candidates in the primary pivot toward the center during the general election - with the possible exception of Ze Drumphald. This means that the things theyâre saying they will do during the general election are different than the things they were saying they would do during the primary. Thereâs almost certainly significant overlap, sure, but some things are added, and some things are deemed counter-productive - measures that the candidate might like to push, but which would hurt their chances at election, and so are sacrificed so that some part of their agenda has a chance of passage.
Ultimately, political reality and changing conditions may well make it impossible to attempt the things that are promised on the campaign trail. Thatâs why a candidateâs record is so important - both their voting record, and the history of Things Theyâve Doneâ˘, including things like âhow did this candidate comport themselves while not in public office?â These provide the best and truest measure of a candidateâs principles, and youâre best served by voting for a candidate whose actions demonstrate that their principles align with your own. Then⌠trust those principles, because there may be times when someone who is privy to more information that you are will make a decision that seems counter to what you would do. Question the decision, of course, but if the candidate consistently upholds the same principles you yourself adhere to, then chances are there was a good reason for it.
As for âwhy vote?â
Vote because it is not a privilege. It is a duty. You have an obligation to yourself, to everyone around you, and to those whose lives will be affected decades down the road, to ensure that the best (which may well merely be âleast worstâ) option among the available candidates is selected. Vote because if you do not vote, then you are tacitly endorsing the candidate you feel is the worst possible choice by not opposing them.
Vote because to not vote is to sit idle and complicit, while you expect others to fight your battles for you.
2 Likes
People opposed same-sex marriage, too, until others stood up and said âthis is right, and that is wrong, and here is whyâ. Public opinion only changes with leadership, with people willing to stand up and say âlook, if we could be sure to never kill an innocent man, maybe. But we canât. No system involving people, administered by people, and subject to imperfect information will ever be flawless. If it were you, or your loved ones, wrongfully imprisoned, would you still think itâs worth the risk? The next time an innocent person is sentenced to death - it will be one of you. I donât want my family locked into that lottery. Do you?â
1 Like
As a biological species humans have an imperative to rid the population of the bad apples. If someone you care for is murdered in front of you, and you get your hands on a weapon, it will be very difficult for you to resist blowing the killerâs brains out right there on the spot. This is an instinctive reaction, not a cognitive decision based on principle, and it likely will be independent of your position on the death penalty question.
The problem with the death penalty is that it is carried out so long after the crime that there is no more instinct associated with it. It feels like cold-hearted murder, especially if it is carried out on someone who has changed markedly from the criminal he or she was. Because of the danger that an innocent person might be executed due to inadequate defense during a trial (or because the lawyers, jury, and judge are crooked as hell), there really is little way to speed up the process.
Soon after a horrendous crime our instincts will scream at us a person should be executed, but by the time it happens something about it will feel wrong. I think itâs best we simply not have the death penalty. That said, if I canât stop someone I love from being killed, if Iâm right there and I get the chance Iâll waste the bastard.
1 Like
I think you misread what I wrote.
I strongly believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is cruel and unusual. Give the convicted the choice of execution or living in a cage forever.
1 Like
I have zero sympathy for violent criminals. In many cases, Iâd gladly pull the switch myself. And I really wish that the Democratic Party wouldnât argue that itâs cruel and unusual punishment. That indicates sympathy for vicious murderers, which is hardly a wise political strategy.
I do oppose capital punishment, though, for one reason: we make mistakes. Weâre not infallible, and weâre never going to be infallible. Our justice system is never going to be perfect. And our bloodlust simply isnât reason enough to risk killing innocent people (and there are no other valid pro-death penalty reasons).
I have no problem with the Democratic Party platform opposing the death penalty, but do they have to do it in a way that reinforces every negative stereotype about bleeding-heart liberals? Do they have to express sympathy for violent criminals (instead of for their victims)? Doesnât that seem just ridiculously inept, politically?
Oppose the death penalty because we will never be certain - absolutely certain - that innocent people donât get convicted. That way, youâre sympathizing with the innocent, not the guilty.
3 Likes