I'd generously give this a D in an intro political theory course.
1. The electoral college wasn't the product of anything we'd recognize as a democratic process. It was the product of a set of votes among white male elites at the convention and then by state legislatures at a time when an overwhelming majority of the population couldn't vote.
2. A democratic process is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the legitimacy of the law. Laws that violate basic rights, e.g., lack legitimate authority, even if approved by majorities. That's why liberal constitutions have bills of rights.
3. Past majorities cannot legitimately bind present majorities if they don't want to be bound. That's why democratic legitimacy requires frequent periodic elections and also a functional mechanism for constitutional amendment.
4. We don't have a functional mechanism for constitutional amendment. If most Americans want to get rid of the EC, but our broken amendment process makes it impossible, the EC lacks legitimacy.
Looks like he wiped out the thread and wisely started over. For reference:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Will Wilkinson 🌐

Will Wilkinson 🌐 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @willwilkinson

22 Sep
Looks like @ryanlcooper wrote the piece I was planning to write. Anyway, it's crazy how deeply Americans have confused "the rule of law" with a form of strong judicial review that is relatively rare and an unconstitutional fabrication of a self-aggrandizing judiciary.
A good system that works is to allow the elected branches of government pass legislation that most citizens want with little fear of a veto by an unelected panel of oracles dominated by representatives of minority and corporate interests. Sounds crazy, I know.
Conservatives will try to persuade you that transitioning toward normal representative democracy means descending into authoritarian chaos. It doesn't. It means ascending to the possibility of approaching the realization our basic ideals of liberty and equality.
Read 7 tweets
18 Sep
The first episode of Model Citizen, featuring the mellifluous @jtlevy, is now available for your aural delectation! You weren't gonna work today anyway, right?
Jacob and I talk about his essays on "Honoring the Dishorable," which explain why we're not toppling enough statues and why Kayleigh McEnany should never be honored for lying on a daily basis, all with the help of a dead Scotsman. niskanencenter.org/honoring-the-d…
We also discuss why democracy is better than we both used to think, and when it makes sense to think old books by dead dudes can help us identify the truth about ourselves and the reality of our social situation.
Read 6 tweets
15 Sep
I'm also willing to moderate a 4-hour debate on my podcast.
Guess I need a podcast.
Oh, wait a second... modelcitizen.simplecast.com
Read 4 tweets
18 Aug
I'm finding the convention very soothing.
I long for this boring, over-produced yet nevertheless stilted America.
It's perfect.
Read 4 tweets
30 Jul
In a healthy polity, Trump's election postponement tweet would get him removed from office. It's clear as day that he's actively seeking to prevent a free and fair election.
I argued in October that acquittal by the GOP senate majority would guarantee this result. That's why acquittal was an enormous betrayal of the American people. Senate Republicans are responsible for this. nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opi…
A bunch of people told me I was being "hysterical" and "paranoid" for writing this -- that the piece was drop-dead evidence that I suffered from "Trump Derangement Syndrome." But the truth was always right there on the surface.
Read 6 tweets
24 Jul
I don't get this argument from @JoshMBlackman. Gorsuch is just correct that, given the ordinary meaning of the words in the statute, firing guys for identifying as women but not firing women for identifying as women liking guys is a way to discriminate on the basis of sex. Image
Rejecting compositionality (i.e. the meaning of a proposition is a function of the meanings of its parts) and adopting phrase-level holism is just a way of saying you reject textualism. You can't accuse Gorsuch of inconsistency for not being textualist in the not-textualists way.
We all know the meaning of "because of" "discriminate" & "sex." Gorsuch is, imo, plainly correct about what their combo entails, whether not it was intended. He's not shadily leaning on precedent in a non-textualist way just because others also read the text correctly earlier.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!