Let’s Move The Goalposts

Earlier we considered how people tend to claim that they love free speech, right up until the moment that other people start saying stuff that they don’t like.

Some people have a similar relationship with democracy. They claim to be die-hard supporters of the principle of democratic choice and are proud to live in a free Western democracy, yet when necessary, they’ll do all they can to sidestep democracy in order to try and force through laws that they know don’t enjoy the support of the majority of citizens.

It’s a dangerous game to play, It may seem a great idea when the law is one we support and we’re in the minority, but what happens when the same tricks are used to pass laws we oppose, like the majority of other people? And what if it emboldens the heffalumps and encourages them to do away with any pretence of democracy?

Before the UK Brexit referendum of 2016, some people suggested that because leaving the European Union would be such a huge action, it should require more than a simple majority in order for it to become law.

That’s not how democracy works. Democracy is the rule of the people and if more people want to do thing A rather than thing B, then the country should do thing A.

It’s that simple. If we fail to make our case before the people vote, that’s our failure. We can’t try and add a failsafe mechanism that ignores the wishes of the majority. Yeah, it sucks to be on the losing side, especially when the size difference between the majority and minority is very small, but requiring more than a simple majority isn’t democratic.

Brexit’s not the only example of people thinking that their minority should be able to make laws against the wishes of the majority.

In the US, independent surveys of Americans consistently find that the majority support the right to abortion, yet in 2022 The Supreme Court removed the federal guarantee of every American woman’s right to abortion, so leaving each state to set its own rules. There shouldn’t be any problem with that as long as each state respects the wishes of the majority of their citizens.

In 2022, six states held ballots on abortion rights. Three of those ballots were offering guarantees of abortion access, which all passed, and three were looking to restrict abortion rights, which were all rejected.¹ So as long as state legislatures respect the wishes of the people, it’s not a problem, but they’re not in all cases.

For instance, as I write this, Arizona has severely limited access to abortions, so they’re only available when the mother’s life is at risk. There is a proposal for the state to hold a ballot in November 2024 allowing the people to vote for greater access to abortions again. Assuming that happens, if the people vote in favour of greater abortion rights, that will help women in the future, but it won’t help women in the state who want an abortion before then. Obviously this only applies if the vote happens and the result supports greater abortion rights, but if it does, then many women will have been denied their democratic rights by the Arizona Supreme Court choosing to apply an old law.² One so old in fact that the state of Arizona didn’t even exist when the law was created in 1864.

That doesn’t feel very democratic to me, and reverting to an old law could be described as moving the goalposts, but I’ve a different example of a minority attempting to move the goalposts to improve their chances of enforcing their wishes on the majority.

In late 2023, the state of Ohio held a ballot to protect abortion rights, which passed with 56.78% of the people voting for it. So if the law was passed, why make a fuss about it?

Because some people in Ohio attempted to move the goalposts ahead of the vote to require at least 60% to vote in favour for the new law to be accepted.³ Had they succeeded, they would have removed many people’s democratic rights and imposed minority rule on the majority.

One of those trying to make the change was Frank LaRose, Ohio’s secretary of state, who apparently was publicly adamant this change was just about making a constitutional improvement. In front of those he assumed were all supporters of the move to restrict abortions, he was more candid and admitted the attempt to raise the threshold was all about stopping the abortion law being passed.

When he was pushing the pretence of it just being about the constitution, he said “To allow a bare majority of 50% plus one to change the very ground rules that the state operates on is just not good public policy”.

Why not? That’s a majority. If the majority want something, why should the minority be able to say no? No-one has the right to move the goalposts and say that democracy requires a supermajority. 50% plus one is a majority.

Surely allowing a minority to rule is just not good public policy. That’s how autocracies operate.

Still, despite the US being a democracy, some states do require supermajorities in some ballots. For example, Florida requires a supermajority of 60% in ballots that aim to amend the state constitution, while New Hampshire requires two-thirds of voters to approve changes to their constitution.⁴

That quite simply isn’t democracy.

Another Way To Move The Goalposts

Here’s another theoretical way of moving the goalposts within a democracy, although would it still be a democracy?

Let’s consider one of the policies of a failed candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

Vivek Ramaswamy is a self-made billionaire businessman, though at least some people question the way he made his fortune.⁵

Before I get to the policy I want to focus on, he’s literally cropped up in my feeds today because of an interview, so indulge me while I sidetrack.

I don’t consider myself a fan, but I think his experience when he had the author Ann Coulter on his podcast is disturbing. After her introduction, her first comments were to say how she probably agreed with his views during his run for the Republican presidential nomination more than she did with any other candidate, but she wouldn’t have voted for him because he’s Indian.⁶

He’s not, he’s as American as Ann Coulter is, but his parents emigrated from India.

Regardless of that detail, isn’t that bizarre? That someone would deny themselves something they want because of their own biases.

Racism, like so many biases, is a special domain for the mentally weak. There’s no logical explanation or defence for it. The strong among us know we need to control our biases, but the weak let their biases control them. It’s easier to act on our biases than it is to think about how we can master them.

Should we feel some pity for Ann Coulter having to live her life handicapped by such an intellectual deficiency?

Where the situation got mighty odd though was in Ramaswamy’s reaction. He promoted the podcast episode by highlighting Coulter’s statement about not voting for him because he’s Indian and saying that he respected her guts for saying it to his face.⁷

I guess that’s just the price members of ethnic minorities have to pay for acceptance into many of society’s groups.

If you’re honest, haven’t you done something similar or maybe you’re stronger? As a kid, I can certainly remember laughing along at the joke with the rest of the group, when I was the joke being laughed at. It’s easier than taking a stand when you know it will pass. Most kids I knew were the same.

To have achieved all he has in his life, Ramaswamy clearly isn’t weak, yet clearly he is when he’s prepared to be the joke to try and fit in.

Shouldn’t Americans expect more backbone from someone who believes they’re the right material for President of the USA?

Rather than praising a racist for having the guts to be racist, shouldn’t he have called her out for what she is? His immense wealth may make it easier to stomach such behaviour, but for those at the bottom of society, don’t his actions effectively inform them they just have to accept being treated as second-class citizens?

Doesn’t his response just greenlight every racist to say what they want to who they want, while the target should respect them for having the guts to be racist? Should the descendants of every black person lynched by the Ku Klux Klan respect the KKK for having the guts to murder innocent black people?

I’m sure Ramaswamy doesn’t agree with The Holocaust, but does he respect Adolf Hitler for having the guts to slaughter six million Jews?

In fairness, if Ramaswamy could respond to that question right here and right now, I’m sure he’d call it absurd and offensive.

And so it is.

The issue we face though is that there must be a tipping point between him respecting Ann Coulter for being racist and not respecting Hitler for being racist.

But where is that tipping point where for him racism switches from being respectable to not being respectable?

Anyway, back to the policy he pursued. That’s why we’re here, after all.

One of the policies he said he wanted to enact when running for the Republican presidential nomination was to raise the age to vote to 25 years of age from 18.⁸ Based on 2022 figures, that would remove the right to vote from more than 31 million American citizens.⁹

How dare someone in a position of great privilege think that they should be able to remove the vote from millions of Americans.

A famous person once said, oh who was it…Stefan Kuntz, the German international soccer player…no…Rusty Kuntz, the baseball player and coach…no…oh, I remember, it was Samuel Adams…no idea why I found myself thinking about a pair of Kuntz¹⁰…anyway, one of Samuel Adams’ main calls to the American people in the run-up to the war for independence was no taxes without representation. So no vote, no taxes. Ramaswamy didn’t even have the decency to say he wouldn’t tax those who couldn’t vote.

In fairness, it wouldn’t have been as many people as I said because he would allow those under 25 to vote if they had served in the military or as a first responder. Or they had passed the same test given to those attempting to gain American citizenship.

His reasoning for this was it would help make the young better-educated citizens. But why focus on just the young and not on making Americans of all ages better-educated citizens?

Research into the 2020 presidential election found that young voters, 18-29 years of age, were more than twice as likely to vote Democrat versus Republican.¹¹ It’s also often claimed that members of the US military are more likely to vote Republican.

Do you think it’s possible these two things could have affected the Republican Vivek Ramaswamy’s thought process when hoping to remove the vote from under 25-year-olds, but not those in the military?

But, he’d allow those who pass a civics exam to vote. Gosh, how generous. But who will control the questions in that test in the future? Where and when will people be able to take the test?

Voting districts and constituencies in the US and the UK are already subject to attempts of gerrymandering, where the placement of borders is designed to lead to results that favour one party over others. Such shenanigans could also be applied to civics exams in order to make it harder for those from demographic groups that are more likely to vote one way to take the test.

Do you think there’s any reason that any group from your society should be denied the right to vote?