MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Wisconsin Republicans Undercut Incoming Governor's Ability to Cancel $3 Billion Foxconn Giveaway

Now that a Democrat will be governor, Wisconsin GOP is suddenly uncomfortable with letting governors direct economic development schemes.

Nikhilesh Haval/Photoshot/NewscomNikhilesh Haval/Photoshot/NewscomAs Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker heads for the door, Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin have passed a series of bills that could kneecap his incoming successor's ability to control ongoing lawsuits that involve the state, limit his ability to alter the implementation of state laws, and block his plan to renegotiate a massive taxpayer-funded subsidy for Foxconn, the Taiwan-based tech firm that is planning to build a new manufacturing facility near Milwaukee

Governor-elect Tony Evers, a Democrat, unseated the two-term Walker in November's election, even as Wisconsin Republicans enlarged their majorities in the state House and state Senate—thanks in part to legislative district maps that favor the GOP.

Among Evers' campaign promises was a pledge to review the $3 billion tax break Walker offered to Foxconn. During the campaign, Evers criticized the Foxconn subsidy as "a lousy deal" and promised to disband the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), the public-private agency created in 2011 by Walker to serve as a conduit for state-backed tax breaks, loans, and other corporate give-aways. The deal with Foxconn already looks bad for the state—the subsidies promised by Walker amount to $230,000 per job, and that's if Foxconn follows through with its promise to create 13,000 jobs in the state. Already, Foxconn seems to be backing away from that pledge, saying last month that it may have to import Chinese workers to fill some roles at the yet-to-be-built facility.

Even before the high-profile Foxconn deal, the WEDC had been criticized in audits for poor oversight of its own spending and, as Reason's Peter Suderman put it in 2016,"an almost total failure of transparency and accountability." Walker also used the agency to deliver more than $400 million in taxpayer subsidies for the National Basketball Association's Milwaukee Bucks.

Implementing changes to either the Foxconn deal or the WEDC will be more difficult if Walker signs the bills passed this week by the state legislature, one of which "would shield the state jobs agency from his control and allow the board to choose its leader until September, likely at least delaying Evers' ability to maneuver on the Foxconn subsidy," the Associated Press reported this week. Other bills would block Evers' ability to withdraw Wisconsin from a federal lawsuit over Obamacare and would limit early voting to no more than two weeks before an election. Both chambers of the legislature passed the bills in early morning sessions this week after all-night debates, but Walker has yet to sign them.

The proposals are a mixed bag. Limiting early voting to a reasonable amount of time before an election probably makes reasonable sense—deadlines matter in politics, and Election Day is the ultimate deadline; candidates should be allowed to make their appeal to voters in full before votes are cast. But even if you agree with most of what the Republicans in Wisconsin are doing from a policy perspective, the politics on display are highly toxic.

Republican's willingness to engage in this sort of bad faith legislating should not be tolerated by the state's voters—the majority of whom voted for Democrats in state legislative races this year, too, by the way.

Some of that outcome is due to the fact that Democrats in Wisconsin, like in America as a whole, tend to cluster in a few densely populated places while Republicans are more spread out. It's easy to draw districts that favor the rural party with political geography that looks like that, and Democrats largely have no one to blame but themselves for the trade-offs that come with evolving into a primarily urban and suburban party.

Still, it's not wrong to view what's happening in Wisconsin this week as being fundamentally undemocratic. A defeated governor who championed an unpopular and expensive giveaway to a wealthy foreign company is poised to sign a series of bills tilting power towards a branch of government where his party controls nearly two-thirds of the seats despite having the support of less than half the state—all so that party can maintain a greater degree of power.

Take for example, how Speaker of the House Robin Vos justified the lame duck bills.

Sure, Evers is likely to disagree with "many" of the Republicans in the legislature "believe in," but Evers was duly elected by the voters of the state—something that seems not to enter into Vos' understanding of the situation.

At other times, Vos has argued that the last second changes are a reflection of Wisconsin Republicans' commitment to the separation of powers. "We have allowed far too much authority to flow to the executive," Vos told the AP. "To you, this is all about politics. To me, it's about the institution."

The timing seems to belie that argument. If you think a powerful executive branch is fine when the governor is wearing a Team Red jersey but not when he's wearing a Team Blue jersey (or vice versa), then it doesn't seem like you're actually worried about the separation of powers at all.

The same can be said of each individual proposal being passed this week. If Republicans in the legislature thought it was critical that the governor's control over the WEDC was problematic, they should have proposed and passed changes long ago. Regardless of the merits of any of the individual bills included in the lame duck agenda, the way in which they reached Walker's desk should be enough of a reason for him to veto them—though there is little reason to suspect he will.

Cementing Walker's Foxconn cronyism is bad enough, but the Republican maneuvers in Madison this week also smack of a strong disrespect for the ultimate holders of political power in Wisconsin: the state's voters.

Photo Credit: Nikhilesh Haval/Photoshot/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SIV||

    Shorter Broheim:

    Muh POPULAR VOTE !!!

  • Bubba Jones||

    IIRC Massachusetts played similar games with the rules on the governor nominating a new Senator versus having a special election.

  • JesseAz||

    Reason only does the tu quoque when they have to begrudgingly note democratic bad behavior.

  • Fancylad||

    Man, it must hurt so bad.
    The whole point of modern journalism is to carry water for the Democrats. They look like abject failures to their peers when this happens.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Quit whining. Count your blessings (RedState, FreeRepublic, the Volokh Conspiracy, the Weekly Standard, Breitbart, Stormfront) . . . well, let's hold on until a stale-thinking, superstitious, silver-spooned right-wing billionaire decides whether to keep the Weekly Standard going. There are rumors the Standard hasn't embraced Trump's vulgarity, boorishness, or belligerent ignorance enough to satisfy some wingnuts.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>doesn't seem like you're actually worried about the separation of powers at all.

    bet a sawbuck you and Barry Burden would gerrymander the fuck out of Wisconsin in your favor given the chance

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Those Wisconsin cows would eat you and everyone you love given a chance.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Personally, I favor multi-member districts with proportional vote rules everywhere†. Including here in California, where such proposals would likely mean increased Republicans in office.

    So feel free to stop projecting your partisanship on everyone else. Some of us prefer policies and procedures that favor democracy over partisanship, even when it would hurt the part we favor more.
    ________
    †I'm not a Democrat, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't favor them over Republicans. That said, I still vote for the Libertarian candidate as often as I can, not that it matters. But I'm also not a Libertarian, and you should not mistake me for one.

  • Nardz||

    No, escher, you're definitely a progressive

  • JesseAz||

    He's one of the "my side is locked in so I can pretend to be unique " type of progressive.

  • Fancylad||

    "†I'm not a Democrat"
    Nooooo, of course you're not. You're an independent thinker who's conclusions just magically happen to line up with whatever DNC diktats the NYT's editorial board is pushing.

  • Jerryskids||

    Do unto others before they get a chance to do unto you. But if anybody in government had a lick of sense they'd be looking at more closely regulating the sale of ropes and torches and pitchforks and tar and feathers.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Torches? Pitchforks?

    Disaffected yahoos saw Trump's longshot win as a sign of things to come -- the great uprising of society's lessers -- rather than as the last gasp of the obsolete. They're been wrong about just about everything in their deplorable lives, and this is no change. They'll be back to muttering inconsequentially and bitterly from the sidelines soon enough.

  • DenverJ||

    So, that whole demography thing, where white people are supposed to become a minority? It's not true. So suck it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    As sentient right-wingers know and fear, America's electorate becomes less rural, less religious, less bigoted, less backward, and less white on essentially a daily basis.

    This is one factor that makes me confident America will continue to improve as it has throughout my lifetime -- in line with liberal-libertarian mainstream preferences and against the wishes and efforts of stale-thinking conservatives and disaffected right-wing losers.

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, anyway.

  • Fancylad||

    What will you do when the Sans Culottes come knocking, Arthur marquis d'Kirkland?

  • vek||

    I think it's a bit more complicated than that... Honestly, I think it largely depends on the person, and the ethnic mix.

    99% of people that are even 1/4 or 1/8 black, let alone 1/2, tend to think of themselves primarily as black. This is from personal experience, and indeed polling questions as well. Think Obama, or any other light black person. They rarely ever talk about being white at all, even if it's most of their heritage.

    Hispanics it seems to depend... I'm part Mexican, and my family ended up "white" AF, even before the tan genes were toned down from breeding with "proper" white people. First off, your statistically average Mexican is 60-70% European blood to begin with, it's even higher in some other South American countries, like Argentina or Uruguay where it is 90% or so Euro blood. So you cut that with another fullish blooded European, and you're pretty damn European. Which is why so many Hispanics DO get Anglicized, and think of themselves as straight white. But it still seems to come down to cultural stuff. Like if your particular family takes on more Hispanic versus Anglo traditions, and if you live in a heavily Hispanic area, you might think of yourself more as Hispanic. Either way it's a toss up, with a decent lean towards identifying as white sooner or later.

  • vek||

    Asians seem to think of themselves as Asian still... But also white. And culturally they tend to end up being generic yuppie white people in practice, which full blooded Asians pretty much do anyway. LOL But they may continue to identify as Asian.

    Honestly, I think a lot of it does in fact come down to the old "can you pass" test. Black people often can't until they're at least 1/4, often 1/8 depending on how the genes come out. Hispanics almost always can after a single generation, so they often do. Asians tend to still look Asian, but only a little... Like those ultra pale, only slightly slanted eyes like they love to throw into Anime, so they tend to identify as both. Other like Arabs and Indians? Probably will identify as white if they can pass too, I would imagine.

    So I think it will be a cluster fuck... But depending on how things go, we may end up with a lot more tanish, Italian looking "white" identified people, or not. Depends on if people feel like they're better off considering themselves a minority or a white person really... And that's up for grabs going forward it seems... If the revenge politics of hate all whities wins the day, I suspect people will prefer to not call out their white half. If people stay a little less crazy, more people will probably identify as white.

  • JFree||

    99% of people that are even 1/4 or 1/8 black, let alone 1/2, tend to think of themselves primarily as black. This is from personal experience, and indeed polling questions as well.

    Jeezus H Christ. You do know that is because they were treated AS black by white Americans with power. See Plessy v Ferguson. See the one-drop-rule. Denied the vote - or the ability to marry - or the right to be free without being captured by slave hunters.

    Not sure why ethnic heritage is so important to you since you are clearly a pure-breed. 100% asshole with not a single drop of brain matter to pollute that.

  • vek||

    Great reason in the 60s bro!

    What's the excuse the last few decades? I grew up in a minority majority city, in progressive California. 90% of black kids, that weren't even very black, all decided to roll with acting black and thinking of themselves as black. Nobody forced this on them, they chose it. The ones that acted white got railed on by other blacks to boot.

    As I said above, I think a large part of it comes from the whole being able to "pass" thing. I never said I liked any of this stuff... Merely that it's how reality plays out in the real world. Ethnic identification is one of the most important aspects to people down here in the real world. It becomes a really central part of peoples identity, whether you like it or not. Which is why identity politics is never going to go away.

    But, as I said, with certain "meldings" when you get kids that can pass, they can choose which side they identify with. And so they do. And it is almost 100% along the lines of being able to pass too.

    So you can rail against reality all you like, but it is what it is. My partially Hispanic AND Indian ass identifies as white, because I am mostly white, and because I was raised culturally white. My prediction is the same will happen for people going forward... It's not a crazy theory, but in fact a very long standing one with lots of evidence behind it.

  • DenverJ||

    "Politics ain't beanbag."

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Remember that when society's betters enlarge the Supreme Court and relegate the conservatives to careers of authoring bitter, strident, irrelevant dissents heavy on 'originalism.'

  • DenverJ||

    Better get control of the Senate, then, Sweetcheeks.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Who still figures Republicans are going to be relevant in an America whose electorate is improving every day, as stale-thinking old conservatives die off any are replaced by younger, better Americans?

  • Peter Duncan||

    Like Nancy Pelosi, for example??

    And Uncle Bernie??

    How about All Frankenstein??

    Or maybe Lizzy Warren??

    Your progressive/statist/authoritarian/collectivists heros are all old and fucking white, Arty!!

    Shouldn't you be lighting candles around your Mao shrine right now?

  • Ordinary Person||

    When 54% of the vote only gets you 36% of the legislative representation then it's bullshit to say voters are the ultimate holders of political power in Wisconsin. It's not democracy.

  • Uncle Adolf’s Gas and Grill||

    And for that, I am extremely grateful.

  • SimonP||

    You and every other aspiring fascist, I'm sure.

  • vek||

    That might be a little more out of whack than is preferable... But our entire system was designed like this ON PURPOSE.

    Because our founders realized mob rule was a BAD idea. This principle carried through to how most state governments were laid out. A super majority in a single geographic area shouldn't be able to stomp all over the only slightly outnumbered people living in the other 95% of the land mass either...

    If the Dems want to win, perhaps they should have policies that don't make rural and suburban voters terrified? Maybe they could, I dunno... Be sane again? I didn't like Bill Clinton's policies on many things, but he didn't have a problem doing well with actual working class people, or rural people. Cuz he wasn't COMPLETELY batshit crazy insane.

    Just a thought.

  • TJJ2000||

    Problem is; The "law of the land" of that 54% advantage represents about 2% of the State on a land based order.

    Milwaukee metropolitan = 1,459 sq miles
    Wisconsin = 65,498 sq miles
    Represents 2% of the land of the state of Wisconsin

    If you want full representation in Milwaukee might I suggest a limited state government and heavy city government. For proper legislative representation; Keep legislation local.

  • TJJ2000||

    P.S. State law by popular vote of Milwaukee's Metropolitan shouldn't be trampling the other 98% of Wisconsin's other local County/City governments - thus why land area / duty does matter. Just like the U.S. Constitution outlines ONLY national duties like national defense as a duty of the federal government and leaves the rest to State government. Its a perfect plan actually; its just too so many people have chosen to ignore it.

  • Liberty Lover||

    While I like a lot of what Walker has done (I live in Wisconsin), I still dislike Walker, one of the most corrupt politicians to ever hold office. The Republicans really had no reason to worry as they hold solid majorities in the assembly and senate. Even with the severe gerrymandering, this may be the actions the gives the legislature back to the Democrats. This was misguided at best and totally foolish at the worst.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I live 20 miles south of the border and occasionally venture past the cheese curtain to gawk at the aging hippies and titter at your fake Canadian accents. But I live in a one party state so even Wisconsin looks good by comparison. Not to mention the fact that I can't find cheese curds anywhere down here.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Now we're against legislatures undermining the authority of the executive branch?

    My understanding is that much of this is about the legislature undermining the new governor's ability to expand Medicaid--the expansion of which Reason doesn't seem to oppose.

  • DenverJ||

    See, executive power under Republican admin=bad. Executive power under Democrat=way to bypass unresponsive Congress.

  • Mithrandir||

    I don't mind the Wisconsin legislature limiting the executives power at all (I live in Wisco). However, I wish they would have done so when Walker wasn't in lame duck territory. I'm skeptical that they would have done this had he won reelection.

    That said, I'm fine with the end result.

  • vek||

    The funny thing is, had they done it saaay 6 months ago... The media would have been whining about how they did it anticipating a loss anyway!

    It's probably true that they wouldn't have done it if he had won, but the media would have spun it to be "Reublicans bad!" no matter when or how they had gone about it.

  • buddhastalin||

    Dems got 190,000 more votes but Reps got 63/99 seats.

    This is totally misleading since if you look at the zero line of the chart, you'll see that Republicans didn't even run in most of the Assembly districts that Democrats won.

  • JesseAz||

    Deep analysis isn't reasons strong suit.

  • SimonP||

    You don't really understanding how gerrymandering works, do you?

    Districts that are so gerrymandered so as to be uncompetitive - thereby discouraging challengers - are a feature, not a bug. You pack all the Democrats into districts and let them hold those. You spread out the Republicans so you win competitive races by the slimmest possible margins. That's exactly what the graph shows.

  • vek||

    So all those 60% and 70% wins are "the slimest of margins" huh?

    Do you think it is possible that the Rs might have got 190K more votes had they even ran half assed campaigns in the, by my count, 29 districts where there were zero Republican votes? I live in shit lib central, AKA Seattle Washington... Even in Seattle 20-30% vote Republican, depending on the election and the position. Methinks if Rs had pulled even 20-30% figures in those areas, which I bet they would have done better than that, they would have had an extra 190K votes.

  • JFree||

    so what you're saying is that gerrymandering doesn't even exist?

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, that is exactly what he is saying.

    You are certainly a brilliant and observant person who knows how to cut to the heart of a complex situation.

  • vek||

    No, it does. BOTH SIDES do it as often as they can actually.

    But my point is that I don't see where this is an extreme case.

    You're talking about a popular vote split of a couple percentage points swing... If everything were somehow laid out perfectly with no gerrymandering... If anything that would have encouraged even MORE Republicans to come out in what are currently safe Blue zones. It may prompt rural Dems to come out more too. So it's hard to know what the end result would be.

    As mentioned, one of the problems with having things be NOT gerrymandered is that shit libs concentrate so heavily in a few locations in most states. So every district coming out of a major city, in order to be more evenly split, would have to be shaped weird... Like a cheese wheel or something where it starts in the middle of a city and gets wider until it's 50 miles in the suburbs or something.

    That doesn't make any real world sense, as people in rural towns 50 miles outside the city don't share much in common with the 3 blocks in downtown that are in the same district... But it would make the districts competitive.

  • JesseAz||

    The irony of reason. If this was Democrats changing powers they would mention all the times Republicans have done this. Yet here oddly enough, reason doesn't mention the times outgoing Democrats have limited powers on the way out.

  • Uncle Adolf’s Gas and Grill||

    Now that a Democrat will be governor, Wisconsin GOP is suddenly uncomfortable with letting governors direct economic development schemes.

    Yeah, and they ought to be, too. Good for them!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Stomping conservatives' preferences and aspirations into irrelevance is going to be such fun during the next few decades.

    Much like the most recent half-century of liberal-libertarian mainstream progress, but maybe even better!

  • Uncle Adolf’s Gas and Grill||

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    No camps. Guys like you will get to watch and complain all the way to our improved future. History indicates your children may reject your old-timey conservatism and join the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

  • Uncle Adolf’s Gas and Grill||

    Sure thing! History is indicating it loudly and clearly! By the election of Trump in the US, Brexit in Britain, Salvini's election in Italy, Bolsonaro's election in Brazil, riots in France, Orban in Hungary, the rise of the AfD in Germany, etc., etc., etc....

    So, when are you guys planing on releasing your Greatest Hits collection? I'm sure there's a lot of people interested in a reprise of Selma 1964!

  • vek||

    Where the progs really lost it was by demanding internationalism. People LIKE their own cultures, generally better than any foreign culture... Because it's WHO they are. Demanding people destroy their own culture was the line that couldn't be crossed. And it is bringing a surge of nationalism everywhere in the white world, because SURPRISINGLY people don't want to become hated minorities in their own countries!

    If they had just stuck to tightening the screws on the native populace in each country I don't think we'd be having nearly the backlash. Thank god progressives are fucking idiots.

  • Doug Huffman||

    Pleased to be Deplorable in Wisconsin. #MAGA Wisconsin is a Red State with two blue running abscesses, Murky and Madistan.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Backward, bigoted, and superstitious is no way to go through life, Doug. But the great thing about America is that our can't-keep-up backwaters can stay deplorable if they wish, and their betters will even subsidize the dysfunction and failure!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Backward, bigoted, and superstitious is no way to go through life, Arthur.

  • Moderation4ever||

    visit Madistan. Lots of building and jobs. And all without the subsidies given to Foxcon. We do business the old fashion way. We build them on ideas not government handouts.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Madison has a strong liberal-libertarian university. The education, science, reason, tolerance, and modernity tempers the influence of backwater Wisconsin.

  • Lurker Jack||

    Wisconsin born and reared here. Child of the 60's, escapee of the early 80's. The old fashioned way is keeping the handouts comparatively small and only giving them to the 'connected'. Hell, Chicago gets a sniffle, the state of Wisconsin get pneumonia. Just another FIB fellating prog, you are.

  • SimonP||

    Those blue abscesses pay for your highways, moron.

  • vek||

    About that... Actually, if Red counties had the level of government they actually want, which tends to be minimal... They'd be more than paying for their own shit.

    Not to mention that the city folk would literally starve to death without them. And not have any of the goods or products that they use everyday in life... A lot of trinkets may come from abroad nowadays, but it's not urbanite yuppie Chinese people making all that shit either, it's workin' folks getting it done either way.

  • commentguy||

    Does anyone know why the Republican legislature is so keen to give lavish subsidies to Chinese companies?

  • afk05||

    Because socialism is horrendous, but corporatists is A-OK! It's amazing the lack of ability to see the dangers of both. Does it truly make a difference if government owns corporations or corporations own the government?

  • vek||

    Obviously not in favor of crony capitalism... But to clarify, Foxconn is NOT a Chinese company... Errr, not PRC anyway. They're the good, Capitalist Pig Chinese who ran and hid on the island of Taiwan after Mao took over the mainland. I don't have a problem with Chinese people because they're Chinese, I just don't like the PRC and their government. So I don't have any more problem with Taiwan doing business here than I do with Japan, Germany, the UK, etc.

  • JFree||

    So what you're saying is that you are completely in favor of cronyism - since they're actually kinda white-yellow rather than red-yellow.

  • vek||

    You're such a tool. I am not a big fan of totalitarian communist regimes. That is true. I don't think we should be doling out special deals to people from either nation! And I suppose even the Chi-Coms should be allowed to do business here... Although it would be nice if we were allowed to actually do business in their godless heathen country without being forced to take on 49% minority stakes in all operations there, and if they didn't steal our IP with impunity, etc.

    There's nothing wrong with preferring some countries over others is there? I mean thinking India is a better run country than Pakistan doesn't make me a horrible person right? The Indians are more free, more democratic, etc. Same with China and Taiwan. So piss off ass hat.

  • chipper me timbers||

    Reducing executive power? Sounds good to me. Not sure why anyone who is even remotely libertarian would think this is a bad thing.

  • SimonP||

    If you'd read the story, you'd understand that they're limiting executive power to unwind government giveaways to business.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Why can a state just revoke a contract because an incoming political party doesn't like it? A deal is a deal you piece of shit politicians (both parties) . I think it was a lame deal, but how do you attract future companies if you go renege on your contracts.

  • SimonP||

    I'm going to bet you were all for Trump withdrawing from the Iran deal, TPP, the Paris Accords, threatening to withdraw from NAFTA, etc.

  • Ecoli||

    Those weren't contracts.

    Withdrawing from foolish deals cut by failed progressives is always the right move.

  • ThomasD||

    If Obama wanted the Iran 'deal' to be permanent maybe he should have submitted it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty.

    He didn't do that, did he? Didn't even ask that they take it up, did he?

    And the Senate didn't do it on their own either.

    Meaning they both left it up to Trump.

  • Ecoli||

    Wisconsin needs a super-majority of Democrats, just like California. Then Dems could properly manage/rule Wisconsin.

    California is great!

  • JFree||

    This would be a very good demonstration of sortition v election.

    Randomly select a large group of citizens to be an assembly. Give them the online tools to meet/debate/etc - and a 'liquid democracy' type of blockchain so that everyone else can decide who among those sortitioned represents them on particular issues.

    And have the whole thing compete with the elected gerrymandered legislature for credibility.

    Course since the big money is always gonna prefer the elected gerrymanderable corrupted thang, funding could be a bit difficult.

  • ThomasD||

    Mob rule by any other name is still mob rule.

    This is a republic.

  • JFree||

    So you actually believe 'choice' = 'mob rule'. Very revealing.

    You more worried that that sort of assembly would be able to undermine gerrymandering? Or that it would expose the current representation as inferior?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    So you actually believe 'choice' = 'mob rule'. Very revealing.

    Sortition can be a component of building a free society, but it needs to be combined with subsidiarity and constitutionally limited government powers.

    Sortition by itself is even more mob rule than the current corrupt system we have.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Funny how a soi disant libertarian magazine reporter fails to notice the 39705 libertarian votes cast in Wisconsin elections. One of the races gave 31% of the ballots to the libertarian candidate. Looter soft machines notice this sort of thing. Dems would do well to dial back the Catastrophic Misanthropic Global Warming Carbon Tax rhetoric and focus on individual rights, f'rinstance, for women. God's Own Prohibitionists might care to lighten up on the asset-forfeiture and fetus-forfeiture christianofascism when they look at nearly 40,000 libertarian votes (more if counted honestly). WI only has 15 cities with populations that large.

  • posmoo||

    It's very odd to see people who claim to be libertarian claim that less taxation is a giveaway of rightful state assets instead of simply less theft. Do any actual libertarians write for this click bait organization? what a progressive shithole this place has become.

  • Lester224||

    "if extraordinary session bills aren't passed "we are going to have a very liberal governor who is going to enact policies that are in direct contrast to what many of us believe in."

    "Many of us" not including the voters who elected the governor, we suppose.

    I don't see how anyone can defend that.

    The Foxconn deal was a give-away. It's a terrible deal for taxpayers. I wonder how much money Foxconn execs and shareholders contributed to those who approved the give-away.

  • Heraclitus||

    I'm not sure what they mean when they say the Dems are to blame for not getting the rural vote. Dems are in favor of redistributing money view transfers and that is exactly what rural voters want. They want subsidized lands, subsidized infrastructure, medical clinics and so on. If they had to pay market value for all that living in a rural area would be unaffordable for many. But the GOP is supposedly the anti-government, free-market party and yet they get the rural vote? They do this by drumming up culture war ideas and fooling their constituents with phony arguments about being anti-government and free-market oriented. In other words, the pander pander and pander some more. They go to elite prep schools and then pass themselves off as good ol' boys. So should Dems debase themselves too?

  • vek||

    Infrastructure huh... Because those highways and railroads ONLY serve the rural people right? It's not like the people in the city need those roads to truck in the food that keeps them from starving to death right?

    Please.

    In my state, the state pays for massive rail boondoggles that ONLY serve people living in the city. Massive road projects that ONLY serve people in the city. I'd bet my ass if one went through and did a real analysis of what is spent versus what is paid in, and properly allocated who actually gets any use out of the various projects, you would find the rural areas are at least taking care of their own shit, if not subsidizing half the dumb crap in the city.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Still, it's not wrong to view what's happening in Wisconsin this week as being fundamentally undemocratic.

    Oh, my! No tyranny of the majority! Urban democrats stifled in their ability to dominate and destroy rural America! Whatever shall we do!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online