the democratic party is conservatives, liberals. the same action is not there. th courts have driven for generations and unfortunately, as far as democrats are concerned, democrats do not get as excised about what the court does as republicans have in the past and not as committed to shaping the courts in their image. now maybe that will change. i think a lot of people thought that the 2000 decision bush v gore decision would be that flash point especially since the court in that case literally said this decision only couples for the present circumstances, which is an acknowledgement they knew they were behave income a political way but we have yet to see i don t think it s a question of unembarrassed but we have yet to see democrats constituencies demanding this kind of aggressive action as far as the courts are concerned that we have seen on the republican side. that might change because the courts are behaving in ways that even these politicians can t
remember, on january 6, i think it was the same date, 1993, when he announced the electoral college victory of bill clinton and al gore over george h.w. bush and himself, dan quayle. never even occurred to us that he would do anything to disrupt those proceedings. i was thinking also, al gore succeeded dan quayle as vice president. al gore behaved very honorably in december of 2000 when he accepted the bush v. gore decision and urged national unity and we had to support george w. bush as the the president. quite a contrast with donald trump. you know, our friend crystal lizza said dan quayle may have saved democracy in that phone call with mike pence, maybe. but it is such an unbelievably low bar. don t overthrow the results of an election here. it s a low bar, john. two-thirds of house republicans 0 voted to overthrow one state,
obsessed with because it doesn t seem to be that remote. the odds of a very closely contested 2020 race seem very possible. almost every election. this is this this is the russians they knew they had business dealings with trump that were kept secret from the public. so they already had their hooks in him of information they thought would be private. they also have a deep seated fear going back to 2014 with uprisings in ukraine worrying about democracy. why can t we have democracy in russia? they want to say look how badly democracy is working in the uk and in the u.s. and so they have their greatest wish would be a presidential election whose legitimacy was honestly in doubt and contested by the parties. they would say look, you re better off with vladimir taking care of everybody. this democracy is messy. it s a very good point. and mimi, as someone as a lawyer, just imagining a scenario in which you are attempting to resolve the way that we resolve contested elec
thought would be private. they also have a deep seated fear going back to 2014 with uprisings in ukraine worrying about democracy. why can t we have democracy in russia? they want to say look how badly democracy is working in the uk and in the u.s. and so they have their greatest wish would be a presidential election whose legitimacy was honestly in doubt and contested by the parties. they would say look, you re better off with vladimir taking care of everybody. this democracy is messy. it s a very good point. and mimi, as someone as a lawyer, just imagining a scenario in which you are attempting to resolve the way that we resolve contested elections is through the courts. and the last time that that happened was 2000 in a way that a lot of people were very angry at, and i think the bush v gore decision is hilariously
were going to vote for the president, basically. and the top two people would be the president, and the vice president. this was not popular democracy. this was having electors from the state actually take that decision on their own hands. so times have certainly changed. as you know the electoral college can be abolished. something happened in maryland this week they voted on tuesday to approve a system that basically would give their electoral votes to the president who won the popular vote. now for this to actually be implemented a majority of the states need to pass something similar. we re nowhere near that yet. do you think that modern times are changing enough where we will see, say in you know two, three elections from now, a popular vote as the driver of who wins? i m dubious. you either need a constitutional amendment or you need a contusional convention. both are very difficult processes. we ve had moments when there s this debate to change to a system of direct voting.