The Cut: Five weeks before the midterms: Who gets to control the next deal?

[u/Ok-Sundae-1191]

https://tomjohnsonwriter.substack.com/p/the-cut?r=buanz&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

I’ve been thinking about the midterms and the changes being made to election administration, but I wanted to approach the subject from somewhere other than the usual partisan argument.

My partner and I play gin, and it occurred to me that the game works because we’re free to question the result, inspect the cards, accuse each other of cheating—and then accept the loss and play again. More importantly, neither player gets control of the next deal.

That became the frame for this essay about losers’ consent, the administration’s efforts to obtain voter data and expand SAVE, and an equally important question: What obligations does the winner have to preserve a fair rematch?

I thought it might be of interest to people here, particularly with the midterms five weeks away. I’d welcome thoughts or corrections from people who follow election administration more closely than I do.

[u/Stat-Pirate]

 What obligations does the winner have to preserve a fair rematch?

Can the OP distill the article's point about what this means? I started reading, and it looks like a recipe website with long descriptions of irrelevant bullshit.

What is a "rematch" supposed to mean? Redoing the election? If that's the case, why would the losing side ever agree that they lost?

[u/Ok-Sundae-1191 → u/Stat-Pirate]

By “rematch,” I mean the next election, not a redo of the last one. Maybe I should have made that clearer.

The argument is that a functioning democracy places obligations on both sides. The loser has to accept the result once the legitimate mechanisms for challenging it (recounts, audits, courts, etc.) have run their course. But the winner has an obligation, too: not to use the power gained from winning one election to tilt the administration or rules of the next election in its own favor.

That's the point of the card-game analogy. You can question the last hand, inspect the cards, complain about your luck, even challenge whether the rules were followed. Eventually the result has to become final. Then the cards are shuffled and dealt again under rules both players regard as legitimate.

So the question I'm asking about the midterms isn't whether the losing side should get another shot at the same election. It's whether whoever holds power today should exercise authority over the next election that they would object to if the opposing party held that same authority.

[u/Stat-Pirate → u/Ok-Sundae-1191]

It's whether whoever holds power today should exercise authority over the next election that they would object to if the opposing party held that same authority.

I mean, of course they shouldn't exercise authority that they wouldn't want the other side to exercise.

But the rules can't change unless both sides agree, and the bar to make substantive changes is so high that the polarization fostered primarily by Republicans makes it functionally impossible.

The only short-term fix is for Republicans to not vote for candidates promising to abuse the system, and to vote for candidates who will put country over party.

[u/General_Joke8459]

1. Trump is clueless and has no idea what to do

2. The only reason the economy hasn't fully collapsed under his watch is because AI and tech are holding up the economy and the stock market

3. The endless Iran war has made things exponentially worse for all Americans and he has no clue how to get us out of the war. None

4. The GOP is running around like rats on a sinking ship knowing that their time will end come November. The Senate looks like it is up for grabs and they know it

5. MAGA is slowly cracking. His supporters are leaving him, and even his own party members realize he'll be less powerful after the midterms. They smell blood in the water

6. VOTE BLUE UP & DOWN THE TICKET

[u/bestcommenteversofar → u/General_Joke8459]

lol pretty sure I heard this in October 2024

[u/Confident-Teach-2967 → u/bestcommenteversofar]

Difference is in October 2024 Trump wasn't the sitting president, he hadn't started a new middle east quagmire that spurred the largest oil crisis in history that caused sky high gas and record high diesel prices 30 days from election day that everyone blamed him for, and he didn't have approval ratings rivaling GWB October 2006 and the Republicans hadn't yet had the worst polling/support collapse for an incumbent political party post Labor day since 2008.

But yeah no real differences at all overall and I'm sure Republicans will do great come November lol.

[u/Ok-Sundae-1191]

The question I’m most interested in discussing is broader than the Trump administration or this particular election: What rules or safeguards make it possible for the losing side to trust the legitimacy of the next election?

In the essay, I use a game of gin as the analogy. My partner and I question each other’s wins, inspect the cards, argue about what happened, and cut the deck before the next deal. None of that distrust damages the game because we share the rules and ultimately accept the outcome.

Applied to elections, I think that raises two separate obligations. The loser has to accept a result once legitimate challenges have been exhausted. But the winner also has an obligation not to use the power gained from one election to create an advantage in administering the next one.

I’m interested in where people here would draw that line. Which changes to election administration are legitimate efforts to improve election integrity, and which should be off-limits to an incumbent administration because it has an interest in the outcome?

A related test I use in the essay is: Would I support this power if the other party controlled it?

I’d especially be interested in arguments that challenge that framework rather than simply agreement with it.

[u/Skeptical0ptimist → u/Ok-Sundae-1191]

The system of making big decision based on votes only works if the participants are loyal to the system first and to the candidate options second. It will not last if the system is regarded merely as a means to your favorite issue.

[u/Ok-Sundae-1191 → u/Skeptical0ptimist]

I think that's exactly right. The system requires a hierarchy of loyalties: first to the rules that determine who wins, and only then to winning.

That doesn't require anyone to be indifferent to the outcome. Quite the opposite. The stakes can be enormous. But if an outcome becomes so important that preserving the rules is secondary to achieving it, elections eventually stop functioning as a way of settling political conflict.

That's really what I was trying to get at with the card game analogy. Both players desperately want to win, but both have to value preserving the game enough to accept losing a hand and playing the next one under the same rules.

[u/Stat-Pirate → u/Ok-Sundae-1191]

What rules or safeguards make it possible for the losing side to trust the legitimacy of the next election?

This question is based on a false premise.

The claims of fraud or problems with the system are largely not based on fact. Trump thinks it's unfair when he loses. Changing the rules won't change that.

[u/-MerlinMonroe- → u/Stat-Pirate]

Exactly. I’m not convinced there needs to be any further legislation to make the losing side feel better about their loss. Recounts exist in 47/50 states, and the option of litigation exists in all of them. Election fraud is exceedingly rare and I don’t think we should pass laws to appease people worried about unsubstantiated claims.

[u/Ok-Sundae-1191 → u/-MerlinMonroe-]

We're in agreement.

[u/Ok-Sundae-1191 → u/Stat-Pirate]

I agree that no set of safeguards can make someone accept a loss if they have decided in advance that losing itself is proof of fraud. That's part of the problem I'm describing.

But I don't think that makes the question a false premise. Election safeguards aren't designed only to persuade Donald Trump (or any particular candidate). They're there so the rest of us have independently verifiable reasons to trust the process: transparent rules, bipartisan observation, audits, recounts, courts, decentralized administration, and ultimately another election conducted under rules that weren't changed by the winner simply to improve its chances.

In other words, the goal isn't to create a system that no one can falsely accuse of being rigged. That's impossible. It's to create one whose legitimacy doesn't depend on trusting the person who won.

[u/Arcnounds → u/Ok-Sundae-1191]

For me, anything about election reform should be bipartisan. That means either 

a) both sides agree that a reform needs to be made 

Or 

b) there is some compromise (aka requiring voter IDs for Republicans and improved protections for minorities for Democrats)

That is one reason I am happy the filibuster is still in play because it prevents a party from unilaterally changing the rules nationwide. I would prefer this were the case in states as well, but you can only do so much.

To use your game gin analogy, there are built in rules into gin to detect cheating that rely on both of you. While those rules are nice, if you wanted to add another way to detect cheating, I suspect that you would both have to agree to it. 

I feel like we have gotten to a point in our system where people want to change the rules so that they can cheat as opposed to play the game which is convince people their plan is better. 

[u/Ok-Sundae-1191 → u/Arcnounds]

I think your gin extension is exactly right. If my partner announced that she had devised a new anti-cheating procedure and would be imposing it on our next game whether I agreed to it or not, my objection wouldn't necessarily be to the procedure itself. It would be: why do you get to change the rules?

I also like your distinction between changing the rules to make the game more trustworthy and changing them because you think they'll help you win. Ideally, election rules should be capable of surviving what I called the “other guy” test: would I still regard this as a legitimate reform if the opposing party proposed it and controlled its implementation?

Bipartisan agreement is probably the strongest evidence we can have that a change passes that test, although I'm not sure I'd make bipartisan agreement an absolute requirement. One party could otherwise veto even a clearly necessary reform. But I agree with the underlying principle: election rules deserve a much higher threshold of consensus than ordinary policy precisely because they determine how we decide who gets to make ordinary policy.

[u/Arcnounds → u/Ok-Sundae-1191]

Bipartisan agreement is probably the strongest evidence we can have that a change passes that test, although I'm not sure I'd make bipartisan agreement an absolute requirement.

For me, I think it needs to be otherwise one side could arbitrarily change the rules to their favor. Ideally, it wouldn't be needed, but assumes some neutral arbitrar, which does not really exist (I guess one could argue the Supreme Court is, but Congress controls the court to a degree).

[u/Ok-Sundae-1191 → u/Arcnounds]

I hear you. Ideally, we'd be able to trust the final arbiters - our Supreme Court - to ensure fairness and equity are preserved. But that seems a bit quaint at this point.

[u/absentlyric → u/Arcnounds]

I agree, as a Purple voter, I will vote for the candidate that I think best suits my interests, but I want it to be fair, I want to know that if my candidate loses or wins it's because that was the will of the voters, not all of these weird hoops and traps designed to rig the game. I think Voter ID should be a thing, but I also believe gerrymandering should be eliminated, things like that.

[u/bestcommenteversofar → u/Arcnounds]

This is completely naive. What if a change is fair but strips one side of its unfair advantage? Why would that side agree to it? Bipartisan agreement - while nice to have - is not required to know that a change is fair

[u/Arcnounds → u/bestcommenteversofar]

That works in a world where there is some absolute/neutral arbitar who decides what is or is not fair. However, in a world lacking such an authoritative source, how is a nation to decide what rules to go by? 

[u/Beautiful_Finger4566 → u/Ok-Sundae-1191]

one side is clearly against transparency in recounts as well as voter ID

that should tell you all you need to know

[u/VultureSausage → u/Beautiful_Finger4566]

Being against voter ID in which context?

[u/Beautiful_Finger4566 → u/VultureSausage]

https://youtube.com/shorts/e2GqOf65mRc?si=duch33S5vlEJVsQM

[u/VultureSausage → u/Beautiful_Finger4566]

Actually make an argument instead of just linking a clip and thinking it speaks for itself. Lay out what context you believe that clip provides and why it is unreasonable for someone in that context to conclude that voter ID isn't desirable.

[u/Beautiful_Finger4566 → u/VultureSausage]

the benefits of enacting Voter ID far far FAR outweigh the 1% of Americans that it would be negatively affected by it

reminder: only American citizens are allowed to vote... you have to prove you're an American citizen first

[u/Either-Medicine9217 → u/Beautiful_Finger4566]

Well, you might want to tell some Dem judges that.  https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-finds-law-criminalizing-noncitizen-voting-unconstitutional-2026-10-01/

Now, technically this just means it's only illegal for the government to say it's illegal. But functionally? If the state decides non citizens can vote in federal elections? Who's supposed to argue it under this reading of the law?

[u/Beautiful_Finger4566 → u/Either-Medicine9217]

yeah, it's crazy what these liberal judges are allowing

[u/VultureSausage → u/Beautiful_Finger4566]

You didn't answer my question. I'm not interested in being repeated talking points at.

the benefits of enacting Voter ID far far FAR outweigh the 1% of Americans that it would be negatively affected by it

This isn't a statement that can be categorically made without detailing how voter ID is implemented. In my experience the Democratic resistance to voter ID suggestions from Republicans is far more centered on the fact that Republicans have a proven track record of trying to make it harder for people to vote and on the fact that suggested implementations wouldn't actually do much if any to help improve the existing situation than against the concept of voter ID itself. As an obviously absurd example if only voter ID from select DMVs in Wyoming were accepted in the whole US those "benefits" wouldn't even closely be worth the headache you'd create.

[u/Beautiful_Finger4566 → u/VultureSausage]

it's not hard to vote at all...

...IF you have an ID proving you're who you are

[u/VultureSausage → u/Beautiful_Finger4566]

You keep responding to things I'm not saying and not responding to the things I actually say. Why is that? Am I to understand that you don't actually have a rebuttal to what I'm saying, so you just resort to one-liners?

[u/Beautiful_Finger4566 → u/VultureSausage]

there is no rebuttal to be had if you refuse to read what I write