Yet Nov. 3 also saw many states vote directly on specific policies. For progressives, the results of these contests were mixed.
Voters in some states opted to decriminalize drug, and Floridians voted to raise the state minimum wage to $15 per hour. However, in California, several ballot initiatives resulted in significant defeats for the left.
Chief among them was Proposition 22, which passed with 55.8 per cent of the vote.
This new law allows technology companies such as Uber and Lyft to continue to classify their gig workers as independent contractors rather than employees.
The back story
A coalition of Silicon Valley companies launched the “Yes on 22” ballot campaign in response to recent moves by both the judiciary and legislature in California to expand the legal definition of employment.
In the Dynamex case of 2018, the California Supreme Court clarified the legal test for determining an employment relationship. This test limited when an employer can classify a worker as an independent contractor to instances where:
The worker is free to perform services without the control or direction of the company;
The worker is performing tasks outside the company’s usual activities; and
The worker is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business.
It was certain app-based companies could not meet these criteria.
The legislature then passed Assembly Bill 5 in January 2020, which included the above method for determining employment status and aimed to stop what is broadly considered to be the misclassification of app-based workers as independent contractors.
The state’s new broader interpretation of employment was meant to give app-based and other contract workers access to labour standards protections, such as the minimum wage, as well as other social benefits currently denied to them, such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. However, the legislation did not grant gig workers the ability to form unions.
The Proposition 22 campaign
“Yes on 22” proved to be the most well-funded ballot initiative in California’s history. Tech companies spent well over US$200 million on advertising, political contributions and public relations firms’ services. The coalition opposed to Proposition 22, led by labour movement organizations, came nowhere near this total, managing to raise around $20 million.
Since 2018, tech companies had been publicly voicing their objections to the Dynamex decision and California’s Assembly Bill 5, with some threatening to leave California if Proposition 22 was unsuccessful. During the “Yes on 22” campaign, gig companies additionally engaged in highly questionable tactics, such as requiring both drivers and customers to indicate support for the ballot initiative before using the app.
So while Assembly Bill 5 is the law of the land for other employers, Proposition 22 exempts the tech giants by setting separate labour standards for app-based workers.
Consequences for tech workers
The companies argue that Proposition 22 will benefit workers by maintaining the supposed flexibility of app-based work while also providing new, modest benefits.
For example, Proposition 22 includes a provision ensuring workers receive 120 per cent of the state minimum wage in California. However, this calculation is only made on the basis of engaged driving time. Because much of gig work is spent waiting for jobs through the app, income insecurity will remain a considerable problem.
Protesters stop traffic outside Uber headquarters in May 2019 in San Francisco. Drivers for ride-hailing giants Uber and Lyft turned off their apps to protest what they say are declining wages as both companies rake in billions of dollars from investors.(AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
Scholars at University of California, Berkeley’s Labor Center, estimate that under this arrangement ride share workers will earn an average of $5.64 per hour when time between rides and vehicle costs are factored in.
Other benefits included in Proposition 22 dealing with health care, workers compensation and insurance are all much weaker than the protections guaranteed by traditional employment.
Battles over app-based work in Canada
Conflicts over the employment status of app-based workers are not unique to California.
After its Ontario couriers voted to unionize with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Foodora appealed the union certification and argued that couriers are independent contracts not entitled to unionize.
The company then pulled out of Ontario altogether after the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled in the union’s favour.
Before this decision, Foodora left Australia after that country’s Fair Work Ombudsman alleged that the company was misclassifying and underpaying its drivers.
A Foodora courier picks up an order for delivery from a restaurant in Toronto in February 2020, shortly after the company pulled out of Ontario due to an unfavourable Labour Relations Board decision.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette
Uber also faces mounting pressure in Canada following a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision allowing workers in Ontario to pursue a possible class-action lawsuit to obtain protections such as a minimum wage, vacation and overtime pay, as well as other benefits entitled to them under the Employment Standards Act.
At the federal level, the Liberal government has amended the Canada Labour Code to include a “reverse onus clause” requiring federally regulated employers to prove that contractors they engage are properly classified.
Perhaps learning from outcomes in these other jurisdictions, the drafters of Proposition 22 included within the new law a rule requiring seven-eighths of the California legislature to vote in favour of any future modification. The victors of the California ballot initiative have now indicated their plan to pursue similar measures across the United States.
What’s driving the growth in app-based work?
Clearly app-based companies are committed to maintaining the “independent contractor” status of their workforce. This is largely because their business model involves competing on the basis of low labour costs achieved through skirting regulations that apply to competitors, such as traditional taxi companies.
Another University of California, Berkeley, Labor Center study estimates that between 2014 and 2019, Uber and Lyft alone avoided paying as much as $413 million in unpaid wages, overtime pay, unemployment insurance contributions and other taxes in the U.S.
However, some contend that there are much deeper forces at play. Economic historian Aaron Benanav argues that as manufacturing employment has declined and the service sector has grown, under-employment and precarious work have become endemic features of contemporary labour markets.
According to this theory, stubbornly slow growth rates, low productivity growth and depressed demand for labour are translating into a lack of good quality jobs.
Battles over employment classification and labour regulation, while important for improving app-based workers’ immediate conditions of work, ultimately won’t address the underlying dynamics contributing to the growth of gig work and other forms of precarious employment.
More fundamental reforms are needed to generate secure, well-compensated employment. Investment and job creation led by the public sector will be vital to addressing these issues in the future.
Wednesday, 02 December 2020 06:00 Written by face2faceafrica
All things being equal, Nigerian-born attorney Adewale Adeyemo will become the next Deputy Secretary of Treasury on the United States in the incoming Joe Biden administration expected to begin on January 20 next year.
If confirmed by lawmakers, Adeyemo, 39, will deputize for Janet Yellen, 74, a former Federal Reserve nominated by the president-elect a week ago. Yellen brings with her decades of academic and professional experience and has served under both Democratic and Republican governments.
Adeyemo, on the other hand, is unknown to even many of those who have closely followed intra-Democratic politics. He appeared to be the least familiar of six names and faces tweeted by the @Transition46 account on November 30.
SKIP AD
Who is the Adeyemo?
In many ways, Adeyemo is not yet a truly public figure. So little is known about him but that is bound to change in the coming weeks.
Born to Nigerian parents in Nigeria in 1981, Adeyemo’s upbringing was actually in southern California. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Juris Doctor from Yale.
But Adeyemo, popularly called Wally as an affectionate spin on his first name, became involved in Democratic politics at a very young age. Not older than 24, he became the Director of African American Outreach for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid.
But his upcoming role will not be his first stint at the Treasury Department. In 2013, he was made deputy chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, after Adeyemo had left his editorial role at the Hamilton Project, an economic policy initiative by the Brookings Institution.
At the age of 34, Adeyemo was tapped by former President Barack Obama to replace Caroline Atkinson as the administration’s Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics. This appointment was greeted with a lot of praise in his native country of Nigeria.
One of Adeyemo’s most significant achievements in the Obama administration was his role as chief negotiator for the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (TPP). He also became Obama’s deputy director of the National Economic Council in 2015.
In 2019, Adeyemo’s relation with the former president gained new meaning after the Nigerian-born was made the inaugural president of the Obama Foundation, a Chicago-based non-profit organization committed to social justice and offering socio-economic opportunities to young Black Americans.
Adeyemo’s nomination by Biden to the position Deputy Treasury Secretary may only be viewed as a reward for the commitment shown to the Obama-Biden Democratic tent as well as his able capacity over the years.
Sunday, 29 November 2020 16:01 Written by pointblanknews
A North Carolina donor who gave $2.5 million to a group promising to help President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the general election is now suing to get his money back.
Fred Eshelman, who has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republicans in 2020, according to Federal Election Commission data, says in his lawsuit that the organization True the Vote had not fulfilled the conditions of his monetary gift.
The organization disputes the lawsuit’s claims as “not accurate.”
According to the suit filed Wednesday, Eshelman allegedly wired $2 million on Nov. 5 and an additional $500,000 on Nov. 13 that was intended to be put toward True the Vote’s “Validate the Vote” strategy.
The initiative was designed to investigate and litigate claims of voter fraud and “solicit whistleblower testimonies,” “build public momentum,” “galvanize Republican legislative support in key states,” “analyze data to identify patterns of election subversion” and “file lawsuits … with the capacity to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The lawsuit also states that an attorney for the group, Jim Bopp, said $1 million would be returned if Eshelman agreed not to sue.Facebook
Following reports of $15,000 visa bond imposed on some African countries, the US Mission has made some clarifications.
Trump
Nigeria is not in the list of countries expected to pay $5,000 to $15,000 visa bond in order to visit the United States.
US Mission in Nigeria made the clarification as it revealed reasons for the pilot visa bond program.
The State Department had announced that certain nationals travelling to America will, from next month, will pay a bond.
Consular officers may require nonimmigrant visa applicants to post $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 as a condition of issuance.
The new policy will last six months – December 24, 2020, up to June 24, 2021.
The Temporary Final Rule (TFR) aims to discourage non-citizens’ overstay.
Africa’s most populous nation is one of the countries with a high rate.
This is why Nigeria will be affected by the plan to limit admission into U.S schools to two years.
On Tuesday, the U.S Mission, ostensibly in reaction to media reports of the new rule, made a clarification.
A statement said acting on 2019 presidential memo on combating high overstay figures, the State Department, embassies and consulates overseas conducted analysis to identify and address root causes.
It confirmed that the State Department is considering additional steps to address temporary business visitor/tourist (B-1/B-2) visa overstays.
These include piloting a limited visa undertaking program to test, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the operational feasibility of posting, processing, and discharging visa bonds to ensure travelers’ timely departure.
The Mission noted that the strategy is to get those who visit the U.S. to respect the laws.
The Mission said implementation of the pilot builds on America’s engagement with foreign governments in recent years.
“Nigeria is not included in this six months pilot program”, the statement stressed.
Wednesday, 25 November 2020 04:46 Written by Thenews
After two weeks of grandstanding, U.S. President Donald Trump has finally accepted to allow a transition of power to his potential successor, Joe Biden.
In a Monday evening tweet, Trump said he had recommended that the General Services Administration (GSA) “do what needs to be done” in that regard.
The president’s tweet came amid reports by local media that the GSA has determined Biden to be the winner of the Nov. 3 presidential election.
GSA Administrator, Emily Murphy, sent Biden a letter earlier on Monday to inform him that his transition could now begin.
ABC News quoted an unnamed official of the Biden transition team as confirming that the former Vice President had received the letter.
With this, the president-elect’s transition team can now access government resources, including funds, for a smooth transition of power.
The GSA is a federal agency responsible for enabling the transition of power from one administration to another, and it controls the funds for the process.
By law, the head of the agency must first “ascertain” the winner of a presidential election before setting the transition ball rolling.
But with Trump’s refusal to concede, the GSA administrator, who was appointed by the president in 2017, had held back from starting the process.
Murphy had come under fire from Democrats and other critics, who accused her of allowing political influence to interfere in the agency’s independence.
Defending her decision in the letter to Biden, the GSA head denied being influenced by the White House or official of the executive branch of government
“I have dedicated much of my adult life to public service, and I have always strived to do what is right.
“Please know that I came to my decision independently, based on the law and available facts.
“I was never directly or indirectly pressured by any Executive Branch official—including those who work at the White House or GSA—with regard to the substance or timing of my decision,” she said.
In his tweet, Trump said he advised the agency to start the process because he did not want Murphy, her family and employees of the GSA to continue to suffer harassment and abuse.
“I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country.
“She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA”, Trump said.
The president, who is in court challenging the election results in key battleground states, said his case would continue.
“Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail!”
In this Oct. 3, 2017, iconic photo, President Donald Trump tosses paper towels into a crowd in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, after Hurricane Maria devastated the region. The recent U.S. election brings with it hope for more caring practices from elected officials. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Yet he still won strong majorities in the South and Mountain West while dominating once more with white evangelicals. As in 2016, he cleaned up in places like southwestern Pennsylvania, where factory jobs are long gone, and in upscale zip codes like St. Johns County in Florida, where you can play 18 holes and then sip martinis on the beach.
But the most striking part of Trump’s showing was his strength in places where the pandemic is raging. According to an analysis by National Public Radio, nearly seven in 10 counties with high COVID-19 death rates backed Trump more strongly this year than they did in 2016.
Those votes speaks volumes about what Americans have come to expect — or not to expect — from their government.
‘Salus Populi’
The government’s responsibility for public safety and well-being — Salus Populi, in its original Latin — is among the most venerable ideas of the western political tradition. America is no exception.
Most of the state-level constitutions written during the American Revolution described the “happiness and safety” of the people, no less than their freedom, as the governments’ primary concern. The Federal Constitution of 1787 also named “general welfare” as one of its main goals. And why not? The very word, republic, means the “public thing.”
Throughout the 19th century, courts and legislatures cited Salus Populi as the supreme law of the land, something that overruled the private interests of the greedy or careless. As a Massachusetts judge summarized while defending regulations on food markets in the 1840s, the public had “a right to control [those markets], as best to promote the welfare of all citizens.”
These weren’t just words. City ordinances actually prevented merchants from selling spoiled meat. Town governments repeatedly enforced quarantines. Judges routinely ordered the destruction of buildings that contained flammable materials.
To be sure, 19th-century America also had a libertarian streak. Amid the social upheavals of industrialization and urbanization, various anti-government and hyper-individualistic ideas grew into predatory ideologies such as social Darwinism.
By the early 20th century, however, the federal government had assumed responsibility for basic hygiene in the nation’s food and water supplies. During the New Deal in the 1930s, the government devised Social Security for retirees and invested in everything from highways and bridges to hospitals.
Governments of all levels fought the polio outbreaks of the early post-war years, and both public and private donors enabled Jonas Salk’s wondrous polio vaccine in 1955.
The private revolution
Everything changed in the U.S. with the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language,” the affable Reagan chortled, “are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” In his America, the only role for government was to punish evildoers and promote dog-eat-dog capitalism in the name of “freedom.”
The Gipper, as Reagan was nicknamed (after a movie role), delivered these right-wing economic dogmas with a B-actor’s smile, initiating a 40-year assault on Salus Populi.
The U.S. politics of care changed under Ronald Reagan shown here on Nov. 3, 1980, with former president Gerald Ford and his running mate, George H.W. Bush in Peoria, Ill.(AP Photo)
This has worked out very well for the wealthy. High net-worth individuals saw their income taxes plummet under Reagan and again under George W. Bush. They reinvested the windfall in capital markets liberalized by Bill Clinton. Especially since the Great Recession of 2008, the super wealthy have pulled away from everyone else, with the richest five per cent of U.S. families increasing their net worth by an astonishing 88 per cent.
No wonder people making over $100,000 swung strongly two weeks ago to Trump, a shady billionaire who nonetheless delivered another tax cut in 2017. The puzzle is why so many working people seem to support an economic project that often harms working people.
Perhaps the question presupposes a level of choice that most people don’t have. In a world of closing factories and shrinking unions, employees are in no position to demand better job security. Flooded by well-crafted slogans about the evils of government, voters have little hope for competent leaders, to say nothing of caring ones.
Indeed, the most obvious choice within the privatized hellscape of contemporary America is to hang on to what you’ve got, the public be damned.
Fellow citizens
If no one will help you in times of need, why vote for someone who pretends otherwise? If everyone is out for himself, why not admire a snake-oil tycoon like Donald Trump? In Trump’s America, the deaths of so many fellow citizens simply “is what it is.”
The only way to fight these dismal convictions is to create tangible evidence to the contrary. Building more hospitals would be a good place to start. More than 150 of these have closed in rural areas of the U.S. since 2015.
Strengthening Social Security and the Affordable Care Act should also be priorities. Mandating better nutritional content for school cafeterias and enforcing fair labour practices would also work.
Act first, talk later. Then perhaps Americans like me can once again see each other as part of a civil and coherent society, as proud members of a decent and well-run republic.
Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government has come to be defined by two things: its hesitant responses to the emerging second wave of COVID-19 and its relentlessly pro-business approach to virtually all other matters.
The situation invites the question of whether the government’s stumbling reluctance to impose more restrictive measures to head off the growing numbers of COVID-19 infections, as recommended by medical experts from across the province, is a product of its pro-business orientation.
On the COVID-19 front, recent days have been defined by some deeply disturbing trends: record daily rates of new infections; an already fatal reappearance of the virus in long-term care facilities; and projections of uncontrolled infection rates exceeding 6,500 cases per day, which will overwhelm hospital and intensive care unit capacity. Although the news of potentially effective vaccines is encouraging, their widespread availability seems many months off.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford watches as Health Minister Christine Elliott walks to the podium to answer questions at Queen’s Park on Nov. 16, 2020.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn
The provincial government’s responses to the situation have been surprisingly feeble. The province was actually moving in the direction of easing restrictions, particularly around public gathering spaces like restaurants, bars, gyms and places of worship, despite warnings that these could be key points of transmission.
It was then revealed that the province had ignored the advice of its own public health agency in terms of the infection rates needed to trigger further restrictions. The recommended thresholds for restrictions were reportedly increased by a factor of four relative to the advice received by the province from its own public health agency.
Taking the fall?
The imposition of further restrictions has been left in the hands of local medical officers of health despite the limited legal authority available to them. The province, it seemed, was prepared to let them take the political fall for the imposition of potentially unpopular restrictions.
The catastrophic projections released on Nov. 13 brought a partial turnaround by the province in terms of the thresholds for additional restrictions. But the government’s approach is still falling well short of what health authorities and experts are saying is needed to prevent disaster.
As if to add insult to injury, Ontario is poised to pass legislation that would effectively grant long-term care home owners and operators immunity from liability for the more than 1,800 resident deaths that occurred in their facilities during the first COVID-19 wave.
There is strong evidence that a significant portion of those fatalities were the result of neglect and poor care, rather than COVID-19 itself.
The province has extensive authority over public health matters, as well as a range of other legal and policy tools at its disposal to combat the virus. And on the surface, the government has consistently expressed concern and distress over the impacts of COVID-19 on its victims. Yet it had to be pushed into partial action by the recent outcry from the media and health experts over its failing responses.
Pro-business arguments
Why?
The answer may lie with Ford’s stance on issues beyond the pandemic. The essential feature of the Ford government has been its striking responsiveness to any argument presented to it from pro-business advocates and framed in terms of economic development.
The government’s record on the environment in this context is well-known: the shredding of Ontario’s climate change strategy; the elimination of the independent office of the environmental commissioner; the weakening or elimination of regulations on endangered species, forestry and toxic chemicals; and the evisceration of longstanding rules on industrial water pollution and environmental assessment.
Most striking of these tendencies has been the government’s willingness to acquiesce to the demands presented to it by the land development industry. Planning rules intended to curb urban sprawl in the Greater Toronto Area have been gutted.
The province has made unprecedented moves to reach deep into local municipal plans on behalf of development interests to eliminate constraints and permit ever greater development in areas like midtown Toronto that are already subject to intensive development pressures.
Ministerial zoning orders have been used with unprecedented frequency to override municipal and provincial rules on specific sites, most recently permitting a warehouse development in an environmentally significant wetland on Pickering’s Lake Ontario shoreline.
Provisions buried in the government’s November 2020 budget bill would undermine the role of local conservation authorities in controlling development for lands that are at risk of flooding and other hazards — significant considerations in the age of climate change — as well as for wetlands and shorelines.
Early morning fishermen take advantage of warm weather on Pigeon Lake near Bobcaygeon, Ont., on Nov. 7, 2020.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Thornhill
Sympathetic to business owners
The same unapologetic pro-business orientation seems to lie at the heart of the government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis.
The government has seemed particularly sympathetic to the pleas of small business owners, such as restaurants, bars and gyms, that would be affected by further shutdowns, despite the potentially significant roles these types of facilities could play in the spread of COVID-19.
A bartender and restaurant manager watch the news on television in the Port Credit neighbourhood of Mississauga, Ont., on Oct. 9, 2020.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette
That’s profoundly short-sighted, laying the groundwork for disastrous runaway outbreaks like those occurring in the United States. Those types of outbreaks may only be able to be controlled, if at all, through the types of draconian and long-term lockdowns seen in places like Melbourne, Australia. The impact would be far more damaging to businesses than additional short-term restrictions.
A more effective and balanced approach would recognize the need for far greater restrictions in the short term, while working with the federal government to provide support to affected employees and helping businesses move their operations to take-out, delivery, curbside pickup and online services wherever possible.
Events in the U.S. and Europe are demonstrating just how bad a second COVID-19 wave could be. If the Ford government acts decisively, it may still be able to avoid the same fate, but time is running out quickly.
Wednesday, 18 November 2020 06:23 Written by theconversation
People identifying themselves as members of the Proud Boys join supporters of President Donald Trump as they march on Nov. 14, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Have such predictions of election-related civil unrest been exaggerated or well-advised? Probably a little bit of both. As the sun sets on Trump’s administration, it’s clear that the last four years have made the United States a more fragile state.
Not unprecedented
Predictions of post-election violence in the United States haven’t been unfounded because such unrest is not unprecedented.
During the 1920 election, violence in Florida intimidated and prevented Black people from voting, and dozens of African Americans were subsequently killed in the election-related Ocoee Riot of 1920.
Warnings that were particularly sobering in the lead-up to Nov. 3 can perhaps be looked at with slightly less alarm today. However, with an unpredictable president remaining in the White House until Jan. 20, 2021, potential dangers to democracy still exit given his supporters believe his claims that the election was “rigged.”
Trump speaks at the White House two days after the Nov. 3 election.(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
One warning came from the International Crisis Group, a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Brussels, Belgium.
In the lead-up to the election, for the first time in its 25-year history, the group turned its attention to analyzing the risks of political violence in the U.S. The organization typically provides warnings concerning conflict-prone regions where democracy is fragile.
Red flags
Certain items consistently emerged as red flags, indicating potential electoral violence. These risk factors include a polarized electorate, highly segregated and mutually mistrusted sources of information and the existence of armed citizens and militias with easy access to weapons.
A Trump supporter carries his rifle during a rally at the Capitol building in Lansing, Mich., on Saturday, Nov. 14, 2020.(AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
In addition, prior to the election, unresolved racial tensions were still present in the U.S. stemming from the killing of George Floyd in May and the subsequent widespread civil unrest.
In June, during a peak period of racially driven civil unrest in the U.S., the president threatened to use the Insurrection Act to put down protests and used his rhetoric to inflame rather than to quell violence.
Perhaps the most dangerous top indicator of electoral violence was Trump’s tendency to use the executive branch as a bully pulpit to fuel divisions and sow chaos. In fact, as late as election eve, Trump tweeted that a court decision he did not favour would allow cheating and also lead to violence in the streets.
Presidents have never spoken in ways that link their election prospects and violence immediately prior to election day.
In the period of transition, the new test of American democracy is whether a lame-duck president like Trump can undo 200 years of post-electoral norms to weaken American democracy.
There are four characteristics of fragile states: a loss of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services and the inability to interact with other nation-states as a full member of the international community.
While there remains a long way for the U.S. to fall, even falling a little towards the direction of a fragile state prior to Jan. 20 can create a more permissive environment for inappropriate expressions of grievances through violence.
Conditions for violence still exist
Insights can be gained from studies of democratization in post-war societies. For example, peace and conflict researcher Kristine Höglund has studied the factors that encouraged violence at elections.
Armed Trump supporters stand outside the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office where votes in the general election were being counted in Phoenix on Nov. 6, 2020.(AP Photo/Dario Lopez-MIlls)
Höglund found that conditions that enabled the use of electoral violence include situations where violence is viewed as a legitimate political tool, and agitators have access to arms. Other factors that trigger electoral violence are false interpretations of close elections, misuse of political rights and militant mobilization.
Despite Trump’s continuing post-defeat attempts to sow chaos, most American people have not yet been goaded into using violence and disorder this election season. Hopefully it will remain that way.
Subscribe our Email News Letter to get Instant Update at anytime
About Oases News
OASES News is a News Agency with the central idea of diseminating credible, evidence-based, impeccable news and activities without stripping all technicalities involved in news reporting.
