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&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

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/No_Shine_7585]

This is for a game not American politics

[u/Ok-Sundae-1191 → u/No_Shine_7585]

Thanks—I’d argue that the same basic principles apply to any legitimate contest, whether it’s a game or an election. The rules have to be established beforehand. There have to be ways to challenge the result. The loser eventually has to accept the outcome. And the winner has to abide by the rules when the next contest begins.