vox--2020-07-31--America’s democracy is failing. Here’s why.

Let ’ s start with a plausible scenario that could play out in the 2020 election .
Democrats win the popular vote by an even wider margin than Hillary Clinton ’ s nearly 3 million vote lead in 2016 , running up the score in solid blue states and closing most of the gap in large red states like Texas .
Pennsylvania and Michigan return to the Democratic fold , but Trump ekes out the narrowest of victories in Wisconsin .
He walks away with exactly 270 electoral votes and the presidency .
Meanwhile , House Democrats have a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as 2018 .
Democratic candidates win every congressional district where Hillary Clinton prevailed in 2016 , plus every district where Clinton lost by less than 3 percentage points .
Democratic House candidates win the total popular vote by a few percentage points , but it ’ s not enough .
Despite her party ’ s popular vote victory , Speaker Nancy Pelosi is once again demoted to minority leader .
In the Senate , Democrats pick up seats in Colorado and Maine , but they never really have a shot at replicating Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alabama .
Republicans end up with a 52-seat majority in the Senate — and , with it , the ability to keep filling the courts up with Trump judges .
Although the Democratic “ minority ” would represent about 17 million more people than the Republican “ majority ” in this scenario , Mitch McConnell still controls the Senate .
Solid majorities of the nation , in other words , could vote for a Democratic White House , a Democratic House , and a Democratic Senate , and yet Republicans could gain control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rigged .
It was rigged from the outset , quite intentionally , to favor small states .
Under current political coalitions , that ’ s become an enormous advantage for Republicans .
The country ’ s framers obviously could not have known that they were creating a system that would give Donald Trump ’ s party an unfair advantage over Hillary Clinton ’ s party more than two centuries later .
But they did create a system that favors small states over large states .
That means that a political coalition that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urban areas — like , say , modern-day Democrats — are at a terrible disadvantage under this constitutional arrangement .
( And , to be clear , the system would be just as anti-democratic if it put Republicans at a disadvantage instead . )
Republicans , meanwhile , take their unfair advantage and build on it by gerrymandering the states they control , using their Senate “ majority ” to fill the courts with Republican judges , and then using their control of the judiciary to bolster their own party ’ s chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States now finds itself barreling toward a legitimacy crisis .
Four features of our anti-democratic democracy Broadly speaking , there are four features of our system of government that make our democracy less democratic , many of them working in interlocking ways .
These features also happen to give the GOP a structural advantage .
1 ) The Senate is deeply unrepresentative of the country According to 2018 Census Bureau estimates , more than half of the US population lives in just nine states .
That means that much of the nation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than half of the population controls about 82 percent of the Senate .
It ’ s going to get worse .
By 2040 , according to a University of Virginia analysis of census projections , half the population will live in eight states .
About 70 percent of people will live in 16 states — which means that 30 percent of the population will control 68 percent of the Senate .
Currently , Democrats control a majority of the Senate seats ( 26-24 ) in the most populous half of the states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a whole to their crushing 29-21 lead in the least populous half of the states .
Those small states tend to be dominated by white voters who are increasingly likely to identify with the Republican Party .
Senate malapportionment is a relic of an unstable alliance among 13 young nations .
As Yale law professor Akhil Amar explains , the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution were “ an alliance , a multilateral treaty of sovereign nation-states.
” The Constitution did not simply change the rules that governed an existing nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states together .
The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost , because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe .
Without a union , Amar says , “ each nation-state might well raise an army , ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans , but also perhaps to awe its neighbors.
” Nor was this merely a hypothetical concern .
When large states proposed a fair legislature , where each state would be given seats proportional to its population , Delaware delegate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would make war on its neighbors .
“ The large states dare not dissolve the Confederation , ” Bedford insisted , or else “ the small states will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith.
” This is why we have a Senate : In a negotiation among 13 sovereign nations , each of these nations may demand equality as the price of union .
Whatever the wisdom of this devil ’ s bargain in 1787 , America is a very different place today .
There is little risk that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or that New Hampshire will invade Vermont .
Instead , we are heading toward a future where — barring some kind of major partisan realignment — the Senate will routinely feature a majority that represents far less than half of the nation as a whole .
In the current Senate , the Republican “ majority ” represents about 15 million fewer people than the Democratic “ minority.
” And if current trends continue , the Republican advantage is likely to grow .
A common defense of our current arrangement is that Senate malapportionment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority.
” As the Heritage Foundation ’ s Edwin Feulner argues in a piece that ’ s fairly representative of Senate defenders , malapportionment “ keeps less-populated states from being steamrolled.
” But there ’ s no reason to believe that residents of small states , as a class , make up a coherent interest group whose political concerns are in tension with residents of large states .
The residents of Vermont ( population : 623,989 ) vote more like the residents of New York ( population : 19,453,561 ) than they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 731,545 ) .
The people of Wyoming ( population : 578,759 ) vote more like the people of Texas ( population : 28,995,881 ) than they do like the people of Delaware ( population : 973,764 ) .
There are over 20,000 more farms in California than there are in Nebraska .
There are rural regions in large states .
And there are some urban centers in small states .
There ’ s another factor to consider when thinking about the small state advantage : race .
The Senate does not simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it gives the biggest advantage to states with large populations of white , non-college-educated voters — the very demographic that is trending rapidly toward the GOP .
Republican dominance of the Senate is a relatively recent occurrence ; Democrats , after all , held a supermajority in the Senate as recently as 2009 .
Yet the GOP ’ s dominance is also likely to remain durable for as long as many white voters continue to sort into the Republican Party .
The Democratic supermajority in 2009 was made possible by Democratic senators in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and South Dakota .
It ’ s tough to imagine any of those states electing a Democrat so long as America ’ s current political coalitions remain stable .
Of course , Democrats could try to buck this trend by becoming more like Republicans .
They could shift their positions to appeal to the whiter , more socially conservative voters that dominate many of the smaller states .
But that ’ s hardly a solution for the majority of voters that support the Democratic Party ’ s current positions , who would become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s one other point that ’ s worth making here .
Two years ago , Neil Gorsuch made history , becoming the first member of the Supreme Court in American history to be nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country .
The second was Brett Kavanaugh .
Similarly , Senate malapportionment also allowed Republicans to hold the late Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s vacant seat open until Trump could fill it .
When Scalia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 54-46 majority in the Senate , despite the fact that Democratic senators represented about 20 million more people than Republicans in 2016 .
Malapportionment , in other words , does not simply give Republicans an undemocratic advantage in the Senate .
It also gave them control of the courts .
2 ) The next winner of the Electoral College could lose the popular vote by as much as 6 percentage points The best case for the Electoral College was offered by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers .
The choice of a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.
” Such a process , Hamilton assured us , “ affords a moral certainty ” that “ the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
” Hamilton ’ s argument is refuted by three words : “ President Donald Trump.
” Setting aside the fact that the Electoral College is the reason why a man who is not in any degree endowed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , the Electoral College is not capable of achieving Hamilton ’ s stated goal .
The people who make up the Electoral College are rarely “ men most capable of analyzing ” who would be an excellent president .
They are typically partisan loyalists , selected by their party to perform one and only one task — robotically voting for whoever the party nominated to be president .
To date , this system has allowed five men who lost the popular vote to become president— Trump , George W. Bush , Benjamin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Quincy Adams .
Barring a political realignment , it ’ s likely that such “ inversions ” will become more common ( as they already have in the past couple decades ) .
A recent study by three researchers from the University of Texas found that “ a 3.0 point margin favoring the Democrat ( i.e.
, 48.5 % Republican vote share , or a gap of about 4 million votes by 2016 turnout ) is associated with a 16 % inversion probability.
” In other words , a Democrat could potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as 6 percentage points and still lose the Electoral College to a Republican .
A more modern defense of the Electoral College is similar to the conservative defense of the Senate .
The Electoral College , according to Heritage ’ s Hans von Spakovsky , “ prevents candidates from winning an election by focusing only on high-population urban centers ( the big cities ) , ignoring smaller states and the more rural areas of the country.
” But if ensuring that candidates focus on the nation as a whole is the goal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanks to the Electoral College , candidates focus almost exclusively on a handful of swing states like Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , or Michigan , while solid red states and solid blue states are largely ignored .
The real reason why the Electoral College exists is hotly contested .
Some scholars , such as Amar and Harvard historian Jill Lepore argue that , in Lepore ’ s words , the Electoral College “ was a compromise over slavery.
” This theory points to the Three-Fifths Compromise , which allowed slave states to count each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a person for purposes of determining how many representatives those states should receive in the House .
Because states gain electoral votes as they gain representation in the House , the Three-Fifths Compromise inflated slave states ’ ability to choose a president .
Another theory , recently offered by political scientist Josep Colomer at the Monkey Cage , is that the framers never intended for the Electoral College to choose presidents .
They merely expected the Electoral College to whittle down the list of candidates .
Under the original Constitution , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members believed should be president .
But , if no candidate received a majority , the House would choose the president from among the five candidates who received the most votes .
According to Colomer , “ delegates in Philadelphia expected states would put forward a variety of candidates ; none would win a national majority in the electoral college ; and the election would typically pass to the House of Representatives.
” The framers ’ error was that they “ didn ’ t expect candidates to emerge and run nationwide.
” So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed kludge that failed to achieve its intended purpose , or a misbegotten device intended to preserve a great evil .
As mentioned above , Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh owe their jobs to Senate malapportionment and the Electoral College — and Republicans owe their dominance of the judiciary to these two men .
That dominance , in turn , has profound implications for who controls the House of Representatives .
Gerrymandering , to be clear , is not a uniquely Republican sin .
When the Supreme Court took up the question of whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , it heard two cases .
One involved a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina , the other a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland .
But states must redraw their legislative maps every 10 years , shortly after the completion of the decennial census .
This means that if one party dominates in an election year ending in a zero — as Republicans did in 2010 — that party will get to gerrymander a disproportionate number of states .
Large swing states like Ohio , Michigan , and Pennsylvania drew maps that locked Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their control over the state legislatures then gave the GOP an unfair advantage in the US House .
Some of these gerrymanders have since been weakened or dismantled by courts .
But the legacy of others will persist into the 2020 election — and potentially beyond — thanks to the Supreme Court ’ s 5-4 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause ( 2019 ) , in which the Court ruled it can ’ t stop partisan gerrymandering .
Rucho , it is worth noting , did not even attempt to defend partisan gerrymandering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described it as “ incompatible with democratic principles.
” Nevertheless , a majority of the justices believed that federal courts should not even consider challenges to partisan gerrymandering because they believed that the task of devising a legal test that could sort illegal gerrymanders from permissible maps is too difficult .
In Rucho , all five of the Court ’ s Republicans voted that federal courts are powerless to stop partisan gerrymandering .
All four Democrats agreed that , at the very least , courts should dismantle the most egregious gerrymanders .
Again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate malapportionment and the Electoral College .
Without these two anti-democratic features of our Constitution , it is likely that , at the very least , the most aggressive partisan gerrymanders would also be forbidden .
4 ) The Constitution is virtually impossible to amend And that brings us to the last way that the Constitution is anti-democratic — it is almost impossible to amend it in order to remove these defects .
The United States Constitution , according to University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson , “ is the most difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently existing in the world today.
” It takes three-quarters of the states to ratify constitutional amendments — which means that Republicans will almost certainly be able to block any attempt to remove the Constitution ’ s anti-democratic features .
Now , in fairness , there are good reasons why a constitution should not be too easy to amend .
The Constitution ’ s difficult amendment process prevents a transient majority from coming into power , and then enacting a raft of amendments that entrench themselves in leadership .
But a difficult amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution ’ s underlying structures are , themselves , conducive to democracy .
If those structures become hostile to democracy — or if they tend to cement a minority faction in power — a difficult amendment process prevents the nation from replacing those flawed structures with a more democratic system .
Democrats can resort to nuclear tactics .
If Democrats somehow manage to overcome the odds and capture Congress and the White House , they could divide large blue states like California and New York up into several states ( provided that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an arrangement ) , thus changing the makeup of the malapportioned Senate .
They could also add new seats to the Supreme Court to cancel out the GOP ’ s treatment of Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland .
But such moves invite retaliation if Republicans regain control .
If there can be 10 Californias , why not 50 Alabamas ?
Realistically , the most democratic solutions , such as abolishing the Senate or replacing it with a body that fairly represents all Americans , are off the table in a nation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so we ’ re likely left with our undemocratic system for a long while , pushing for reform when and where possible , but likely unable to fix the system absent a major political realignment .

The United States came within inches of an anti-democratic disaster in 2020.
Nearly 160 million Americans voted in the 2020 presidential election, and President-elect Joe Biden won over 81 million of these votes — winning a clear majority and defeating outgoing President Donald Trump by 4.5 percentage points in the national popular vote.
Yet Biden’s margin of victory in three crucial states — Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin — was harrowingly close. If a total of 43,000 Biden voters in those states had not voted in the election, Trump would have won a second term under the rules laid out in our Constitution.
In the House of Representatives, Democratic candidates also received a clear majority of all ballots cast — 50.8 percent — and Democratic House candidates defeated their Republican counterparts by 3.1 percentage points in the national popular vote. Yet Democrats lost a dozen seats, and barely held on in a few others, with one race still uncalled. If Republicans had picked up half a dozen more seats, they would have captured the House.
And then there’s the Senate. When Senators-elect Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Jon Ossoff (D-GA) are sworn in, each party will control 50 seats in the Senate. But the Democratic half will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half. In November, moreover, Ossoff barely held his Republican opponent, former Sen. David Perdue, under the threshold that forced Perdue into a runoff election that he lost. If a few thousand more voters had turned out for Perdue, Republicans would control the Senate.
Solid majorities of the nation, in other words, voted for a Democratic White House, a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate. And yet Republicans nearly walked away with control of all three.
This anti-democratic system deserves at least some of the blame for the violent siege of the US Capitol by a Trump-supporting mob last week. If the United States chose its presidents in free and fair elections — awarding the office to the candidate preferred by the voters — Donald Trump would have never become president and he wouldn’t have spent the last four years with the bully pulpit that comes with that office.
And Trump’s lies that the 2020 election was somehow stolen from him would have been even more implausible if he was demanding that enough ballots be tossed out to overcome Biden’s 7 million vote lead in the national popular vote. The phantom fears of a stolen election — fears that drove nearly 150 Republican lawmakers to try to invalidate Biden’s victory and that encouraged sitting United States senators to rile up a violent mob — would have been even more transparently ridiculous in a nation without the Electoral College.
The system is rigged. It was rigged from the outset, quite intentionally, to favor small states. Under current political coalitions, that’s become an enormous advantage for Republicans. The country’s framers obviously could not have known that they were creating a system that would give Donald Trump’s party an unfair advantage over Hillary Clinton’s party more than two centuries later — and that would allow Trump to become president despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million ballots in 2016. But the framers did create a system that favors small states over large states.
That means that a political coalition that is largely powered by voters in dense, urban areas — like, say, modern-day Democrats — are at a terrible disadvantage under this constitutional arrangement. (And, to be clear, the system would be just as anti-democratic if it put Republicans at a disadvantage instead.)
Republicans, meanwhile, take their unfair advantage and build on it by gerrymandering the states they control, using their Senate “majority” to fill the courts with Republican judges, and then using their control of the judiciary to bolster their own party’s chances in elections.
This is how United States now finds itself barreling toward a legitimacy crisis.
Four features of our anti-democratic democracy
Broadly speaking, there are four features of our system of government that make our democracy less democratic, many of them working in interlocking ways. These features also happen to give the GOP a structural advantage.
1) The Senate is deeply unrepresentative of the country
According to 2018 Census Bureau estimates, more than half of the US population lives in just nine states. That means that much of the nation is represented by only 18 senators. Less than half of the population controls about 82 percent of the Senate.
It’s going to get worse. By 2040, according to a University of Virginia analysis of census projections, half the population will live in eight states. About 70 percent of people will live in 16 states — which means that 30 percent of the population will control 68 percent of the Senate.
Once all of its members are sworn in, Democrats and Republicans will each control an equal number of seats in the Senate, but the Democratic half will represent nearly 42 million more people than the Republican half. The 25 most populous states contain about 84 percent of the population, and Democrat senators have a 29-21 majority in those states. Republicans, meanwhile, have an identical 29-21 majority in the 25 least populous states.
Republicans, in other words, have equal representation in the Senate because of their strength in thinly populated states that make up about 14 percent of the nation. Those small states tend to be dominated by white voters who are increasingly likely to identify with the Republican Party.
Senate malapportionment is a relic of an unstable alliance among 13 young nations. As Yale law professor Akhil Amar explains, the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution were “an alliance, a multilateral treaty of sovereign nation-states.” The Constitution did not simply change the rules that governed an existing nation; it bound 13 independent and sovereign states together.
The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but also perhaps to awe its neighbors.”
Nor was this merely a hypothetical concern. When large states proposed a fair legislature, where each state would be given seats proportional to its population, Delaware delegate Gunning Bedford literally threatened that his state would make war on its neighbors. “The large states dare not dissolve the Confederation,” Bedford insisted, or else “the small states will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith.”
This is why we have a Senate: In a negotiation among 13 sovereign nations, each of these nations may demand equality as the price of union. Whatever the wisdom of this devil’s bargain in 1787, America is a very different place today. There is little risk that Utah will make war on Colorado, or that New Hampshire will invade Vermont.
Instead, we are heading toward a future where — barring some kind of major partisan realignment — the Senate will routinely feature a majority that represents far less than half of the nation as a whole. In the current Senate, the Republican “majority” represents about 15 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority.” And if current trends continue, the Republican advantage is likely to grow.
A common defense of our current arrangement is that Senate malapportionment wards off a “tyranny of the majority.” As the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Feulner argues in a piece that’s fairly representative of Senate defenders, malapportionment “keeps less-populated states from being steamrolled.”
But there’s no reason to believe that residents of small states, as a class, make up a coherent interest group whose political concerns are in tension with residents of large states. The residents of Vermont (population: 623,989) vote more like the residents of New York (population: 19,453,561) than they do like the residents of Alaska (population: 731,545). The people of Wyoming (population: 578,759) vote more like the people of Texas (population: 28,995,881) than they do like the people of Delaware (population: 973,764).
There are over 20,000 more farms in California than there are in Nebraska. There are rural regions in large states. And there are some urban centers in small states.
There’s another factor to consider when thinking about the small state advantage: race. The Senate does not simply give extra representation to small states, it gives the biggest advantage to states with large populations of white, non-college-educated voters — the very demographic that is trending rapidly toward the GOP.
Republican dominance of the Senate is a relatively recent occurrence; Democrats, after all, held a supermajority in the Senate as recently as 2009. Yet the GOP’s dominance is also likely to remain durable for as long as many white voters continue to sort into the Republican Party. The Democratic supermajority in 2009 was made possible by Democratic senators in places like Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. It’s tough to imagine any of those states electing a Democrat so long as America’s current political coalitions remain stable.
Of course, Democrats could try to buck this trend by becoming more like Republicans. They could shift their positions to appeal to the whiter, more socially conservative voters that dominate many of the smaller states. But that’s hardly a solution for the majority of voters that support the Democratic Party’s current positions, who would become even more isolated from power.
And there’s one other point that’s worth making here. Two years ago, Neil Gorsuch made history, becoming the first member of the Supreme Court in American history to be nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country. The second was Brett Kavanaugh. The third was Amy Coney Barrett.
Similarly, Senate malapportionment also allowed Republicans to hold the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat open until Trump could fill it. When Scalia died in 2016, Republicans had a 54-46 majority in the Senate, despite the fact that Democratic senators represented about 20 million more people than Republicans in 2016.
Malapportionment, in other words, does not simply give Republicans an undemocratic advantage in the Senate. It also gave them control of the courts.
2) The next winner of the Electoral College could lose the popular vote by as much as 6 percentage points
The best case for the Electoral College was offered by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. The choice of a president, Hamilton wrote, “should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” Such a process, Hamilton assured us, “affords a moral certainty” that “the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
Hamilton’s argument is refuted by three words: “President Donald Trump.”
Setting aside the fact that the Electoral College is the reason why a man who is not in any degree endowed with the requisite qualifications is in the White House, the Electoral College is not capable of achieving Hamilton’s stated goal. The people who make up the Electoral College are rarely “men most capable of analyzing” who would be an excellent president. They are typically partisan loyalists, selected by their party to perform one and only one task: robotically voting for whoever the party nominated to be president.
To date, this system has allowed five men who lost the popular vote to become president— Trump, George W. Bush, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, and John Quincy Adams. Barring a political realignment, it’s likely that such “inversions” will become more common (as they already have in the past couple decades). A recent study by three researchers from the University of Texas found that “a 3.0 point margin favoring the Democrat (i.e., 48.5% Republican vote share, or a gap of about 4 million votes by 2016 turnout) is associated with a 16% inversion probability.”
In other words, a Democrat could potentially win the popular vote by as much as 6 percentage points and still lose the Electoral College to a Republican.
A more modern defense of the Electoral College is similar to the conservative defense of the Senate. The Electoral College, according to Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky, “prevents candidates from winning an election by focusing only on high-population urban centers (the big cities), ignoring smaller states and the more rural areas of the country.”
But if ensuring that candidates focus on the nation as a whole is the goal, the Electoral College defeats this goal. Thanks to the Electoral College, candidates focus almost exclusively on a handful of swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan, while solid red states and solid blue states are largely ignored.
The real reason why the Electoral College exists is hotly contested. Some scholars, such as Amar and Harvard historian Jill Lepore argue that, in Lepore’s words, the Electoral College “was a compromise over slavery.”
This theory points to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which allowed slave states to count each slave living within their borders as three-fifths of a person for purposes of determining how many representatives those states should receive in the House. Because states gain electoral votes as they gain representation in the House, the Three-Fifths Compromise inflated slave states’ ability to choose a president.
Another theory, recently offered by political scientist Josep Colomer at the Monkey Cage, is that the framers never intended for the Electoral College to choose presidents. They merely expected the Electoral College to whittle down the list of candidates.
Under the original Constitution, the Electoral College would vote on who its members believed should be president. But, if no candidate received a majority, the House would choose the president from among the five candidates who received the most votes.
According to Colomer, “delegates in Philadelphia expected states would put forward a variety of candidates; none would win a national majority in the electoral college; and the election would typically pass to the House of Representatives.” The framers’ error was that they “didn’t expect candidates to emerge and run nationwide.”
So the Electoral College was either a poorly designed kludge that failed to achieve its intended purpose, or a misbegotten device intended to preserve a great evil.
3) Partisan gerrymandering is still allowed
As mentioned above, Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett owe their jobs to Senate malapportionment and the Electoral College — and Republicans owe their dominance of the judiciary to these three people. That dominance, in turn, has profound implications for who controls the House of Representatives.
Gerrymandering, to be clear, is not a uniquely Republican sin. When the Supreme Court took up the question of whether partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution earlier this year, it heard two cases. One involved a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina, the other a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland.
But states must redraw their legislative maps every 10 years, shortly after the completion of the decennial census. This means that if one party dominates in an election year ending in a zero — as Republicans did in 2010 — that party will get to gerrymander a disproportionate number of states. Large swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania drew maps that locked Republicans into power in the state legislature. Their control over the state legislatures then gave the GOP an unfair advantage in the US House.
Some of these gerrymanders have since been weakened or dismantled by courts. But the legacy of others persisted into the 2020 election and potentially beyond thanks to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), in which the Court ruled it can’t stop partisan gerrymandering. Rucho did not even attempt to defend partisan gerrymandering on the merits — indeed, it described it as “incompatible with democratic principles.”
Nevertheless, a majority of the justices believed that federal courts should not even consider challenges to partisan gerrymandering because they believed that the task of devising a legal test that could sort illegal gerrymanders from permissible maps is too difficult.
In Rucho, all five of the Court’s Republicans voted that federal courts are powerless to stop partisan gerrymandering. All four Democrats agreed that, at the very least, courts should dismantle the most egregious gerrymanders.
Again, Republicans owe that five-justice majority to Senate malapportionment and the Electoral College. Without these two anti-democratic features of our Constitution, it is likely that, at the very least, the most aggressive partisan gerrymanders would also be forbidden.
4) The Constitution is virtually impossible to amend
And that brings us to the last way that the Constitution is anti-democratic: It is almost impossible to amend it in order to remove these defects.
The United States Constitution, according to University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson, “is the most difficult to amend or update of any constitution currently existing in the world today.” It takes three-quarters of the states to ratify constitutional amendments — which means that Republicans will almost certainly be able to block any attempt to remove the Constitution’s anti-democratic features.
Now, in fairness, there are good reasons why a constitution should not be too easy to amend. The Constitution’s difficult amendment process prevents a transient majority from coming into power and then enacting a raft of amendments that entrench themselves in leadership.
But a difficult amendment process is only a virtue if the Constitution’s underlying structures are, themselves, conducive to democracy. If those structures become hostile to democracy — or if they tend to cement a minority faction in power — a difficult amendment process prevents the nation from replacing those flawed structures with a more democratic system.
Democrats could resort to nuclear tactics. With control of Congress and the White House, Democrats could divide large blue states like California and New York up into several states (provided that the legislatures of those states agreed to such an arrangement), thus changing the makeup of the malapportioned Senate. They could also add new seats to the Supreme Court to cancel out the GOP’s treatment of Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.
But such moves invite retaliation if Republicans regain control. If there can be 10 Californias, why not 50 Alabamas?
Realistically, the most democratic solutions, such as abolishing the Senate or replacing it with a body that fairly represents all Americans, are off the table in a nation that cannot amend its Constitution. And so we’re likely left with our undemocratic system for a long while, pushing for reform when and where possible, but likely unable to fix the system absent a major political realignment.


vox--2020-07-31--America is now a Covid-19 hot spot

America is now a Covid-19 hot spot

The US is now in the middle of what can only be described as a national Covid-19 epidemic , with cases across the country rising at alarming rates in recent weeks .
Public health experts look at a few markers to determine how bad things are in each state : the number of daily new cases ; the infection rate , which can show how likely the virus is to spread ; and the percentage of tests that come back positive , which should be low in a state with sufficient testing .
A Vox analysis indicates the vast majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three benchmarks for coronavirus outbreaks .
Most states still report a high — sometimes very high — number of daily new Covid-19 cases .
Most still have high infection rates .
And most have test positive rates that are too high , indicating they don ’ t have enough tests to track and contain the scope of their outbreaks .
Across these benchmarks , only three states — Maine , New York , and Vermont — fare well on all three , meaning their epidemics are relatively under control for now .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ intensive care units , which can show if an epidemic is so bad that it ’ s overwhelming the health care system .
But the US Department of Health and Human Services stopped updating the data after discrepancies were found .
It ’ s not clear what ’ s going on with the data set , and HHS didn ’ t respond to a request for comment .
Once the data is fixed and updated , I ’ ll add it to future updates of this article .
Based on the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to be doing better with the resurgence of Covid-19 cases .
But that region , particularly New York , was hit hard by the initial wave of the Covid-19 pandemic , with New York reporting the highest overall death toll for the country so far .
The current national outbreak , reaching from California to Florida , is the result of the public and its leaders collectively letting their guard down .
States , with the support of President Donald Trump , moved to reopen — often before they saw sizable drops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at times so quickly they didn ’ t have time to see if each phase of their reopening was leading to too many more cases .
The public embraced the reopenings , going out and often not adhering to recommended precautions like physical distancing and wearing a mask .
It ’ s this mix — of government withdrawal and public complacency — that experts have cited again and again in explaining why states are now seeing a resurgence in Covid-19 cases .
“ It ’ s a situation that didn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota , told me .
“ For almost three months , you had opportunities to be proactive with respect to mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic and to help normalize culture to adopt practices that would stem the tide of transmissions as well as the development of Covid-19 complications .
… It was not prioritized over the economy.
” The effects are felt not just in terms of more infections , critical illnesses , new chronic conditions , and deaths , but in the long-term financial impact as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuse to go out , and businesses resist reopening during a pandemic .
“ Dead people don ’ t shop .
They don ’ t spend money .
They don ’ t invest in things , ” Jade Pagkas-Bather , an infectious diseases expert and doctor at the University of Chicago , told me .
“ When you fail to invest in the health of your population , then there are longitudinal downstream effects.
” The benchmarks tracked by Vox don ’ t cover every important facet of the pandemic .
They don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how well a state is doing with contact tracing , when “ disease detectives ” track down people who may have been infected and push them to quarantine ; the data for how states are doing on that front is still lacking .
And some measures that are helpful for gauging if a state can safely start to reopen , like whether cases have fallen in the previous two weeks and total tests , are excluded to focus more on the status of each state ’ s current Covid-19 outbreak .
Together , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how each state is doing in its fight against Covid-19 .
Nationwide , it ’ s pretty grim .
1 ) Most states have too many daily new Covid-19 infections What ’ s the goal ?
Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Maine , New Hampshire , New York , and Vermont — just four states .
Why is this important ?
The most straightforward way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big coronavirus outbreak is to look at the number of daily new Covid-19 cases .
There ’ s no widely accepted metric for how many cases , exactly , is too many .
But experts told me that aiming for below 4 daily new cases per 100,000 is generally a good idea — a level low enough that a state can say it ’ s starting to get significant control over the virus .
A big caveat to this metric : It ’ s only as good as a state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up if states are actually testing people for the virus .
So if a state doesn ’ t have enough tests , it ’ s probably going to miss a lot of cases — and the reported cases won ’ t tell the full story .
That ’ s why it ’ s important not just to use this benchmark by itself , but alongside metrics like the test positive rate .
Along those lines , the number of daily new cases may give a delayed snapshot of a Covid-19 outbreak .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported to the state , then the count for daily new cases will really reflect the state of the outbreak for the previous week .
If testing is adequate in a state , though , the toll of daily new cases gives perhaps the best snapshot of how big a state ’ s Covid-19 outbreak is .
2 ) The coronavirus is spreading too quickly in most states What ’ s the goal ?
An effective reproduction number , or Rt , below 1 , based on data from Rt.live , a site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data analyst .
Which states meet the goal ?
Arizona , California , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Louisiana , Maine , Michigan , Nevada , New Jersey , New York , North Carolina , Ohio , Oregon , South Carolina , Texas , Utah , Vermont , Washington , West Virginia , and Wisconsin — a total of 21 states .
Why is this important ?
The Rt measures how many people are infected by each person with Covid-19 .
If the Rt is 1 , then an infected person will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one other person .
If it ’ s 2 , then an infected person will spread it to two on average .
And so on .
It ’ s an attempt , then , to gauge how quickly a virus is spreading .
One way to think about it : Unlike the count for daily new cases , this doesn ’ t give you a snapshot of a state ’ s Covid-19 outbreak today , but where the outbreak is heading in the near future .
The goal is to get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t lead to another , that would over time lead to zero new Covid-19 cases .
The estimated Rt can be very imprecise — with margins of error that make it hard to know for certain in any state if it ’ s really above or below 1 .
Different modelers can also come up with different estimates .
That ’ s , unfortunately , just the reality of using limited data to come up with a rough estimate of a disease ’ s overall spread .
The Rt also reflects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected with Covid-19 , nine spread it to no one else , and one spreads it to 10 , that adds up to an Rt of one .
But it masks the fact that individuals , for whatever reason , can still cause superspreading events — which seem of particular concern with the coronavirus .
Still , the Rt is one of the better measures we have for tracking a pathogen ’ s spread across the whole population .
When paired with the other metrics on this list , it can give us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak now and in the future .
3 ) Most states ’ positive rates for tests are too high What ’ s the goal ?
Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Connecticut , Delaware , Hawaii , Illinois , Maine , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Montana , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Ohio , Rhode Island , Vermont , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this important ?
To properly track and contain coronavirus outbreaks , states need to have enough testing .
There are all sorts of proposals for how much testing is needed in the US , from 500,000 a day to tens of millions .
But one way to see if a state is testing enough to match its outbreak is the rate of tests that come back positive .
An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the disease or don ’ t show severe symptoms .
High positive rates indicate that only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested , so there ’ s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak .
The goal for the positive rate is , in an ideal world , 0 percent , since that would suggest that Covid-19 is vanquished entirely .
More realistically , in a world going through a big pandemic , the positive rate should be below 5 percent .
But even if a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should continue trying to push that number further down , to match nations like Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea that have gotten their positive rates below 3 percent and even 1 percent , in order to truly get a hold of their outbreaks .
As long as a state is above 5 percent , chances are it ’ s still missing a significant number of Covid-19 cases .
And the higher that number is , the more cases that are very likely getting missed .
So even if your state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new cases , a high positive rate should be a cause for alarm — a sign that there ’ s an outbreak that ’ s only hidden due to a lack of testing .
And if your state is reporting a high number of daily new cases and a high positive rate , that ’ s all the more reason for concern , suggesting that the epidemic is even worse than the total case count indicates .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contribution to Vox today .

America’s national Covid-19 epidemic continues, with the US’s daily new cases down from an early January peak but still higher than those of most developed nations — and the country recently surpassing 500,000 deaths due to the disease.
At the state level, things can look even worse than the national picture.
Public health experts look at a few markers to determine how bad things are in each state: the number of daily new cases; the infection rate, which can show how likely the virus is to spread; and the percentage of tests that come back positive, which should be low in a state with sufficient testing. Combined, these three benchmarks can tell you whether or not a state’s coronavirus outbreak is under control.
Vox’s analysis, updated weekly, shows the vast majority of states are reporting alarming trends for coronavirus cases based on these benchmarks. Only one state — Hawaii — fares well on all three metrics, suggesting the vast majority of states don’t have their outbreaks fully under control right now.
The US outbreaks are due to the failure of both the American public and the country’s leaders to take the virus seriously enough; to the extent they did, many let their guard down prematurely. With the support of former President Donald Trump, states moved to reopen — often before seeing sizable drops in daily new Covid-19 cases, and at times so quickly they weren’t able to tell whether each phase of their reopening plan was leading to too many new infections.
The public embraced the reopenings, resuming their usual day-to-day activities and often refusing to adhere to recommended precautions like physical distancing and mask-wearing.
Even as cases began to fall later in the summer, America’s overall caseload remained very high. Yet many states moved to reopen once more, with much of the public embracing the looser restrictions and subsequently going out.
It’s this mix of government withdrawal and public complacency that experts have cited in explaining why states continue to struggle with getting the coronavirus under control.
“It’s a situation that didn’t have to be,” Jaime Slaughter-Acey, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, previously told me, adding, “You had opportunities to be proactive with respect to mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic and to help normalize culture to adopt practices that would stem the tide of transmissions as well as the development of Covid-19 complications. … It was not prioritized over the economy.”
The effects are felt not just in terms of more infections, critical illnesses, new chronic conditions, and deaths, but in the long-term financial impact as the economy struggles, many people still refuse to go out, and businesses resist reopening during a pandemic.
“Dead people don’t shop. They don’t spend money. They don’t invest in things,” Jade Pagkas-Bather, an expert in infectious diseases and a doctor at the University of Chicago, previously told me. “When you fail to invest in the health of your population, then there are longitudinal downstream effects.”
With a Covid-19 vaccination campaign underway, a finish line to this crisis in finally visible. But until America reaches sufficient population protection — and, preferably, herd immunity — every day the coronavirus spreads means more illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths.
As the country works toward vaccinating everyone, the three benchmarks tracked by Vox give an idea of how each state is doing in its fight against Covid-19 in the meantime. Nationwide, it’s pretty grim.
1) Most states have too many daily new Covid-19 infections
What’s the goal? Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Just one — Hawaii.
Why is this important? The most straightforward way to measure whether any place is experiencing a big coronavirus outbreak is to look at the number of daily new Covid-19 cases.
There’s no widely accepted metric for how many cases, exactly, is too many. But experts told me that aiming for below four daily new cases per 100,000 is generally a good idea — a level low enough that a state can say it’s starting to get significant control over the virus.
A big caveat to this metric: It’s only as good as a state’s testing. Cases can only get picked up if states are actually testing people for the virus. So if a state doesn’t have enough tests, it’s probably going to miss a lot of cases, and the reported cases won’t tell the full story. That’s why it’s important not to use this benchmark by itself, but to use it alongside metrics like the test positive rate.
The number of daily new cases may also give a delayed snapshot of a Covid-19 outbreak. If test results take a week to get reported to the state, the count for daily new cases will really reflect the state of the outbreak for the previous week.
If testing is adequate in a state, though, the toll of daily new cases is perhaps the best insight as to how big a state’s Covid-19 outbreak is.
2) The coronavirus is spreading too quickly in some states
What’s the goal? An effective reproduction number, or Rt, below 1, based on data from the Centre for Mathematical Modeling of Infectious Diseases.
Which states meet the goal? All but Alaska, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming — 45 states, as well as Washington, DC.
Why is this important? The Rt measures how many people are infected by each person with Covid-19. If the Rt is 1, then an infected person will, on average, spread the coronavirus to one other person. If it’s 2, then an infected person will spread it to two on average. And so on.
It’s an attempt, then, to gauge how quickly a virus is spreading. One way to think about it: Unlike the count for daily new cases, this gives you a snapshot not of a state’s Covid-19 outbreak today, but of where the outbreak is heading in the near future.
The goal is to get the Rt below 1. If each infection doesn’t lead to another, that would over time lead to zero new Covid-19 cases.
The estimated Rt can be very imprecise, with margins of error that make it hard to know for certain in any state if it’s really above or below 1. Different modelers can also come up with different estimates. That’s, unfortunately, just the reality of using limited data to come up with a rough estimate of a disease’s overall spread.
The Rt also reflects an average. If 10 people are infected with Covid-19, nine spread it to no one else, and one spreads it to 10, that adds up to an Rt of 1. But it masks the fact that individuals, for whatever reason, can still cause superspreading events — which seem of particular concern with the coronavirus.
And the Rt is only as good as the data that goes into calculating it. If a state’s data is poor quality or inconsistent, it might skew the picture. That can help explain why some states with bad and continuing outbreaks may fare better on this benchmark than others.
Still, the Rt is one of the better measures we have for tracking a pathogen’s spread across the whole population. When paired with the other metrics on this list, it can give us a sense of each state’s outbreak now and in the future.
3) Most states’ positive rates for tests are too high
What’s the goal? Less than 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the previous week, based on data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center and the Covid Tracking Project.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — 24 states, as well as Washington, DC.
Why is this important? To properly track and contain coronavirus outbreaks, states need to have enough testing. There are all sorts of proposals for how much testing is needed in the US, up to the tens of millions.
But one way to see if a state is testing enough to match its outbreak is the rate of tests that come back positive. An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people, many of whom don’t have the disease or don’t show severe symptoms. High positive rates indicate that only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested, so there’s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak.
The goal for the positive rate is, in an ideal world, zero percent, since that would suggest that Covid-19 is vanquished entirely. More realistically, in a world going through a pandemic, the positive rate should be below 5 percent. But even if a state reaches 5 percent, experts argue it should continue trying to push that number further down — to match nations like Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, which have gotten their positive rates below 3 percent or even 1 percent — in order to truly get ahold of their outbreaks.
As long as a state is above 5 percent, chances are it’s still missing a significant number of Covid-19 cases. And the higher that number is, the more cases that are very likely getting missed.
So even if your state is reporting a low number of daily new cases, a high positive rate should be a cause for alarm — a sign that there’s an outbreak that’s only hidden due to a lack of testing. And if your state is reporting a high number of daily new cases and a high positive rate, that’s all the more reason for concern, suggesting the epidemic is even worse than the total case count indicates.
Sign up for the Weeds newsletter. Every Friday, you’ll get an explainer of a big policy story from the week, a look at important research that recently came out, and answers to reader questions — to guide you through the first 100 days of President Joe Biden’s administration.


vox--2020-07-31--How some Black Americans are finding solace in African spirituality

Porsche Little , a Brooklyn-based artist , diviner , and aborisha — or someone who serves the Orisha , a group of spirits central to the Yoruba and other African Diaspora religions — says that she has received a huge increase in requests for divinations and readings throughout the pandemic .
“ There ’ s so much happening right now in the world to everyone , and I know for certain that all of this is happening for a reason , ” she says .
“ A lot of people are stuck in the house and can ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s what I ’ m here for.
” Little says when she counsels people in her community these days , they specifically want to talk about challenges arising from this tumultuous time we ’ re living in .
Between a terrifying pandemic , a major racial reckoning , an existential crisis that climate change presents , and a government that fails to address any of these things , some Black people are turning to African and Black Diaspora traditions as a means of comfort , community , healing , and liberation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anxiety and the fear and all of those emotions that all of us are dealing with right now … in the beginning my spiritual practice helped keep me connected and grounded .
It helped me understand this moment in the larger context , ” says Akissi Britton , an assistant professor of Africana Studies at Rutgers University and Lucumí priestess for 36 years .
The Black Diaspora has been through centuries of struggle , resistance , and joy since being scattered from our original homelands .
And through it all , many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — food , family structures , languages — as a way of healing and building community with each other .
The same goes for African and Black Diasporic spirituality , like the Yoruba , Lucumí , and Santería traditions ; many practitioners of these religions offer a different type of healing , one that is removed from traditionally Westernized versions , which generally stress individualism and independence .
African traditions , instead , are reliant upon collectivism , strong communities , and healthy interdependence .
Most of these traditions revolve around Orisha ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Òrìṣà in the Yoruba language , or Orixá in Latin America ) , a group of spirits from the Yoruba religion that provide guidance .
Yoruba and other practitioners are often connected to one Orisha , usually called their guardian — like Oshun , the goddess of love , fertility , and success , and Babalú-Aye , Orisha of healing , including against airborne diseases that can cause epidemics .
People who seek practitioners like Little are looking for guidance , which comes from rituals that invoke the Orisha , like baths or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cards .
Sessions and ceremonies are often private and individualized .
Britton says that growing up in the Afro-Cuban Lucumí religion , which is derived from the Yoruba tradition , gave her a fulfilling sense of self .
“ I am not separated from my Orisa , from my ancestors , from the spirits , as well as from my community , ” she says .
“ When my sense of self is much broader and attached to other things , I don ’ t feel so isolated .
I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m trying to figure it out on my own.
” Britton spiritually counsels others , but she encourages them to seek therapy if they can , too ; Lucumí priestesses are not necessarily trained therapists , psychiatrists , and psychologists .
Britton has sought out therapy for herself , and says that it works well with her spiritual practice .
Often in therapy , she says , “ I have gotten information that my ancestors and Orisa have given to me , which is just confirmation.
” Jo , a former student of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and community organizer , says that the Lucumí religion offered her healing after a tumultuous relationship with both race and religion as a child .
Growing up with a white mother and in the Christian church , Jo had little connection to her father ’ s Puerto Rican family .
Still , she was always drawn to the beauty of the complex cultural practices in the Boricua community .
Early in her life , Jo says , she didn ’ t receive much affection from the people who were “ supposed to love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of pain .
She completely rejected Christianity and religion altogether , until she found strength and healing in Lucumí .
Although she didn ’ t come to Lucumí until adulthood , she feels much of it has always been with her .
“ In some weird way , I always felt protected , ” she says .
“ My angels and ancestors have always been the ones to bring me that feeling .
As an adult , I was led right back to the same innate practices I believed in when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voices and knowings I had turned away from for so long .
And it changed my life.
” The liberation in connecting with African spirituality For practitioners of African spirituality , healing often comes in the form of liberation and resistance .
These traditions are made even more pressing considering the centuries-long attempts by European slave owners , colonists , and neo-colonists to suppress and demonize these religions .
And now , in a time when America ’ s racist foundation has been pushed to the foreground , seeking solace in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Christianity was used to justify the horrific practice .
As such , the enslaved were often forbidden from practicing their indigenous religions , and other religions like Islam .
Even in places like Cuba , Brazil , Haiti , and Trinidad , European colonists and slave masters attempted to obliterate the humanity and autonomy of enslaved Africans , Britton says .
Many in the Black Diaspora embraced Christianity , finding a different sort of liberation in a religion meant to oppress them — a radical tradition that continues today , especially in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
However , as a form of resistance , other enslaved Africans syncretized their indigenous religions with Christianity , creating traditions like Santería , Vodun , and Hoodoo .
For instance , the word Santería means “ honor to saints , ” and the religion is infused with the Spanish Catholicism that was indoctrinated into enslaved Africans early on .
In fact , some practitioners correspond Orishas with Catholic saints — Eleguá , associated with roads and paths , corresponds with Saint Anthony , the patron saint of travelers and lost things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic component altogether , as they saw the European influences as antithetical to goals of decolonization and autonomy .
But syncretizing practices wasn ’ t a matter of happenstance .
“ [ Africans ’ ] ingenuity , their creativity , their brilliance allowed them to maintain certain practices from home while masking them in the practices that Europeans insisted upon , ” Britton says .
Santería was “ the masking behind the saints … that in itself is a liberation practice , ” she says .
Britton points out that the Haitian Revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an event that led to the creation of the first free Black republic — while not specifically Lucumí , was “ the coming together of Africans , different ethnic groups too , that had a ceremony that inspired and gave strength for the revolution that made it.
” “ Africans and their descendants [ have ] refused to allow Europeans slave masters and colonialists to dictate their full humanity , ” Britton says .
“ This gave them a very strong sense of identity , inspiration , spiritual grounding that was liberatory in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think differently and understand themselves differently than the dominant models do.
” Little , who is studying Ifá and Lucumí traditions , says honoring Orisha and her ancestors helps her connect with her past before enslavement and colonization .
She has been following the path to become an initiated priestess , which is mostly focused on immersing oneself in community as they guide you , something that can feel like coming home for so many Black people .
“ I spent a lot of my life wondering who I was , and where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t question that .
It has truly reconnected me with not only my roots but with people that I ’ ve known from past lives , ” she says .
“ There ’ s a certain power that comes with remembering where you came from.
” Because of the oppression people in the Black Diaspora faced , however , stigma against African spirituality exists today .
The Roman Catholic Church has often viewed these practices as akin to demon worship .
I know in my own family , some people see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Others embrace it .
Little says that we should interrogate those ingrained beliefs and where they come from , particularly relating to Christianity and other religions closely related to “ conquest , murder , homophobia , sexism , and slavery amongst so many other forms of violence.
” For Little , it ’ s worth questioning why some in the diaspora have been taught that African religion , which she says “ connects you with your personal power , identity and lineage , ” is evil .
She suggests that “ people need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see what serves them best.
” Ruqaiyyah Beatty , who grew up practicing Christianity , Islam , and other other African religions , is a now practitioner of Ifá , a Yoruba religion and system of divination .
She says that through her practice , she was able to find healing through connection .
“ I was able to connect to Nigeria , it gave me a global network of spirituality , divine guidance , family , and love , and I was able to create and sustain a great relationship to god @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking to get involved with African spiritual traditions , Britton stresses that research is key .
She suggests reading books by independent scholar John Mason , who wrote Black Gods — Orisa Studies in the New World , which discusses 13 Orisha , including their symbols , personal characteristics , philosophical values , animal familiars , and feast days .
She also says it ’ s important to enter these spaces from a place of respect , seeking mentorship and accountability , and above all , community .
“ You can not do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The best way to guard against misinformation , Britton says , is to go slow , research , and talk to people .
While African spirituality can keep us connected during a time that can feel especially isolating , Little says , it can also keep us empowered .
“ I just want people to know that although there is a higher power , remember that you have power as well .
I want us all collectively to start using our intuitions ... and to question everything.
” Nylah Burton is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , social justice , and identity .
You can follow her on Twitter .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Porsche Little, a Brooklyn-based artist, diviner, and aborisha — or someone who serves the Orisha, a group of spirits central to the Yoruba and other African Diaspora religions — says that she has received a huge increase in requests for divinations and readings throughout the pandemic.
“There’s so much happening right now in the world to everyone, and I know for certain that all of this is happening for a reason,” she says. “A lot of people are stuck in the house and can’t really make sense of their lives, but that’s what I’m here for.”
Little says when she counsels people in her community these days, they specifically want to talk about challenges arising from this tumultuous time we’re living in. Between a terrifying pandemic, a major racial reckoning, an existential crisis that climate change presents, and a government that fails to address any of these things, some Black people are turning to African and Black Diaspora traditions as a means of comfort, community, healing, and liberation.
“With the pandemic and the anxiety and the fear and all of those emotions that all of us are dealing with right now … in the beginning my spiritual practice helped keep me connected and grounded. It helped me understand this moment in the larger context,” says Akissi Britton, an assistant professor of Africana Studies at Rutgers University and Lucumí priestess for 36 years.
The Black Diaspora has been through centuries of struggle, resistance, and joy since being scattered from our original homelands. And through it all, many of us have connected with those original practices — food, family structures, languages — as a way of healing and building community with each other. The same goes for African and Black Diasporic spirituality, like the Yoruba, Lucumí, and Santería traditions; many practitioners of these religions offer a different type of healing, one that is removed from traditionally Westernized versions, which generally stress individualism and independence. African traditions, instead, are reliant upon collectivism, strong communities, and healthy interdependence.
Most of these traditions revolve around Orisha (sometimes referred to as Orisa, or Òrìṣà in the Yoruba language, or Orixá in Latin America), a group of spirits from the Yoruba religion that provide guidance. Yoruba and other practitioners are often connected to one Orisha, usually called their guardian — like Oshun, the goddess of love, fertility, and success, and Babalú-Aye, Orisha of healing, including against airborne diseases that can cause epidemics. People who seek practitioners like Little are looking for guidance, which comes from rituals that invoke the Orisha, like baths or offerings and sometimes the reading of tarot cards. Sessions and ceremonies are often private and individualized.
Britton says that growing up in the Afro-Cuban Lucumí religion, which is derived from the Yoruba tradition, gave her a fulfilling sense of self. “I am not separated from my Orisa, from my ancestors, from the spirits, as well as from my community,” she says. “When my sense of self is much broader and attached to other things, I don’t feel so isolated. I don’t feel so alone, like I’m trying to figure it out on my own.”
Britton spiritually counsels others, but she encourages them to seek therapy if they can, too; Lucumí priestesses are not necessarily trained therapists, psychiatrists, and psychologists. Britton has sought out therapy for herself, and says that it works well with her spiritual practice. Often in therapy, she says, “I have gotten information that my ancestors and Orisa have given to me, which is just confirmation.”
Jo, a former student of Britton’s and an Afro-Boricua artist and community organizer, says that the Lucumí religion offered her healing after a tumultuous relationship with both race and religion as a child. Growing up with a white mother and in the Christian church, Jo had little connection to her father’s Puerto Rican family. Still, she was always drawn to the beauty of the complex cultural practices in the Boricua community.
Early in her life, Jo says, she didn’t receive much affection from the people who were “supposed to love” her, and instead she experienced a lot of pain. She completely rejected Christianity and religion altogether, until she found strength and healing in Lucumí. Although she didn’t come to Lucumí until adulthood, she feels much of it has always been with her.
“In some weird way, I always felt protected,” she says. “My angels and ancestors have always been the ones to bring me that feeling. As an adult, I was led right back to the same innate practices I believed in when I was young. I reconnected with the voices and knowings I had turned away from for so long. And it changed my life.”
The liberation in connecting with African spirituality
For practitioners of African spirituality, healing often comes in the form of liberation and resistance. These traditions are made even more pressing considering the centuries-long attempts by European slave owners, colonists, and neo-colonists to suppress and demonize these religions. And now, in a time when America’s racist foundation has been pushed to the foreground, seeking solace in this connection feels especially poignant.
During slavery, Christianity was used to justify the horrific practice. As such, the enslaved were often forbidden from practicing their indigenous religions, and other religions like Islam. Even in places like Cuba, Brazil, Haiti, and Trinidad, European colonists and slave masters attempted to obliterate the humanity and autonomy of enslaved Africans, Britton says. Many in the Black Diaspora embraced Christianity, finding a different sort of liberation in a religion meant to oppress them — a radical tradition that continues today, especially in the African American Episcopal Church (AME).
However, as a form of resistance, other enslaved Africans syncretized their indigenous religions with Christianity, creating traditions like Santería, Vodun, and Hoodoo. For instance, the word Santería means “honor to saints,” and the religion is infused with the Spanish Catholicism that was indoctrinated into enslaved Africans early on. In fact, some practitioners correspond Orishas with Catholic saints — Eleguá, associated with roads and paths, corresponds with Saint Anthony, the patron saint of travelers and lost things — while others believed in removing the Catholic component altogether, as they saw the European influences as antithetical to goals of decolonization and autonomy.
But syncretizing practices wasn’t a matter of happenstance. “[Africans’] ingenuity, their creativity, their brilliance allowed them to maintain certain practices from home while masking them in the practices that Europeans insisted upon,” Britton says. Santería was “the masking behind the saints … that in itself is a liberation practice,” she says.
Britton points out that the Haitian Revolution — the only successful slave revolt and an event that led to the creation of the first free Black republic — while not specifically Lucumí, was “the coming together of Africans, different ethnic groups too, that had a ceremony that inspired and gave strength for the revolution that made it.”
“Africans and their descendants [have] refused to allow Europeans slave masters and colonialists to dictate their full humanity,” Britton says. “This gave them a very strong sense of identity, inspiration, spiritual grounding that was liberatory in the sense that it allowed them to think differently and understand themselves differently than the dominant models do.”
Little, who is studying Ifá and Lucumí traditions, says honoring Orisha and her ancestors helps her connect with her past before enslavement and colonization. She has been following the path to become an initiated priestess, which is mostly focused on immersing oneself in community as they guide you, something that can feel like coming home for so many Black people. “I spent a lot of my life wondering who I was, and where I came from, but now I don’t question that. It has truly reconnected me with not only my roots but with people that I’ve known from past lives,” she says. “There’s a certain power that comes with remembering where you came from.”
Because of the oppression people in the Black Diaspora faced, however, stigma against African spirituality exists today. The Roman Catholic Church has often viewed these practices as akin to demon worship. I know in my own family, some people see these practices as evil or dangerous. Others embrace it.
Little says that we should interrogate those ingrained beliefs and where they come from, particularly relating to Christianity and other religions closely related to “conquest, murder, homophobia, sexism, and slavery amongst so many other forms of violence.” For Little, it’s worth questioning why some in the diaspora have been taught that African religion, which she says “connects you with your personal power, identity and lineage,” is evil. She suggests that “people need to decolonize their own minds and then see what serves them best.”
Ruqaiyyah Beatty, who grew up practicing Christianity, Islam, and other other African religions, is a now practitioner of Ifá, a Yoruba religion and system of divination. She says that through her practice, she was able to find healing through connection. “I was able to connect to Nigeria, it gave me a global network of spirituality, divine guidance, family, and love, and I was able to create and sustain a great relationship to god,” she says.
For those looking to get involved with African spiritual traditions, Britton stresses that research is key. She suggests reading books by independent scholar John Mason, who wrote Black Gods — Orisa Studies in the New World, which discusses 13 Orisha, including their symbols, personal characteristics, philosophical values, animal familiars, and feast days.
She also says it’s important to enter these spaces from a place of respect, seeking mentorship and accountability, and above all, community. “You cannot do this by yourself,” she stresses. The best way to guard against misinformation, Britton says, is to go slow, research, and talk to people.
While African spirituality can keep us connected during a time that can feel especially isolating, Little says, it can also keep us empowered. “I just want people to know that although there is a higher power, remember that you have power as well. I want us all collectively to start using our intuitions ... and to question everything.”
Nylah Burton is a Denver-based writer. She covers mental health, social justice, and identity. You can follow her on Twitter.


vox--2020-07-31--“There’s no way to socially distance in a strip club”: A dancer on working through the pandemic

It ’ s never felt worse inside the strip club where Diana works .
Masks are a mandatory accessory for all customers and workers , which decimates the strategic smiles strippers use to suss out potential clients .
The traditional cavalcade of loud , spendy men — enjoying a Friday happy hour before heading home for the weekend — have disappeared .
Today , she ’ s lucky if she spots a party of three .
Backstage , a culture of anxiety grips the talent .
The dancers are fearful of catching Covid-19 , sure , but more than that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a pandemic has become abundantly clear .
That hasn ’ t stopped Diana , who is 24 and of Pakistani descent , and spoke on condition of anonymity to protect her employment , from trying .
She ’ s still gearing up for evenings at the club — mask on , baby wipes in tow — for the dwindling crowds willing to risk it all for a night on the town .
She lives in Houston , Texas , a city famous for its strip joints , and as of early May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return to the stage .
Texas has become a new hot spot for America ’ s ongoing coronavirus epidemic due to the state ’ s questionable reopening strategy , but Diana tells me that her club has been more or less open , barring a few false starts , since the state ended its stay-at-home order .
She can work whenever she wants .
Despite that freedom , Diana tells me she typically only heads to her club when she knows one of her regulars is at the bar .
Dancing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly stingy clientele , is about as depressing as it is economically inefficient .
We talked about that , as well as how she ’ s tried to match her mask to a belly-dancer look , and the cognitive dissonance of social distancing during a lap dance .
So when did you first get the call that the club was shutting down ?
We were all prepared for it in April .
There were already a lot of rumors going around , but you didn ’ t want to bring it up because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of the strip club capitals of the world , so culturally here it ’ s a big deal .
I wasn ’ t surprised when I got the news .
During lockdown , or shelter in place , the managers made a Facebook group to keep us updated .
We had a group chat and everything .
But we ’ ve been open since everything reopened [ in May ] .
How worried were you financially during that time ?
“ I think every girl at my club has an OnlyFans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spot of privilege because I know I can always go to my parents for money if I really need it .
But I ’ m friends with a lot of girls at work .
Most of them are single mothers , or are supporting multiple people , or their families , and everyone was really stressed out .
A lot of them ended up hanging out with regulars outside of the club to make ends meet .
That ’ s how everyone made it work at that time .
Everyone joined online moneymaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girl at my club has an OnlyFans now .
How much money are you making now versus before the pandemic ?
Pre-pandemic , my average weekend night was $ 2,000 to $ 3,000 , and weekday was at minimum $ 1,000 .
Now I make at best $ 1,000 on any night , and that ’ s because of my regulars at my club .
The cash flow is not onstage at all anymore , or just from dances ; it ’ s exclusively doing VIP .
There ’ s less small money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the call that you could go back to the club , were you hesitant at all ?
How did you weigh the pros and cons ?
They told us that they were going to enforce masks on everything , but when I went in the first time , when Texas entered stage two , it wasn ’ t really enforced .
I definitely worked less .
It became a bizarro world after the first week .
Once you were in there , you could forget what was going on outside , which I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clubs .
It was amplified during a pandemic .
“ I had a customer , when we first opened up , who got mad at me for wearing a mask ” There ’ s a lot of anxieties when I go in .
Like , “ Do I really want to do this ?
” But once you ’ re in , you ’ re in the zone to make money .
It ’ s especially hard when your customers don ’ t believe in coronavirus .
Most of my customers are Covid-denial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we first opened up , who got mad at me for wearing a mask .
I was like , “ I ’ m wearing this for you , you ’ re old !
” I work less on a whim now .
Before , it ’ d be any night I could make money if I really wanted to .
But now I only go in if I know one of my regulars is there .
What ’ s it been like to dance in a mask ?
It ’ s kinda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone likes you is by smiling at them .
So the way to signal is more oriented around body language .
Our managers are more strict now .
You can ’ t accept tips from guys who aren ’ t wearing a mask .
Which is good , but it ’ s changed the way you communicate with people .
There ’ s a lot of hand gestures .
Dancing in a mask is much more physically exhausting , too .
Now that I ’ ve worked for a while in one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get so lightheaded from your breath being trapped .
Do you have a mask that is incorporated into your gear ?
I sewed my own mask .
It has a filter in it .
I play on the exoticism thing , so my mask is a gold chain-mail mask .
It looks like that belly-dancing thing .
I ’ ve definitely been able to incorporate it .
Nobody is using a hospital mask .
The girls are wearing cute masks .
A lot of silk .
You can tell that we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff .
Has the clientele at the club been different ?
It ’ s a completely different experience .
It feels very different .
When you were in a strip club before , there was a general level of joy .
And now that ’ s completely gone .
Guys aren ’ t coming in with a big group of friends .
Guys are coming in alone .
Our clientele is usually a bunch of dudes just off work , because we are next to all the oil and gas companies , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now it ’ s mostly regulars , and people who are members of our VIP club — there are way less people who want to have fun and spend a lot of money .
It ’ s guys who are a little more stingy , for sure .
Yeah , it just feels very weird .
It ’ s almost a “ don ’ t ask , don ’ t tell ” thing .
Nobody brings up the pandemic , because nobody wants to acknowledge that it ’ s happening .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a strip club ” Yeah , lap dances are allowed .
There ’ s no way to socially distance in a strip club .
You ’ re wearing a mask but I ’ m on your lap .
I baby-wipe between customers , which I did before Covid , but now it ’ s a normal precaution rather than a weird thing that I did .
How scared are you and your coworkers of catching Covid-19 ?
For the most part , there are way less girls , and there are a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities that are still shut down to our club so they can work .
For the most part , people are worried about their financial situation .
There ’ s a rumor that three of our managers got it , but they ’ re not being clear with us .
There ’ s a lot more anxiety .
It reminds me of what older girls say the 2008 financial crisis was like .
What do you make of the shaming we ’ re seeing aimed at people who are out at the clubs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and just because our job is something sexual , we don ’ t get the benefit of the doubt that , like , servers get .
There ’ s already a lot of stigma .
There ’ s already a lot of danger in this job , so what ’ s the difference ?
I could already die on a normal night here .
You never know .
You can ’ t judge women for making these decisions , but we get treated and shamed the way that club-goers are right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just because we have a choice about when we go in doesn ’ t mean we have a choice about our bills .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

It’s never felt worse inside the strip club where Diana works.
Masks are a mandatory accessory for all customers and workers, which decimates the strategic smiles strippers use to suss out potential clients. The traditional cavalcade of loud, spendy men — enjoying a Friday happy hour before heading home for the weekend — have disappeared. Today, she’s lucky if she spots a party of three. Backstage, a culture of anxiety grips the talent. The dancers are fearful of catching Covid-19, sure, but more than that, the difficulty of making good tips during a pandemic has become abundantly clear.
That hasn’t stopped Diana, who is 24 and of Pakistani descent, and spoke on condition of anonymity to protect her employment, from trying. She’s still gearing up for evenings at the club — mask on, baby wipes in tow — for the dwindling crowds willing to risk it all for a night on the town. She lives in Houston, Texas, a city famous for its strip joints, and as of early May, she was given the green light to return to the stage. Texas has become a new hot spot for America’s ongoing coronavirus epidemic due to the state’s questionable reopening strategy, but Diana tells me that her club has been more or less open, barring a few false starts, since the state ended its stay-at-home order. She can work whenever she wants.
Despite that freedom, Diana tells me she typically only heads to her club when she knows one of her regulars is at the bar. Dancing for a mostly empty room, for a mostly stingy clientele, is about as depressing as it is economically inefficient. We talked about that, as well as how she’s tried to match her mask to a belly-dancer look, and the cognitive dissonance of social distancing during a lap dance.
So when did you first get the call that the club was shutting down?
We were all prepared for it in April. There were already a lot of rumors going around, but you didn’t want to bring it up because nobody wants that to happen. Houston is one of the strip club capitals of the world, so culturally here it’s a big deal. I wasn’t surprised when I got the news. During lockdown, or shelter in place, the managers made a Facebook group to keep us updated. We had a group chat and everything. But we’ve been open since everything reopened [in May].
How worried were you financially during that time?
“I think every girl at my club has an OnlyFans now”
I’m in a spot of privilege because I know I can always go to my parents for money if I really need it. But I’m friends with a lot of girls at work. Most of them are single mothers, or are supporting multiple people, or their families, and everyone was really stressed out. A lot of them ended up hanging out with regulars outside of the club to make ends meet. That’s how everyone made it work at that time. Everyone joined online moneymaking ventures at once. I think every girl at my club has an OnlyFans now.
How much money are you making now versus before the pandemic?
Pre-pandemic, my average weekend night was $2,000 to $3,000, and weekday was at minimum $1,000. Now I make at best $1,000 on any night, and that’s because of my regulars at my club. The cash flow is not onstage at all anymore, or just from dances; it’s exclusively doing VIP. There’s less small money on the floor.
When you got the call that you could go back to the club, were you hesitant at all? How did you weigh the pros and cons?
They told us that they were going to enforce masks on everything, but when I went in the first time, when Texas entered stage two, it wasn’t really enforced. I definitely worked less. It became a bizarro world after the first week. Once you were in there, you could forget what was going on outside, which I suppose was always the point with strip clubs. It was amplified during a pandemic.
“I had a customer, when we first opened up, who got mad at me for wearing a mask”
There’s a lot of anxieties when I go in. Like, “Do I really want to do this?” But once you’re in, you’re in the zone to make money. It’s especially hard when your customers don’t believe in coronavirus. Most of my customers are Covid-denial people. I had a customer, when we first opened up, who got mad at me for wearing a mask. I was like, “I’m wearing this for you, you’re old!”
I work less on a whim now. Before, it’d be any night I could make money if I really wanted to. But now I only go in if I know one of my regulars is there.
What’s it been like to dance in a mask?
It’s kinda weird, because how you judge if someone likes you is by smiling at them. So the way to signal is more oriented around body language. Our managers are more strict now. You can’t accept tips from guys who aren’t wearing a mask. Which is good, but it’s changed the way you communicate with people. There’s a lot of hand gestures. Dancing in a mask is much more physically exhausting, too. Now that I’ve worked for a while in one, I get so sweaty, and you get so lightheaded from your breath being trapped.
Do you have a mask that is incorporated into your gear?
I sewed my own mask. It has a filter in it. I play on the exoticism thing, so my mask is a gold chain-mail mask. It looks like that belly-dancing thing. I’ve definitely been able to incorporate it. Nobody is using a hospital mask. The girls are wearing cute masks. A lot of silk. You can tell that we’re sewing these out of old clothes and stuff.
Has the clientele at the club been different?
It’s a completely different experience. It feels very different. When you were in a strip club before, there was a general level of joy. And now that’s completely gone. Guys aren’t coming in with a big group of friends. Guys are coming in alone. Our clientele is usually a bunch of dudes just off work, because we are next to all the oil and gas companies, and are here for a happy hour. Now it’s mostly regulars, and people who are members of our VIP club — there are way less people who want to have fun and spend a lot of money. It’s guys who are a little more stingy, for sure.
Is that a bad vibe?
Yeah, it just feels very weird. It’s almost a “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing. Nobody brings up the pandemic, because nobody wants to acknowledge that it’s happening.
Are lap dances still allowed?
“There’s no way to socially distance in a strip club”
Yeah, lap dances are allowed. There’s no way to socially distance in a strip club. You’re wearing a mask but I’m on your lap. I baby-wipe between customers, which I did before Covid, but now it’s a normal precaution rather than a weird thing that I did.
How scared are you and your coworkers of catching Covid-19?
For the most part, there are way less girls, and there are a lot of new girls coming from other cities that are still shut down to our club so they can work. For the most part, people are worried about their financial situation. There’s a rumor that three of our managers got it, but they’re not being clear with us. There’s a lot more anxiety. It reminds me of what older girls say the 2008 financial crisis was like.
What do you make of the shaming we’re seeing aimed at people who are out at the clubs right now?
This is our job, and just because our job is something sexual, we don’t get the benefit of the doubt that, like, servers get. There’s already a lot of stigma. There’s already a lot of danger in this job, so what’s the difference? I could already die on a normal night here. You never know. You can’t judge women for making these decisions, but we get treated and shamed the way that club-goers are right now. We have rent to pay. Just because we have a choice about when we go in doesn’t mean we have a choice about our bills.