What are your pragmatic reasons? I mean that out of curiosity. For example, if a young woman told me she is voting based on Harris's commitment to pass a national abortion law, I could understand the logic, though I doubt Harris would be able to any more than any other President, since Roe v Wade went into effect in the 70s. The country is just to divided to impose a national law.

I presently live in California and have for the last 14 years. During my career, I lived in 11 other states including progressive liberal states and conservative states.

The only progressive liberal state that sort of makes progressive liberal policies work is Massachusetts (I lived there for 6 years). My brother, who still lives there points out, it is worth remembering that MA routinely elects a Republican governor and so preserves a degree of divided government.

Interestingly, a California professor did considerable research on the subject of divided government and concluded it is the most stable form of government because it forces both sides to compromise leaving both sides unhappy with the outcome, but partially satisfied with the results.

California is arguably the byproduct of today's Democratic policies, and the state is clearly in decline economically, national student test score ranking, crime rates, poverty level, unemployment rates, social justice, etc. In other words, it is hard to find an objective measure to support Democratic policies work. That is not to say, they don't sound appealing, they just don't seem to work.

I think a new coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans are starting to form to provide a mechanism to pushback against these policies. They are using the Proposition process, which keeps Democrats in power, but curtails their ability to pass legislation that most Californians don't like.

I found it humorous that the governor and state legislature sued the public to keep one of the Propositions off the ballot that would limit the state's ability to impose higher taxes without taxpayer approval. I thought they were working for "the people".

I contrast that with Florida, where I lived for 10 years. In spite of all the hurricanes, the state is booming. So, one has to ask why? Again, there are subjective reasons that one might like a liberal state, but you would think those reasons would translate objectively, but they don't.

Several progressive liberal states are facing bankruptcy and increasingly the federal government with its $35 trillion in debt won't be able to bail the states out. When things finally crash, will the country be able to survive the austerity programs that inevitably follow.

Regarding threats to democracy, I think the American people are pretty smart, but they can be manipulated by the media. For example, only MSNBC viewers ranked threat to democracy from Trump as being a major problem. Meanwhile, independents and Republicans considered threats to democracy primary coming from Democrats rather than Republicans.

So, is it possible, that your opinions are shaped by your media choices and those you associate with.

Unfortunately, recent polling showed an increasing fear at some point in the future, that the country would erupt into a civil war primarily due to attempts by whoever is in power in Washington to impose mandates on the rest of the country based on their ideology.

I think it is a forgotten part of history, that centralized majority rules federalism is inherently unstable. One of the more powerful features of our design is that we can have a California and a Texas within the same country. There is no need to turn Texas into California or California into Texas. Let the states compete and competition will ultimately lead each state operating in a manner that satisfies its citizens.

So, the question becomes which party is most opposed to national mandates and greater control over the national economy? Which party is most prepared to allow states to operate semi autonomously and focus on dealing with interstate trade issues and foreign policy.

Autocracy only arises when a government tries to control the behavior of its citizens, not when it promotes individual freedom. If you think the Democratic party is promoting individual freedom, then why did you think they needed super majorities in all branches of government?