475 separate federal elections.

475次單獨的聯邦選舉。

If you vote in the US, you can vote in at least one of them.

如果你在美國投票，你至少可以在其中一個地方投票。

The results will determine who controls these:

結果將決定誰來控制這些。

the two houses of Congress.

國會兩院。

After the 2020 election, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives

2020年選舉後，民主黨人控制了眾議院

and the Senate, as well as the Presidency.

和參議院，以及總統府。

The three bodies that have to align

這三個機構必須保持一致

if you want to make new laws.

如果你想制定新的法律。

And they did.

而他們確實做到了。

But even when government is split between the parties.

但是，即使政府在兩黨之間分裂。

Each one of these bodies still holds

這些機構中的每一個人都仍然持有

tremendous power on its own.

它本身具有巨大的力量。

So the importance of what this picture looks like

是以，這張照片的重要性是什麼樣子的

can't be overstated.

怎麼強調都不為過。

And each one of these three outcomes

而這三種結果中的每一種

contains a very different story

包含一個非常不同的故事

about the next 2 years in the US.

關於美國未來2年的情況。

Scenario 1: Democrats keep both houses.

情景1：民主黨人保留兩院。

This is not considered the most likely outcome.

這被認為不是最可能的結果。

The Democrats have gotten a ton passed in the last two years.

在過去的兩年裡，民主黨人已經通過了大量的工作。

My name's Li Zhou.

我叫李周。

I am a politics reporter at Vox.

我是Vox的一名政治記者。

I've been covering the hill for over 6 years now.

我已經在山上報道了6年多了。

So if Democrats get to stick with this arrangement... then what?

是以，如果民主黨人能夠堅持這種安排......那又如何？

One of the big things that they've said they'll do

他們說要做的大事情之一是

is codify Roe V. Wade into federal law,

是將Roe V. Wade編入聯邦法律。

and that would mean

而這將意味著

a national protection for access to abortion.

對獲得墮胎的國家保護。

Paid family leave, subsidies for child care,

帶薪家庭假，對兒童護理的補貼。

universal pre-K, the PRO act which protects people's ability

普及學前教育，保護人們能力的PRO法案

to organize and unionize.

來組織和成立工會。

But there's a catch to all this.

但這一切都有一個問題。

And it's connected to the reason Democrats haven't done any of it yet.

而且這與民主黨人還沒有做任何事情的原因有關。

These laws are subject to a rule the Senate has

這些法律受制於參議院的一項規則

(It's called the filibuster)

(這就是所謂的 "拉布"）。

that requires not 51 out of 100 votes to pass a law...

這不需要100票中的51票來通過法律...

but 60 out of 100.

但100人中有60人。

And Democrats want to change that rule.

而民主黨人希望改變這一規則。

Just... not all Democrats.

只是......不是所有的民主黨人。

They have this 50/50 very narrow majority

他們有這種50/50的非常狹窄的多數

but they only have 48 who are actually down to change the rules.

但他們只有48人真正下來改變規則。

And so they need at least 52,

是以，他們至少需要52個。

is kind of the magic number

是一種神奇的數字

that Democrats have been hoping for, in order to both

民主黨人一直希望的，為了既能

change the rules, and then pass a lot of the bills

改變規則，然後通過大量的法案

that we've talked about.

我們已經談論過的。

Scenario 2: Republicans win the House of Representatives.

情景二。共和黨人贏得眾議院。

When the House is controlled by a different party

當眾議院由不同的政黨控制時

than the presidency or the Senate.

而不是總統或參議院。

That gives them a lot of leverage.

這給了他們很大的籌碼。

My name's Dylan Matthews.

我的名字叫迪倫-馬修斯。

I'm a reporter at Vox.

我是Vox的一名記者。

They also have a lot of control over investigations.

他們對調查也有很大的控制權。

They can run committees.

他們可以管理委員會。

They can subpoena people.

他們可以傳喚人。

They can make people testify. They can dredge up documents.

他們可以讓人們出庭作證。 他們可以挖出文件。

We can see that by going back

我們可以看到，通過回溯

to the last time the government looked like this.

到上次政府看起來像這樣。

One thing that the GOP majority

國民黨多數派的一件事

in 2011 and onward did was investigate

在2011年和以後的時間裡，我們做的是調查

the Obama administration extensively.

奧巴馬政府廣泛參與了這項工作。

The "fast and furious" gun smuggling scandal,

迅猛的 "槍支走私醜聞"。

on the Benghazi scandal after those attacks happened in 2012.

在2012年這些襲擊事件發生後的班加西醜聞上。

"-Easily obtained...." "Well, but Senator, again—"

"-很容易獲得....""好吧，但參議員，還是那句話--"

"Within hours, if not days."

"幾小時內，如果不是幾天的話。"

After Democrats won in 2018...

民主黨人在2018年獲勝後...

They also launched a bunch of investigations

他們還展開了一系列調查

into the Trump administration, one of which

進入特朗普政府，其中一個

culminated in the first impeachment.

最終導致了第一次彈劾。

Investigations can matter a lot.

調查可能很重要。

More often than not, they're kind of a sideshow.

更多的時候，他們是一種旁觀者。

My sense ahead of time

我提前的感覺

is that that lever of power will be less important

是，權力的槓桿將不那麼重要

than the ability to block must-pass legislation

比起阻止必須通過的立法的能力

on spending and the debt ceiling.

關於支出和債務上限的問題。

The debt ceiling fight in 2011

2011年的債務上限之爭

was one of the first stories I covered at The Washington Post.

是我在《華盛頓郵報》最初報道的故事之一。

The debt ceiling is this limit

債務上限就是這個限度

on how much the federal government can borrow.

關於聯邦政府可以借多少錢的問題。

Almost the entirety of the international financial system

幾乎整個國際金融體系

is built on the idea that US Treasury bonds are a safe asset.

是建立在美國國債是一種安全資產的想法上。

Once you hit the debt ceiling, they are no longer a low risk asset.

一旦你觸及債務上限，它們就不再是低風險資產。

That would lead to investments,

這將導致投資。

and borrowing, and homes and everything

和借貸，以及房屋和一切

being way more expensive throughout the world

在全世界範圍內的價格要高得多

which would be a pretty major financial crisis.

這將是一個相當大的金融危機。

You need the House and Senate and the President

你需要眾議院、參議院和總統

to agree for the debt ceiling to be raised.

同意提高債務上限。

The most dramatic example of that

這方面最戲劇性的例子是

happened in the summer of 2011.

發生在2011年的夏天。

The debt ceiling was coming due in early August.

債務上限在8月初即將到期。

That gave House Speaker John Boehner and members of his caucus

這讓眾議院議長約翰-博納和他的核心小組成員

incredible leverage. Unless the Obama administration

令人難以置信的槓桿作用。除非奧巴馬政府

was willing to let the debt ceiling be breached,

願意讓債務上限被突破。

they kind of had to come to a deal.

他們不得不達成一項協議。

Ultimately, $2.1 trillion in cuts

最終，2.1萬億美元的削減量

to the National Parks, Head Start programs, the FBI

到國家公園、啟蒙計劃、聯邦調查局

National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation.

國家衛生研究院，國家科學基金會。

One area of the budget is pandemic prevention.

預算的一個領域是大流行病預防。

The choice that was made to invest a lot less

做出的選擇是減少投資。

in preventing pandemics as a part of this deal..

在預防大流行病方面，作為這項交易的一部分。

It certainly couldn't have helped.

這當然不可能有什麼幫助。

I mostly expect this Congress to be more hard-line,

我主要期望本屆國會更加強硬。

in terms of their demands and unwillingness to compromise.

在他們的要求和不願意妥協的情況下。

Scenario 3: Republicans win the House and the Senate.

情景3：共和黨人贏得眾議院和參議院。

The Senate has to confirm any federal judge.

參議院必須確認任何聯邦法官。

I'm Ian Millhiser, I'm a lawyer

我是Ian Millhiser，我是一名律師

and I cover the Supreme Court for Vox.

和我為Vox報道最高法院。

The president nominates

總統提名

anyone who's going to be appointed to the federal bench

任何將被任命為聯邦法官的人

but they don't get the job

但他們沒有得到工作

unless a majority of the Senate votes

除非參議院的大多數人投票

to confirm that individual.

以確認該人。

There's a little more than 800

有超過800個

active judges in the federal system.

聯邦系統中的現役法官。

There are district judges who try cases,

有的地區法官負責審理案件。

Court of Appeals or circuit judges.

上訴法院或巡迴法官。

And then there's the Supreme Court.

然後是最高法院。

The last time we had a Democratic president and a Republican Senate

上一次我們有一個民主黨總統和一個共和黨參議院的時候

was in 2015 and 2016.

是在2015年和2016年。

Under Barack Obama, the Republican Senate

在巴拉克-奧巴馬執政期間，共和黨的參議院

basically hit stop on Supreme Court confirmations

基本上對最高法院的確認打住了

and on nearly all Court of Appeals confirmations.

以及幾乎所有上訴法院的確認。

And then, of course, what happened was

然後，當然，所發生的是

Republicans held all those seats open

共和黨人持有所有這些空缺席位

until Donald Trump got into office

直到唐納德-特朗普上臺

and then filled them with Republicans.

然後用共和黨人填充它們。

Trump's judges have overruled Roe v. Wade,

特朗普的法官已經推翻了羅伊訴韋德案。

which is the reason why abortion is now illegal in many US states.

這就是為什麼現在美國許多州的墮胎是非法的原因。

A sweeping reinterpretation

大刀闊斧的重新詮釋

of the Second Amendment, our firearms amendment.

的第二修正案，我們的槍支修正案。

And now judges are striking down gun laws left and right.

而現在，法官們正在左右逢源地廢除槍支法。

A wholesale attack on voting rights,

對投票權的全面攻擊。

particularly on the Voting Rights Act, which is the law that prevents

特別是關於《投票權法》，該法防止了對婦女的暴力行為。

race discrimination.

種族歧視。

At the lower court level,

在下級法院層面。

we just had three Trump judges declare the entire

我們剛剛有三位特朗普法官宣佈整個

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unconstitutional.

消費者金融保護局不符合憲法。

If Republicans take the Senate

如果共和黨人拿下參議院

then they can block the confirmation of any judge.

那麼他們就可以阻止對任何法官的確認。

If you hold those seats open,

如果你保持這些席位的開放。

they're still vacant when a Republican comes to office,

當共和黨人上任時，它們仍然是空缺的。

and then the Republican can fill them.

然後共和黨人可以填補它們。

The Republican Party

共和黨

which is an institution that wants power...

這是個想要權力的機構......

has figured out that if it controls the judiciary,

已經意識到，如果它控制了司法機構。

it can gain, potentially, a permanent veto power

它可以獲得潛在的永久否決權

over any law that's enacted

超過任何已頒佈的法律

over any regulatory policy that's enacted

對所頒佈的任何監管政策進行監督

regardless of who controls the White House

無論誰控制白宮

and regardless of who controls the Congress.

而不管誰控制了國會。

They're going after voting rights hard.

他們正在努力爭取投票權。

And if you don't have the right to vote

而如果你沒有選舉權

then you don't have any rights.

那麼你就沒有任何權利。

Eventually, the voters who've been disenfranchized

最終，那些被剝奪了權利的選民們

don't have any recourse

沒有任何追索權

because they have no way to change who controls the government.

因為他們沒有辦法改變控制政府的人。

And the government is controlled by people who don't share their interests.

而政府是由那些與他們利益不一致的人控制的。

So that's the worst case scenario.

所以這是最糟糕的情況。

Right now, we're still at the point where

現在，我們仍然處於這樣的階段

you know, elections are the best method that can be used

你知道，選舉是可以使用的最佳方法。

in order to reverse America's democratic decline.

以扭轉美國的民主衰退。

Out of the 475 individual

在475名個人中

House and Senate elections that will decide control of Congress...

將決定國會控制權的眾議院和參議院選舉...

most of them are not close races.

他們中的大多數都不是激烈的競爭。

The election will really be decided by these races...

選舉將真正由這些比賽決定...

only about 1 out of 7 House elections

在7次眾議院選舉中只有1次

and just a handful of Senate races.

以及僅有的幾場參議院選舉。

And so if you live in one of those places...

是以，如果你住在這些地方之一...

it means you have a lot of power over which one of these we choose.

這意味著你有很大的權力來決定我們選擇其中的哪一個。