> That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means I don't think the literal meaning of democracy is a "ridiculous narrow representati

> That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means I don't think the literal meaning of democracy is a "ridiculous narrow representation of democracy". We may agree that the right to vote does not, on its own, in all cases, entirely embody all aspects of the democratic ideal. But it is certainly not a "ridiculously narrow interpretation". > Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? I'd say it is still democracy, but imperfectly implemented. The overwhelming majority of Americans are able to vote. Should it be better? Of course. But the idea that the poor in aggregate are unrepresented politically is ludicrous. > How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right? We're a lot more democratic than the USSR. To suggest otherwise is the height of privileged conceit. Modern Russia is more democratic than the USSR, and if you think our democracy is equivalent to theirs, take a trip over there and try running against Putin in the next election. See how that works out for you.