6 ms·

The government is elected by the people, it doesn't fit that definition. An authoritarian type of government is a government that is in power by force. Democr

by wolco 7y ago

The government is elected by the people, it doesn't fit that definition. An authoritarian type of government is a government that is in power by force. Democracy and slavary existed together. Having a prison population 1 in 125 people doesn't matter because the people decided to elect someone to make that decision.

ElFitz 7y ago
> The government is elected by the people, it doesn't fit that definition. Is it though? First rebuttal that comes to mind is that, in the US, one can legally be elected without the having the majority of the counter, valid, votes. Another one would be that one can be elected without the approval of the majority of the people who could vote.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  >Is it though? First rebuttal that comes to mind is that, in the US, one can legally be elected without the having the majority of the counter, valid, votes. Yes, spend a couple of moments reading up on the EC. The rules haven't changed in a long time. Even if you don't like it, that's only how the president is elected. Federal representatives for the state are elected by getting the most votes in a district. >Another one would be that one can be elected without the approval of the majority of the people who could vote. Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw.
  - kuzimoto 7y ago
    > Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw. It's not even necessarily a flaw. It's good because it allows the minority a chance to not have certain views crammed on to them by the majority. Just people a larger amount of people agree to a certain set of ideas, doesn't mean everyone does or has to. Densely populated areas have an advantage and likely different views to rural areas. What's best for one group might not be best for the other.
  - snowron6 7y ago
    >Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw. This is completely false, there are plenty of voting systems out there that allow for more than 2 people to run, yet still require a majority to vote for you. Here's a playlist explaining several: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnR...
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    The problem is not really the EC, the problem is that states are winner-takes-all with their EVs. And that was only really true starting in 1824. https://www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all https://www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-wi... Proportionally allocating state electors would solve most of the actual problems people have with the EC, like the emphasis on swing voters.
  - ElFitz 7y ago
    > Yes, spend a couple of moments reading up on the EC. The rules haven't changed in a long time. Even if you don't like it, that's only how the president is elected. Federal representatives for the state are elected by getting the most votes in a district. So... it makes what the gp is saying true? It means the government is indeed by the people? I don't follow. > Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw. Again, how is that supposed to make gp's statement true? GP's statement: > The government is elected by the people [...]
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >Another one would be that one can be elected without the approval of the majority of the people who could vote. That's simply handled by saying that they should vote. >one can legally be elected without the having the majority of the counter, valid, votes How so? If you are referring to the President, did he not win the majority of the valid votes in the population allowed to vote? You could say there is an issue with only allowing a subset of the population to vote, but most people I've seen making such a claims still believe their own limits as for who can vote are valid and have not offered me a reason as to why one method is more valid than the other.
  - will_walker 7y ago
    I’m not sure this is just being written in bad faith, but in the 2016 presidential election, the winner had over 3 million less votes (over 2% of votes tallied). The electoral college system of the US values certain voters more than others in terms of assigning points to the contestants.
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      I'm aware of the 2016 situation. What I'm saying is that the 'popular vote' is not actually a vote. The vote for president is based on 538 people who are eligible to vote, and in that vote Trump won. Now, I know some people have issues with that only a very select group of people are allowed to vote for such a powerful position. But my counter point to that is where is the real differences compared to rules that say you have to be 18 to vote or you have certain legal status to vote. All of these laws can have an attempted justification made under the same argument of 'that's the way we've done it', 'it is how the Constitution says it should be done' or even 'if enough people wanted to, the Constitution can be modified to change it'. >in terms of assigning points to the contestants Is it actually assigning points? I thought it worked by states picking the 538 voters who will vote for president. In 2016 there was some debate on if those 538 people actually had to vote the way they said they would when they were picked, but from my memory the conclusion is that they do not. That's why I think it should be counted as the actual vote for president and not an assignment of points.
- wolco 7y ago
  In many countries most are elected without ever having the majority. The system is called first past the post. The person with the most votes wins. In the US two parties get most of the votes but if a third or fourth party existed with support a president would never get 50%. Not everyone chooses to vote or is legally able to. The winner is choosen from the available votes that have been cast.
  - snowron6 7y ago
    That's not what the problem in America is, we don't actually have first past the post voting for president. You need a majority in the electoral college to win. The issue that that people are given disproportionally more power based on where they live. People in California are worth far less by vote than people from say, Rhode island.
hellomyguys 7y ago
With gerrymandering and removing people off of voter rolls, I think you can argue that some political groups are acting in an authoritarian manner.
FussyZeus 7y ago
> The government is elected by the people, it doesn't fit that definition. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, the Furher was elected by the people. It's a disservice to society at large to so casually brush off judgements about whether a Government is "authoritarian," especially when the question deserves a nuanced answer. I would say the United States can be quite authoritarian, when it's given the leeway to. The militarization of the police comes to mind. Overpolicing of certain communities, the ongoing struggle for many marginalized groups to attain the same rights and freedoms as the majority, the way the United States swings it's foreign influence and military around worldwide to get what it wants, etc. I mean our current President was elected on a platform of building a wall on our southern border to solve a completely imaginary problem, and the Government is now trying to seize privately owned property to make that happen. Is that authoritarianism on the level of China or North Korea? No, not even close. Is it authoritarian? I would say yes, it absolutely is, and that should be a warning to future generations so it never has the opportunity to become authoritarian like China.
DoctorOetker 7y ago
Citizens don't really elect people, they try to elect the least incredible promises and the least harmful policies
zaphirplane 7y ago
You had me thinking about the difference between dictatorship and authoritarian as you are implying authoritarian is dictatorial. I went to Wikipedia and for what it’s worth the entry [1] claims “Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another, as it is possible for democracies to possess authoritarian elements” [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism Thou I don’t think broadly speaking experts view the states as authoritarian, 3 presidents impeached and all that !

by wolco 7y ago

ElFitz 7y ago

> The government is elected by the people, it doesn't fit that definition. Is it though? First rebuttal that comes to mind is that, in the US, one can legally be elected without the having the majority of the counter, valid, votes. Another one would be that one can be elected without the approval of the majority of the people who could vote.

pathseeker 7y ago
>Is it though? First rebuttal that comes to mind is that, in the US, one can legally be elected without the having the majority of the counter, valid, votes. Yes, spend a couple of moments reading up on the EC. The rules haven't changed in a long time. Even if you don't like it, that's only how the president is elected. Federal representatives for the state are elected by getting the most votes in a district. >Another one would be that one can be elected without the approval of the majority of the people who could vote. Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw.
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  > Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw. It's not even necessarily a flaw. It's good because it allows the minority a chance to not have certain views crammed on to them by the majority. Just people a larger amount of people agree to a certain set of ideas, doesn't mean everyone does or has to. Densely populated areas have an advantage and likely different views to rural areas. What's best for one group might not be best for the other.
- snowron6 7y ago
  >Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw. This is completely false, there are plenty of voting systems out there that allow for more than 2 people to run, yet still require a majority to vote for you. Here's a playlist explaining several: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnR...
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  The problem is not really the EC, the problem is that states are winner-takes-all with their EVs. And that was only really true starting in 1824. https://www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all https://www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-wi... Proportionally allocating state electors would solve most of the actual problems people have with the EC, like the emphasis on swing voters.
- ElFitz 7y ago
  > Yes, spend a couple of moments reading up on the EC. The rules haven't changed in a long time. Even if you don't like it, that's only how the president is elected. Federal representatives for the state are elected by getting the most votes in a district. So... it makes what the gp is saying true? It means the government is indeed by the people? I don't follow. > Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw. Again, how is that supposed to make gp's statement true? GP's statement: > The government is elected by the people [...]
SkyBelow 7y ago
>Another one would be that one can be elected without the approval of the majority of the people who could vote. That's simply handled by saying that they should vote. >one can legally be elected without the having the majority of the counter, valid, votes How so? If you are referring to the President, did he not win the majority of the valid votes in the population allowed to vote? You could say there is an issue with only allowing a subset of the population to vote, but most people I've seen making such a claims still believe their own limits as for who can vote are valid and have not offered me a reason as to why one method is more valid than the other.
- will_walker 7y ago
  I’m not sure this is just being written in bad faith, but in the 2016 presidential election, the winner had over 3 million less votes (over 2% of votes tallied). The electoral college system of the US values certain voters more than others in terms of assigning points to the contestants.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    I'm aware of the 2016 situation. What I'm saying is that the 'popular vote' is not actually a vote. The vote for president is based on 538 people who are eligible to vote, and in that vote Trump won. Now, I know some people have issues with that only a very select group of people are allowed to vote for such a powerful position. But my counter point to that is where is the real differences compared to rules that say you have to be 18 to vote or you have certain legal status to vote. All of these laws can have an attempted justification made under the same argument of 'that's the way we've done it', 'it is how the Constitution says it should be done' or even 'if enough people wanted to, the Constitution can be modified to change it'. >in terms of assigning points to the contestants Is it actually assigning points? I thought it worked by states picking the 538 voters who will vote for president. In 2016 there was some debate on if those 538 people actually had to vote the way they said they would when they were picked, but from my memory the conclusion is that they do not. That's why I think it should be counted as the actual vote for president and not an assignment of points.
wolco 7y ago
In many countries most are elected without ever having the majority. The system is called first past the post. The person with the most votes wins. In the US two parties get most of the votes but if a third or fourth party existed with support a president would never get 50%. Not everyone chooses to vote or is legally able to. The winner is choosen from the available votes that have been cast.
- snowron6 7y ago
  That's not what the problem in America is, we don't actually have first past the post voting for president. You need a majority in the electoral college to win. The issue that that people are given disproportionally more power based on where they live. People in California are worth far less by vote than people from say, Rhode island.

hellomyguys 7y ago

With gerrymandering and removing people off of voter rolls, I think you can argue that some political groups are acting in an authoritarian manner.

FussyZeus 7y ago

> The government is elected by the people, it doesn't fit that definition. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, the Furher was elected by the people. It's a disservice to society at large to so casually brush off judgements about whether a Government is "authoritarian," especially when the question deserves a nuanced answer. I would say the United States can be quite authoritarian, when it's given the leeway to. The militarization of the police comes to mind. Overpolicing of certain communities, the ongoing struggle for many marginalized groups to attain the same rights and freedoms as the majority, the way the United States swings it's foreign influence and military around worldwide to get what it wants, etc. I mean our current President was elected on a platform of building a wall on our southern border to solve a completely imaginary problem, and the Government is now trying to seize privately owned property to make that happen. Is that authoritarianism on the level of China or North Korea? No, not even close. Is it authoritarian? I would say yes, it absolutely is, and that should be a warning to future generations so it never has the opportunity to become authoritarian like China.

DoctorOetker 7y ago

Citizens don't really elect people, they try to elect the least incredible promises and the least harmful policies

zaphirplane 7y ago

You had me thinking about the difference between dictatorship and authoritarian as you are implying authoritarian is dictatorial. I went to Wikipedia and for what it’s worth the entry [1] claims “Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another, as it is possible for democracies to possess authoritarian elements” [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism Thou I don’t think broadly speaking experts view the states as authoritarian, 3 presidents impeached and all that !