4 ms·

Democracies have a built-in pressure valve to allow unrest to disperse, that is voting. Instead of feeling the need to resort to violence to have political agen

by badRNG 6y ago

Democracies have a built-in pressure valve to allow unrest to disperse, that is voting. Instead of feeling the need to resort to violence to have political agency, people vote. Dislike growing inequality? You probably voted for Sanders. Want a return to the pre-Trump days? You likely voted for Biden. Dislike the quarantine measures? There are lawmakers who represent your perspective. Once a critical mass of disaffected people is reached, they wind up having their candidates win elections, which subsequently disperses that pressure. While the most passionate people are still wearing campaign badges for their favorite representative, the chances of "revolution" seems unimaginable.

byoung2 6y ago
the chances of "revolution" seems unimaginable A successful revolution maybe, but an attempt, possible and even probable.
- badRNG 6y ago
  The condition I placed on that is while people wear campaign buttons. The US has major elections every two years, that's almost certainly not enough time for a critical mass of disenfranchised voters to start something like that. They key word being voters. This is contingent on people having ongoing faith in the electoral process. People will tell you they don't trust electoralism, but they still vote and campaign for Trump or Bernie or whoever they trust to represent their interests. Trump and Bernie seem to be a part of this paradigm shift to politicians who serve as a sort of brand that people identify with. When people's whole political identity is wrapped around the "brand" of a public official, it certainly seems less likely now than ever that a "revolution" would occur. The conditions that would give rise to a revolution would likely see more across the board distrust of the democratic process fundamentally. Election interference might have some effect, but I'm extremely skeptical that a revolution will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
cmurf 6y ago
Voting is the mechanism for blame. It's why so few Americans vote. Non-voters are blamed less than those who do. They're not even ridiculed. That makes it increasingly voluntarily not a democracy. Central to democracies is the losers accept the loss if an election. I mean the reality of it, they can still be mad. But if the losers claim delusional conspiracies, and reject the reality of the loss, they can completely dismember democracy through civil disobedience.
blackrock 6y ago
It appears that the voting process has failed. The electoral college was supposed to prevent someone like Trump from getting elected, but even that failed to do its job. After the Civil War, Lincoln and the Union did not eliminate the Confederates, and allowed them to continue to exist as a scourge on society. They have been slowly dividing the country, and it appears they have finally succeeded. And the prevalence of social media, has not helped the cause. Instead, it appears to be the spark that is lighting the fire, leading to a pile of dynamite. At this point, the country is just too large, and too diverse. The political outlook of the west coast, is far too different from that of the Deep South. Maybe it’s time to consider, that they should go their own way. The problem is the nukes. What should we do about the nukes?
- asguy 6y ago
  > The political outlook of the west coast, is far too different from that of the Deep South. I think "the Deep South" is a red herring: drive one county inland, and you're likely to see a drastic change. Even in California.
- captainredbeard 6y ago
  > Lincoln and the Union did not eliminate the Confederates, and allowed them to continue to exist as a scourge on society. They have been slowly dividing the country, and it appears they have finally succeeded. What would you suggest, a pogrom? The Union devastated the South, going well beyond battle related damage. Hooker destroyed vital infrastructure and brutalized the people. To suggest further destruction and persecution is inhumane and barbaric.
  - blackrock 6y ago
    No, nobody is suggesting a pogrom. But, they could have been prevented from resuming power, and attaining future positions of influence. Otherwise the Civil War was a sacrifice made for nothing. Lincoln should have made a law to oversee the southern states, and put in Federal leadership, that was loyal to the Union cause. And he should have instituted the law for 100 years, in order to wipe out any future separatist activities from the Confederates. But honestly, who knows. The Civil War was a long time ago, and it’s doubtful that even this idea could have succeeded. Which leads us to where we are now. It’s too late to do anything like that anymore. The divisions are now too deep. We need a new solution.
n4r9 6y ago
Just having a voting system doesn't feel like it's enough. And there are many different styles of voting, some which seek to reflect a broad range of view points and others which seek to give strong executive power to the majority. The Democracy Index measures several factors such as trust in public institutions, governmental checks and balances, and having a culture which respects democratic principles. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

by badRNG 6y ago

byoung2 6y ago

the chances of "revolution" seems unimaginable A successful revolution maybe, but an attempt, possible and even probable.

badRNG 6y ago
The condition I placed on that is while people wear campaign buttons. The US has major elections every two years, that's almost certainly not enough time for a critical mass of disenfranchised voters to start something like that. They key word being voters. This is contingent on people having ongoing faith in the electoral process. People will tell you they don't trust electoralism, but they still vote and campaign for Trump or Bernie or whoever they trust to represent their interests. Trump and Bernie seem to be a part of this paradigm shift to politicians who serve as a sort of brand that people identify with. When people's whole political identity is wrapped around the "brand" of a public official, it certainly seems less likely now than ever that a "revolution" would occur. The conditions that would give rise to a revolution would likely see more across the board distrust of the democratic process fundamentally. Election interference might have some effect, but I'm extremely skeptical that a revolution will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.

cmurf 6y ago

Voting is the mechanism for blame. It's why so few Americans vote. Non-voters are blamed less than those who do. They're not even ridiculed. That makes it increasingly voluntarily not a democracy. Central to democracies is the losers accept the loss if an election. I mean the reality of it, they can still be mad. But if the losers claim delusional conspiracies, and reject the reality of the loss, they can completely dismember democracy through civil disobedience.

blackrock 6y ago

It appears that the voting process has failed. The electoral college was supposed to prevent someone like Trump from getting elected, but even that failed to do its job. After the Civil War, Lincoln and the Union did not eliminate the Confederates, and allowed them to continue to exist as a scourge on society. They have been slowly dividing the country, and it appears they have finally succeeded. And the prevalence of social media, has not helped the cause. Instead, it appears to be the spark that is lighting the fire, leading to a pile of dynamite. At this point, the country is just too large, and too diverse. The political outlook of the west coast, is far too different from that of the Deep South. Maybe it’s time to consider, that they should go their own way. The problem is the nukes. What should we do about the nukes?

asguy 6y ago
> The political outlook of the west coast, is far too different from that of the Deep South. I think "the Deep South" is a red herring: drive one county inland, and you're likely to see a drastic change. Even in California.
captainredbeard 6y ago
> Lincoln and the Union did not eliminate the Confederates, and allowed them to continue to exist as a scourge on society. They have been slowly dividing the country, and it appears they have finally succeeded. What would you suggest, a pogrom? The Union devastated the South, going well beyond battle related damage. Hooker destroyed vital infrastructure and brutalized the people. To suggest further destruction and persecution is inhumane and barbaric.
- blackrock 6y ago
  No, nobody is suggesting a pogrom. But, they could have been prevented from resuming power, and attaining future positions of influence. Otherwise the Civil War was a sacrifice made for nothing. Lincoln should have made a law to oversee the southern states, and put in Federal leadership, that was loyal to the Union cause. And he should have instituted the law for 100 years, in order to wipe out any future separatist activities from the Confederates. But honestly, who knows. The Civil War was a long time ago, and it’s doubtful that even this idea could have succeeded. Which leads us to where we are now. It’s too late to do anything like that anymore. The divisions are now too deep. We need a new solution.

n4r9 6y ago

Just having a voting system doesn't feel like it's enough. And there are many different styles of voting, some which seek to reflect a broad range of view points and others which seek to give strong executive power to the majority. The Democracy Index measures several factors such as trust in public institutions, governmental checks and balances, and having a culture which respects democratic principles. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index