5 ms·

I wouldn't attach any meaning to an election that didn't allow most candidates to run, had the lowest turnout in history, and still ended up with a significant

I wouldn't attach any meaning to an election that didn't allow most candidates to run, had the lowest turnout in history, and still ended up with a significant amount of blank/invalid votes, despite that being explicitly forbidden.

socialdemocrat 4y ago
It is a variant of the US system, rather than the rich picking the candidates who can run, the priests do. Sorry, I am teasing but I want to highlight that the problem with pre-selected candidates is a widespread problem undermining democracy in many places. Same applies to Hong Kong were China heavily influenced candidate selection.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  That's a ridiculous exaggeration. People vote in the primaries as well. Except for Thiel, rich people were uniformly against Trump being nominated.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    It isn't universally that way: Trump showed how to subvert the system. But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted. Then of course the people spoke in the general election that they didn't want her, and disaster ensued. In most elections, the candidates were ones the rich elites wanted there. But there have been exceptions.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      > But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted. Utter nonsense. Clinton beat the next candidate by a double digit vote percentage in the primaries. That's a landslide. Sanders won a bunch of party caucuses, and it's caucuses that ignore the will of the people and only consider the preferences of party insiders. The only reason you believe the will of the people was subverted was that you were hoodwinked by a coordinated social media campaign whose purpose was to destabilize the democracy.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        Another crazy Clinton supporter who screams "the election was stolen!!" You sound just like the Trumpers. If she was so popular, why did she lose in the general election?
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        Where did I say the election was stolen or that Clinton was popular? I merely said that she beat Sanders by a landslide. You appear to be brainwashed into not only thinking the nomination was stolen from Sanders but also that I said things that I had not. This sort of muddled thinking is exactly what the disinformation campaign was aiming for. No such campaign happened in 2008, or you might even be crying about how the nomination was stolen from Clinton, who lost the primary vote by a percentage point margin two orders of magnitude less than Sanders.
- esperent 4y ago
  It's frustrating to see every discussion about politics in any country being hijacked by Americans saying "yes but in the US". Get over yourselves and give us space to talk about other countries too. This conversation is not about you.
einpoklum 4y ago
That's basically my point actually. Anecdotally sampling a bunch of tweets has a very low level of validity.

socialdemocrat 4y ago

It is a variant of the US system, rather than the rich picking the candidates who can run, the priests do. Sorry, I am teasing but I want to highlight that the problem with pre-selected candidates is a widespread problem undermining democracy in many places. Same applies to Hong Kong were China heavily influenced candidate selection.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
That's a ridiculous exaggeration. People vote in the primaries as well. Except for Thiel, rich people were uniformly against Trump being nominated.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  It isn't universally that way: Trump showed how to subvert the system. But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted. Then of course the people spoke in the general election that they didn't want her, and disaster ensued. In most elections, the candidates were ones the rich elites wanted there. But there have been exceptions.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted. Utter nonsense. Clinton beat the next candidate by a double digit vote percentage in the primaries. That's a landslide. Sanders won a bunch of party caucuses, and it's caucuses that ignore the will of the people and only consider the preferences of party insiders. The only reason you believe the will of the people was subverted was that you were hoodwinked by a coordinated social media campaign whose purpose was to destabilize the democracy.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Another crazy Clinton supporter who screams "the election was stolen!!" You sound just like the Trumpers. If she was so popular, why did she lose in the general election?
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        Where did I say the election was stolen or that Clinton was popular? I merely said that she beat Sanders by a landslide. You appear to be brainwashed into not only thinking the nomination was stolen from Sanders but also that I said things that I had not. This sort of muddled thinking is exactly what the disinformation campaign was aiming for. No such campaign happened in 2008, or you might even be crying about how the nomination was stolen from Clinton, who lost the primary vote by a percentage point margin two orders of magnitude less than Sanders.
esperent 4y ago
It's frustrating to see every discussion about politics in any country being hijacked by Americans saying "yes but in the US". Get over yourselves and give us space to talk about other countries too. This conversation is not about you.

einpoklum 4y ago

That's basically my point actually. Anecdotally sampling a bunch of tweets has a very low level of validity.