3 ms·

>The local decision-makers know much better the local needs Do they really? Election voter turnout is absolutely abysmal and gets lower the lower the governmen

>The local decision-makers know much better the local needs Do they really? Election voter turnout is absolutely abysmal and gets lower the lower the government level goes. This is a clear sign voters no longer believe in democracy at the local level because exercising democratic rights no longer has influence on the situation. Why? Because imbeciles have successfully embedded themselves in lower levels of governments and use the devolved power to keep the status quo in order to profit off of it.

wolverine876 4y ago
Turnout was very high in 2016 and 2020 in the US.
wolverine876 4y ago
Turnout was relatively very high in 2016 and 2020. > exercising democratic rights no longer has influence on the situation. Progressives and the radical right don't think so, and they've certainly had tons of influence on government. > Because imbeciles have successfully embedded themselves in lower levels of governments and use the devolved power to keep the status quo in order to profit off of it. Not my local government. It isn't perfect, but it gets a lot done. Same in NYC. I certainly wouldn't call them imbeciles. What local government are you talking about? There are GOP people who, in the name of demonstrating their radicalism, act like imbeciles, but I think they know what they are doing.
- ssnistfajen 4y ago
  >Turnout was relatively very high in 2016 and 2020. And? The U.S. has countless local elections happening almost every year. The turnouts are abysmal. >Progressives and the radical right don't think so, and they've certainly had tons of influence on government. Those aren't 100% of the electorate. This loops back to the point that democracy is failing when the bulk of the electorate no longer bother to vote. Only in a country with FPTP and distorted voter power distribution would a 60% turnout be considered "relatively very high". European elections regularly have turnouts in the high 80s. That's what normal democracies look like.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    >> Progressives and the radical right don't think so, and they've certainly had tons of influence on government. > Those aren't 100% of the electorate. This loops back to the point that democracy is failing when the bulk of the electorate no longer bother to vote. You said voting has no influence; I gave evidence of people who vote and have changed things dramatically.

wolverine876 4y ago

Turnout was very high in 2016 and 2020 in the US.

wolverine876 4y ago

Turnout was relatively very high in 2016 and 2020. > exercising democratic rights no longer has influence on the situation. Progressives and the radical right don't think so, and they've certainly had tons of influence on government. > Because imbeciles have successfully embedded themselves in lower levels of governments and use the devolved power to keep the status quo in order to profit off of it. Not my local government. It isn't perfect, but it gets a lot done. Same in NYC. I certainly wouldn't call them imbeciles. What local government are you talking about? There are GOP people who, in the name of demonstrating their radicalism, act like imbeciles, but I think they know what they are doing.

ssnistfajen 4y ago
>Turnout was relatively very high in 2016 and 2020. And? The U.S. has countless local elections happening almost every year. The turnouts are abysmal. >Progressives and the radical right don't think so, and they've certainly had tons of influence on government. Those aren't 100% of the electorate. This loops back to the point that democracy is failing when the bulk of the electorate no longer bother to vote. Only in a country with FPTP and distorted voter power distribution would a 60% turnout be considered "relatively very high". European elections regularly have turnouts in the high 80s. That's what normal democracies look like.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  >> Progressives and the radical right don't think so, and they've certainly had tons of influence on government. > Those aren't 100% of the electorate. This loops back to the point that democracy is failing when the bulk of the electorate no longer bother to vote. You said voting has no influence; I gave evidence of people who vote and have changed things dramatically.