7 ms·

“Democracy” like the one we have in the US where voters are powerless to change policy https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article

• Paratoner 3y ago
  [flagged]
• Almondsetat 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    Hello fellow user Almodestat, from Annapolis Junction, MD.
  • user3939382 3y ago
    If I’m interpreting your joke/comment correctly, if you object to the complete corruption of the US political process by special interests you must be a Russian propagandist, is that correct? I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
• wongarsu 3y ago
  US and British democracy certainly aren't the best implementations around. If you wanted to divide and rule you couldn't come up with a better voting system for that than first-past-the-post.
  • colpabar 3y ago
    First past the post is fine. It's the people who don't vote the way I do that are the problem!
    • mptest 3y ago
      without the sarcasm people not voting is a huge issue. voter suppression is a central tactic for conservatives. Openly their cult leader recognizes "if everyone voted we'd never have another republican elected president"
      • svieira 3y ago
        Information-free voting is also a huge issue. Having everyone vote-as-Tim-does is rule-by-Tim but by another name.
  • torcete 3y ago
    Interesting, some say that the US is the only real democracy in the world. The UK is not, nor any other countries in the world. They base this assertion in two principles that any democracy should fulfill: 1) Power separation. 2) Representativity. I can see that you don't agree with this, but what country has a better system then?
    • archerx 3y ago
      Switzerland, we can actually vote for things instead of voting for people who we hope will vote for what we want.
      • ghaff 3y ago
        And the proliferation of ballot questions in US states has been a rather mixed bag. And in many locales in the US, there are direct votes on many local matters.
      • giraffe_lady 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • rpmisms 3y ago
          Sounds like an argument for direct democracy to me. The will of the people was implemented, even though it's politically incorrect.
          • giraffe_lady 3y ago
            I don't always know what "politically incorrect" is being used as a euphemism for but banning mosques seems straightforwardly bad to me idk I guess I'm just a woke dumbass hey.
            • snapcaster 3y ago
              Not that you're a woke dumbass, just probably not a true believer in democracy. The thing described above I also dislike, but I recognize I'm not a resident or voter there and I shouldn't get a say in their lives
  • edgyquant 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • ParetoOptimal 3y ago
      Well this republic idea isn't working out well in practice. I prefer trying ranked choice voting and democracy to this nonsense.
      • sickofparadox 3y ago
        What choices are you ranking if not potential political representatives?
      • xscott 3y ago
        Many people suggest ranked choice, but it has the significant problem that you might have little idea who won or who is leading until the very last vote is in. One vote in a close race could kick off a chain of events that changes everything. And for a Federal election, a stupid and stubborn state (like the one I'm living in) could stall and delay submitting their results for weeks. Approval voting doesn't have this problem. When there's a clear winner, it's obvious and you can get back to business.
        • DeepSeaTortoise 3y ago
          TBH, "counting votes" for weeks is an issue exclusive to banana republics. There are plenty of functional democracies like Germany, in which the votes are counted by the end of the day and the results dont change by several percentage points during the next few weeks after the election.
          • xscott 3y ago
            Fair enough, but the last US presidential election had this banana nonsense going on with various recounts lasting for weeks. Maybe you can fix all the states in the entire country while you rework the election system, but since ranked choice and approval voting both solve the two party problem, I don't know why you'd risk the down side for ranked choice.
  • zrn900 3y ago
    Here's what happens in 'better democracy implementations': https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/16/germany_palestine#:~:text=He%20was%20also%20banned%20from,former%20finance%20minister%20of%20Greece https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/16/germany_palestine#:~:...
• throwaway984393 3y ago
  I'm sure that makes the medicine go down easier, but we're not powerless at all. We choose to have no say. We choose not to run our own campaigns and get grassroots approval. Less than half of us vote. The rest accept the status quo, despite the fact that they don't have to. We give away our power. All of the methods by which a dark horse can run and win are there. The state will not remove your votes or intimidate voters not to vote for you. You will not be poisoned by radioactive toxins to prevent you from running. You will not be kidnapped, or your family threatened, or a bomb set off in polling locations. This isn't in any way like so many other actually repressive regimes. All you have to do is go and run. We have more power in this society than anyone in any other. So why do we claim we're powerless? Because it makes us feel better that we're so lazy. I could run for office, but that might restrict my time watching The Office. Better to just say that running is pointless, so I don't have to make the change I want to see. And even if you don't want to run, you can vote for independents, you can complain to your representatives, you can organize your friends and neighbors to petition local government for local reforms and participate in larger state and federal efforts. Individually we may be a drop in the bucket, but collectively we are a wave. You can't say that isn't powerful.
  • Intermernet 3y ago
    I vouched for this comment to be non-dead. I'm not a US citizen, but I can see why this comment would be contentious for US citizens. I also think it's a valid point, and doesn't cross any HN guidelines (more than other comments that exist in this thread). I'd like to give it another chance and see how it goes.
    • Der_Einzige 3y ago
      People who downvoted or flagged the above post are themselves examples of what’s killing HN. Bunch of snowflakes who don’t want to hear the truth: Political engagement works and matters even at the small scale - we are just lazy as hell. Look to how unpopular CSPAN is. Everyone says they want the “truth” of politics. The truth is on CSPAN, and no one watches it.
      • 3y ago
• ngcc_hk 3y ago
  How about a pm last less than 60 days? Any totalitarian country like that. We are talking about a country my exam question is “all Brits are slaves, discuss”. Still. Anyway may be you are the bots we talked about. And if not even more sad.
• edgyquant 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • shepherdjerred 3y ago
    How is the US not a democracy? We vote for representatives who govern on our behalf.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • School-Cotton 3y ago
      For whatever reason there’s a fringe, but somewhat common, tendency in the U.S. to insist that “democracy” means “direct democracy” and that “republic” means what everyone else calls “representative democracy”. This is then used to derail people complaining about the U.S. being undemocratic, as you can see here. I have no idea where this meme comes from, because for 99% of people “republic” just means not governed by a monarch or traditional aristocracy and is orthogonal to democracy. For example, Canada is democratic but not a republic, North Korea is a republic but not democratic, Saudi Arabia is neither, and France is both.
    • wredue 3y ago
      Honestly, if you look up the definition of republic and democracy, if you blink, you’ll miss differences, and even then, the USA is best described as a democratic republic. Obviously, the last several years has taught us why the right wing is so intent on getting rid of the word “democracy” in describing the USA, and they fundamentally do not believe in the right to vote.
• burningChrome 3y ago
  Not true. Too many people think they have to run for congress or president instead of thinking more locally. Jesse Ventura is a great example of what the founders envisioned as encouraging people to get involved in politics. He was unhappy with the local city government. He ran for mayor and won and spent four years in charge. Went back to his private sector life and then five years after leaving office, ran for governor and won. I've had friends get involved in their local politics and have been effective. My buddy was a professional skateboarder and run twice for a local office and he barely lost both times and has vowed to stay involved in his cities politics. You're seeing more and more people getting involved at the national level who said they never had any inkling of getting involved in politics but have thrown their hats in the ring. There was a reason the founders made the barrier extremely low to get involved in politics, either locally or nationally. They wanted people to have a say in how their governments are run and to make it simple for them to be the change they want to see.
  • rubylark 3y ago
    As a counterpoint, Jesse Ventura was famous before he got into politics. It's much harder to win when no one knows who you are.
    • burningChrome 3y ago
      Fair point, however. . . Jesse had been out of wrestling for years before running for mayor of Brooklyn Park. You have to remember this was back in the late 80,s early 90's when there wasn't any internet or social media. I remember reading an article about him resolving some issue the voters brought to him thinking, "I had no idea the guy was still living in the state, let alone running a city as their mayor." I will give you he did use his radio show to air his grievances and tell stories about his wrestling years and being a frogman (the precursors to the SEALs) so that did bring him back into the public spotlight. He ironically had always dabbled in politics, and even appeared on Howard Stern saying he was going to run for president with gulp Donald Trump who made a guest appearance with him talking about it when he was governor. So you're right, by the time he ran for governor, he was back to being very well known and leveraged that to a degree where he had to give up his radio show in order to run for governor.