4 ms·

Those countries exist? Last I checked there are few true democracies. Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corpo

Those countries exist? Last I checked there are few true democracies. Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests. If all your options are just corporate shills and power hungry spooks and goons is it even "free and fair" at that point?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Last I checked there are few true democracies. Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests If you're anywhere in the West, this doesn't describe your democracy but a cartoon of it. Like yes, if you only show up for--in the U.S.--the Presidential general election, your vote isn't that powerful because it's not supposed to be in a country of a quarter of a billion.
- farts_mckensy 2y ago
  "Bought out by corporate interests" is a completely accurate assessment of the American electoral system. It's honestly quite alienating reading all of these completely delusional comments. Your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population. We don't even have that. We are bombarded with corporate propaganda every fucking day. A senator from Wyoming has just as much of a vote as California. This notion that we live in a democracy or anything close to that is asinine. The system is not tethered to the will of the people in any sense of the word. It's an oligarchy.
  - bushbaba 2y ago
    > Your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population that's not true in the US, a republic not a direct democracy. Never has been.
    - farts_mckensy 2y ago
      Ah, blind deference to the status quo. You got me on that one.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > blind deference to the status quo Because unchecked corporate interests / you don't vote for the President but for electors are hot takes? (Also, "your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population" doesn't technically make sense. I think I know what you're getting at. But even ignoring the political structure and just focussing on voting, you're assuming by statement values for parameters which lie on a spectrum.)
        farts_mckensy 2y ago
        You're trying to trip me up on technicalities that are completely immaterial to my point. Blind deference to the status quo illustrates poor critical thinking skills.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > notion that we live in a democracy or anything close to that is asinine. The system is not tethered to the will of the people in any sense of the word. It's an oligarchy Pure democracy doesn't work. (More accurately: election fetishisation doesn't work. It tears itself apart in manufactured partisanship.) We live in a republic. The Congress is democratically elected. The President is meant to embody the strengths of monarchy. The Supreme Court represents the oligarchy. This is civics 101, succinctly summarised in the Federalist Papers. > senator from Wyoming has just as much of a vote as California I vote in Wyoming. We're not the oligarchy. We're not even a swing state. You're complaining about, broadly, the Electoral College (and our system of apportionment). That's orthogonal to that of corporate interests. If anything, the fact that each of my resresentatives has fewer people they're accountable to makes them harder to buy off.
    - farts_mckensy 2y ago
      You sound like a religious fundamentalist. Civics 101 is blindly deferring to the architects of a system whereby only rich, white property owners could vote? Look, however you rationalize it in your head, power is highly concentrated in the US. Unless you are a member of the ruling class, being in favor of this basically amounts to Stockholm Syndrome.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > sound like a religious fundamentalist Wat. > Civics 101 is blindly deferring to the architects of a system whereby only rich, white property owners could vote No, it's understanding the tradeoffs systems of governments make in erecting the systems that they do. Have you read the Federalist Papers? If not, I suggest starting there. It's more interesting than railing against the woke mind virus or corporations. > however you rationalize it in your head, power is highly concentrated in the US It's not consistently concentrated. And even then, it's not that concentrated. I've managed, as a rando, to get language put into multiple state and twice federal bills because I was the only person in my district who called in on a low-priority process. Nihilism in American politics is often just cover for civic laziness.
farts_mckensy 2y ago
You will be lambasted for it, but you're fundamentally correct. Recall that the question was "What can be done about the unchecked power of governance?" If your response to that question is "just vote," you have missed the plot entirely. It is truly pathetic how naive that statement is. It's akin to still believing in Santa Claus.
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  I would say the statement was "Well, at least vote". And in local elections, that does make a difference. In general, I think far too much attention is paid to single election cycles at the federal level. And I'm not sure why. The state you live in has significantly more effect on your experience with government, outlay of benefits, taxes, education and environmental policies than who holds the presidential office, for essentially all issues that matter. In the rare case that a federal change affects you (likely a court decision, thanks to lame duck congress), states routinely step in, as we've seen recently. The one exception to everything is that if you want _other_ states to live like _your_ state, then yeah - you better try to get the federal government aligned with your virtues. But why any sane person would want that is beyond me.
  - farts_mckensy 2y ago
    This is just the galaxy brain version of the position I am criticizing. You are not any less naive than the person who said "just vote." You're fundamentally missing the point. Corporations manipulate state and local elections as well, and the scope of what is possible is shaped by this. If your impulse during this political moment is to rally people to vote, all you are demonstrating is that you do not fully understand the system you live in.
AdieuToLogic 2y ago
>> If you are fortunate enough to live in a country which has free and fair elections, then vote. > Those countries exist? Yes. The US is one, others exist today as well. > Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests. Start by voting for the least objectionable politicians in the general election (local, state, and federal). If you do not like those choices, remember this and vote in the primary (or primaries where allowed) for the least objectionable politicians. If you do not like the choices in primaries, remember this and get involved in the selection process for the least objectionable political party. Note the recurring theme of involvement in the representation process. Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it.
- farts_mckensy 2y ago
  >Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it. You just contradicted yourself. Do we have free and fair elections, or do we have a system whereby the wealthy have disproportionate influence? It's one or the other.
  - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
    >> Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it. > You just contradicted yourself. I did not. Please re-read what I wrote dispassionately. > Do we have free and fair elections, or do we have a system whereby the wealthy have disproportionate influence? It's one or the other. This is a false dichotomy[0]. The US has had free and fair elections for at least 40 years. I wish I could confidently state a longer period. Some might include the 70's but few would include much of the 60's. What the wealthy do in attempt to convince people they do not have agency, or that their involvement in representative government does not matter, is orthogonal to having it. I humbly recommend contemplating the difference. HTH 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
    - farts_mckensy 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Last I checked there are few true democracies. Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests If you're anywhere in the West, this doesn't describe your democracy but a cartoon of it. Like yes, if you only show up for--in the U.S.--the Presidential general election, your vote isn't that powerful because it's not supposed to be in a country of a quarter of a billion.

farts_mckensy 2y ago
"Bought out by corporate interests" is a completely accurate assessment of the American electoral system. It's honestly quite alienating reading all of these completely delusional comments. Your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population. We don't even have that. We are bombarded with corporate propaganda every fucking day. A senator from Wyoming has just as much of a vote as California. This notion that we live in a democracy or anything close to that is asinine. The system is not tethered to the will of the people in any sense of the word. It's an oligarchy.
- bushbaba 2y ago
  > Your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population that's not true in the US, a republic not a direct democracy. Never has been.
  - farts_mckensy 2y ago
    Ah, blind deference to the status quo. You got me on that one.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > blind deference to the status quo Because unchecked corporate interests / you don't vote for the President but for electors are hot takes? (Also, "your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population" doesn't technically make sense. I think I know what you're getting at. But even ignoring the political structure and just focussing on voting, you're assuming by statement values for parameters which lie on a spectrum.)
      - farts_mckensy 2y ago
        You're trying to trip me up on technicalities that are completely immaterial to my point. Blind deference to the status quo illustrates poor critical thinking skills.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > notion that we live in a democracy or anything close to that is asinine. The system is not tethered to the will of the people in any sense of the word. It's an oligarchy Pure democracy doesn't work. (More accurately: election fetishisation doesn't work. It tears itself apart in manufactured partisanship.) We live in a republic. The Congress is democratically elected. The President is meant to embody the strengths of monarchy. The Supreme Court represents the oligarchy. This is civics 101, succinctly summarised in the Federalist Papers. > senator from Wyoming has just as much of a vote as California I vote in Wyoming. We're not the oligarchy. We're not even a swing state. You're complaining about, broadly, the Electoral College (and our system of apportionment). That's orthogonal to that of corporate interests. If anything, the fact that each of my resresentatives has fewer people they're accountable to makes them harder to buy off.
  - farts_mckensy 2y ago
    You sound like a religious fundamentalist. Civics 101 is blindly deferring to the architects of a system whereby only rich, white property owners could vote? Look, however you rationalize it in your head, power is highly concentrated in the US. Unless you are a member of the ruling class, being in favor of this basically amounts to Stockholm Syndrome.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > sound like a religious fundamentalist Wat. > Civics 101 is blindly deferring to the architects of a system whereby only rich, white property owners could vote No, it's understanding the tradeoffs systems of governments make in erecting the systems that they do. Have you read the Federalist Papers? If not, I suggest starting there. It's more interesting than railing against the woke mind virus or corporations. > however you rationalize it in your head, power is highly concentrated in the US It's not consistently concentrated. And even then, it's not that concentrated. I've managed, as a rando, to get language put into multiple state and twice federal bills because I was the only person in my district who called in on a low-priority process. Nihilism in American politics is often just cover for civic laziness.

farts_mckensy 2y ago

You will be lambasted for it, but you're fundamentally correct. Recall that the question was "What can be done about the unchecked power of governance?" If your response to that question is "just vote," you have missed the plot entirely. It is truly pathetic how naive that statement is. It's akin to still believing in Santa Claus.

jvanderbot 2y ago
I would say the statement was "Well, at least vote". And in local elections, that does make a difference. In general, I think far too much attention is paid to single election cycles at the federal level. And I'm not sure why. The state you live in has significantly more effect on your experience with government, outlay of benefits, taxes, education and environmental policies than who holds the presidential office, for essentially all issues that matter. In the rare case that a federal change affects you (likely a court decision, thanks to lame duck congress), states routinely step in, as we've seen recently. The one exception to everything is that if you want _other_ states to live like _your_ state, then yeah - you better try to get the federal government aligned with your virtues. But why any sane person would want that is beyond me.
- farts_mckensy 2y ago
  This is just the galaxy brain version of the position I am criticizing. You are not any less naive than the person who said "just vote." You're fundamentally missing the point. Corporations manipulate state and local elections as well, and the scope of what is possible is shaped by this. If your impulse during this political moment is to rally people to vote, all you are demonstrating is that you do not fully understand the system you live in.

AdieuToLogic 2y ago

>> If you are fortunate enough to live in a country which has free and fair elections, then vote. > Those countries exist? Yes. The US is one, others exist today as well. > Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests. Start by voting for the least objectionable politicians in the general election (local, state, and federal). If you do not like those choices, remember this and vote in the primary (or primaries where allowed) for the least objectionable politicians. If you do not like the choices in primaries, remember this and get involved in the selection process for the least objectionable political party. Note the recurring theme of involvement in the representation process. Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it.

farts_mckensy 2y ago
>Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it. You just contradicted yourself. Do we have free and fair elections, or do we have a system whereby the wealthy have disproportionate influence? It's one or the other.
- AdieuToLogic 2y ago
  >> Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it. > You just contradicted yourself. I did not. Please re-read what I wrote dispassionately. > Do we have free and fair elections, or do we have a system whereby the wealthy have disproportionate influence? It's one or the other. This is a false dichotomy[0]. The US has had free and fair elections for at least 40 years. I wish I could confidently state a longer period. Some might include the 70's but few would include much of the 60's. What the wealthy do in attempt to convince people they do not have agency, or that their involvement in representative government does not matter, is orthogonal to having it. I humbly recommend contemplating the difference. HTH 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
  - farts_mckensy 2y ago