6 ms·

Assuming you live in a democracy (we'll see if America still counts in 3 years), elect a better one.

by delusional 1y ago

gblargg 1y ago
[flagged]
- scoofy 1y ago
  Yes it is. “Democracy” from the Greek: “common people rule” and “Republic” from the Latin: “the thing, public.” Republic and democracy mean the same damn thing, rule by the people as opposed to rule by a monarch.
  - pksebben 1y ago
    In what way is this country ruled by the people? You're periodically given a non-choice between two options that have equal disdain for your actual concerns, who then go on to play games to see who can get the most bajiliionare backing for reelection, and if you don't like what they're doing you're perfectly free to vote for the OTHER jerk who also doesn't give a shit about you. This is oligarchy. The 'democratic' process is a smokescreen, and an increasingly thin one. Look up 'liquid democracy'. It's the best example of what an actual democracy might look like if we did it. We won't, but I also enjoy Blade Runner and Star Trek, so there's no harm in fiction.
    - scoofy 1y ago
      Oh, god, this tired nonsense. Yes, obviously, it's ruled by the people. We have parties, we vote, anyone can run for office. Anyone can vote third party, and they occasionally even win. That your neighbors don't share your views does not make it undemocratic. It's not perfect, but it's democratic. It's like people can no longer imagine living under a totalitarian state... where you don't even get a vote, and if you don't like what's happening and you say something about it, you're shot. That's literally the way things were done before democracies and republics existed... it's still the way things are done in places like North Korea.
      - pksebben 1y ago
        So we ought to be thankful we're not in NK. Got it. Glad your bar is so high. It's apparent that you're decided but other folks will read this so let's break it down barney style. The 'third parties' argument is a painful joke, statistically speaking [0 1 2]. You can make all sorts of arguments as to why but the fact is that without support from D or R you can go get fucked. This raises the question - are there only two opinions? With the obvious answer - of course not. We could say 'well, maybe people fall generally into two camps', but that doesn't really pass muster either, does it? I have friends on both sides of the aisle and I agree with all of them on some things. This is evidenced by the amount of voters registered third party despite the abysmal election numbers [3]. So what's going on here? Well, people are being strategic. We're on first-past-the-post in most places. This means you're typically voting not for what you want but for what you don't want. That is not a system of representation, it's a sports game where the prize is some cosmetic social program changes and not much else. Mamdani is an excellent example of what this system does to third party candidates. As soon as there's a legitimate threat to the entrenched parties, fundraising spikes massively for the opposition [4]. Not getting a vote under this system wouldn't be more totalitarian, it would be more honest. 0 -https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown 1 - https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsRepresentingThirdorMinorParties.htm https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsRepresentingThirdorM... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_members_of_the_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_me... 3 - https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-have-a-party-affiliation/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-have-a-party-a... 4 - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/16/nyregion/mamdani-adams-donors-money.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/16/nyregion/mamdani-adams-do...
        scoofy 1y ago
        Fundraising doesn't win elections except in extremely low information elections... which is just a shortcoming of the electorate. It's statistically probable that more popular candidates raise more money. If money won elections, Hillary Clinton would have won twice. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261954 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261954
- selfselfgo 1y ago
  [dead]
- xcrunner529 1y ago
  It’s not a direct democracy. It’s a rep democracy or a republic. Idk why you fools still think this is some gotcha. It just makes you look silly. The quote works just as well with republic it.
  - Frost1x 1y ago
    Traditionally I agree with you (and have raised the point many times), but lately I’m not so sure if it’s a representative democracy at all. I suppose the very corrupt and wealthy are a class being represented, but a representative democracy is in theory supposed to provide representative coverage for all. That seems to be a vanishing case.
    - xcrunner529 1y ago
      This is true as well. Because the people (mostly) let them.
      - amy214 1y ago
        The issue is the representation went from 1:999 to 1:99999999999 representative ratio, so no voice is heard. It's like being in a class of 30 people vs 300,000 people. The answer is common sense abstraction, for example, I am writing this on a JVM on a docker on VM on a docker on a VM on a cloud on a VM. The use of so many layers of abstractions makes it exponentially more powerful. What we need is basically a docker for government, docker being a nobel prize tier invention because of the tremendous degrees of abstraction it permits. We return to a 1:999 ratio for a represenative, who attend a congress to vote for a virtual representative acting in a 1:999 ratio at a higher tier of congress, who themselves virtually represent a single individual at a higher tier 1:999 ratio
        xcrunner529 1y ago
        Did it? Has the house of rep proportion changed?

Assuming you live in a democracy (we'll see if America still counts in 3 years), elect a better one.

gblargg 1y ago

[flagged]

scoofy 1y ago
Yes it is. “Democracy” from the Greek: “common people rule” and “Republic” from the Latin: “the thing, public.” Republic and democracy mean the same damn thing, rule by the people as opposed to rule by a monarch.
- pksebben 1y ago
  In what way is this country ruled by the people? You're periodically given a non-choice between two options that have equal disdain for your actual concerns, who then go on to play games to see who can get the most bajiliionare backing for reelection, and if you don't like what they're doing you're perfectly free to vote for the OTHER jerk who also doesn't give a shit about you. This is oligarchy. The 'democratic' process is a smokescreen, and an increasingly thin one. Look up 'liquid democracy'. It's the best example of what an actual democracy might look like if we did it. We won't, but I also enjoy Blade Runner and Star Trek, so there's no harm in fiction.
  - scoofy 1y ago
    Oh, god, this tired nonsense. Yes, obviously, it's ruled by the people. We have parties, we vote, anyone can run for office. Anyone can vote third party, and they occasionally even win. That your neighbors don't share your views does not make it undemocratic. It's not perfect, but it's democratic. It's like people can no longer imagine living under a totalitarian state... where you don't even get a vote, and if you don't like what's happening and you say something about it, you're shot. That's literally the way things were done before democracies and republics existed... it's still the way things are done in places like North Korea.
    - pksebben 1y ago
      So we ought to be thankful we're not in NK. Got it. Glad your bar is so high. It's apparent that you're decided but other folks will read this so let's break it down barney style. The 'third parties' argument is a painful joke, statistically speaking [0 1 2]. You can make all sorts of arguments as to why but the fact is that without support from D or R you can go get fucked. This raises the question - are there only two opinions? With the obvious answer - of course not. We could say 'well, maybe people fall generally into two camps', but that doesn't really pass muster either, does it? I have friends on both sides of the aisle and I agree with all of them on some things. This is evidenced by the amount of voters registered third party despite the abysmal election numbers [3]. So what's going on here? Well, people are being strategic. We're on first-past-the-post in most places. This means you're typically voting not for what you want but for what you don't want. That is not a system of representation, it's a sports game where the prize is some cosmetic social program changes and not much else. Mamdani is an excellent example of what this system does to third party candidates. As soon as there's a legitimate threat to the entrenched parties, fundraising spikes massively for the opposition [4]. Not getting a vote under this system wouldn't be more totalitarian, it would be more honest. 0 -https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown 1 - https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsRepresentingThirdorMinorParties.htm https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsRepresentingThirdorM... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_members_of_the_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_me... 3 - https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-have-a-party-affiliation/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-have-a-party-a... 4 - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/16/nyregion/mamdani-adams-donors-money.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/16/nyregion/mamdani-adams-do...
      - scoofy 1y ago
        Fundraising doesn't win elections except in extremely low information elections... which is just a shortcoming of the electorate. It's statistically probable that more popular candidates raise more money. If money won elections, Hillary Clinton would have won twice. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261954 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261954
selfselfgo 1y ago
[dead]
xcrunner529 1y ago
It’s not a direct democracy. It’s a rep democracy or a republic. Idk why you fools still think this is some gotcha. It just makes you look silly. The quote works just as well with republic it.
- Frost1x 1y ago
  Traditionally I agree with you (and have raised the point many times), but lately I’m not so sure if it’s a representative democracy at all. I suppose the very corrupt and wealthy are a class being represented, but a representative democracy is in theory supposed to provide representative coverage for all. That seems to be a vanishing case.
  - xcrunner529 1y ago
    This is true as well. Because the people (mostly) let them.
    - amy214 1y ago
      The issue is the representation went from 1:999 to 1:99999999999 representative ratio, so no voice is heard. It's like being in a class of 30 people vs 300,000 people. The answer is common sense abstraction, for example, I am writing this on a JVM on a docker on VM on a docker on a VM on a cloud on a VM. The use of so many layers of abstractions makes it exponentially more powerful. What we need is basically a docker for government, docker being a nobel prize tier invention because of the tremendous degrees of abstraction it permits. We return to a 1:999 ratio for a represenative, who attend a congress to vote for a virtual representative acting in a 1:999 ratio at a higher tier of congress, who themselves virtually represent a single individual at a higher tier 1:999 ratio
      - xcrunner529 1y ago
        Did it? Has the house of rep proportion changed?