6 ms·

The rights abuses occurring in Minnesota and at the hands of ICE are better characterised as a degradation of democracy, not a failure of it. EDIT: To be clear

by TOMDM 8mo ago

The rights abuses occurring in Minnesota and at the hands of ICE are better characterised as a degradation of democracy, not a failure of it. EDIT: To be clear, my belief is that a plurality of the voting population voted for this, that much is obvious. My belief is also that despite the fact that the current administration was elected, there are democratic norms and rules for what outcomes require that a bill must be passed to enact, that states can decide how they can govern themselves within well defined bounds. All of this is being ignored despite the structures defined in the American democatric system, not because of it.

sheepscreek 8mo ago
Yep. Democracy is working according to a non-minority in the country. Agree to disagree?
- mystraline 8mo ago
  Sure. I'll bite. The majority in this country is "didn't vote". Multitudes of reasons for this. They forgot. They dont care. They missed the registration deadline. They're homeless, and no address. They can't get proper papers, even though they are US born. They're in prison/jail. The candidates suck, so you dont vote. Can't afford to take time off work. They've been gerrymandered, so their votes are significantly degraded. To think that the minority segment that, due to election game rules and FPTP, that a minority of the minority somehow reflects a majority? I wholly reject that.
  - monero-xmr 8mo ago
    I mean you can make up all the excuses you want for losing an election but you still lost. Doesn’t make the result illegitimate
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - olyjohn 8mo ago
      "you" lost? Did this guy you're replying to run for office? This whole my team vs your team bullshit is really one of the big problems in our country. No independent thought. Just stick with what news says. Always vote my team. Dumb. Here's a news bulletin for you, everybody lost.
      - monero-xmr 8mo ago
        Parent posted a list of excuses for why people didn’t vote. Doesn’t change an election
        autoexec 8mo ago
        I think people not being able to vote because their right to vote has been taken from them, or their vote was made pointless through gerrymandering, or because of other acts of voter suppression does change elections. The ability for it to change the outcome of a race is why voter suppression happens. People who don't bother to vote for any reason changes elections. It also makes it very hard to make claims about what the majority of Americans want, since so many didn't make their opinions known
        FeepingCreature 8mo ago
        You can't gerrymander a presidential election. How would that work? It's not district-based. A majority of Americans either wanted Trump or didn't care enough to vote against him.
        wavefunction 8mo ago
        In my experience in Texas, the right-wingers have this system set up where votes that were legally cast can be denied validity by some sort of "citizens election integrity board." I had no issue voting in Travis County but when I moved to a more conservative suburban county address I ran into this. There's a multitude of ways for anti-democratic forces in the US to deny citizens their rights. And it really hardened my opinion of these sorts of people that would do that to me and others. If they say my rights aren't valid how valid are their own, certainly nothing I should respect given their treatment of myself and others. That's why I have no tolerance for the right-wing I've seen their real face.
  - pton_xd 8mo ago
    It's always been this way. According to Google 64% of the voting age population voted in 2024. In 1972 it was 56%, in 1976 it was 55%, in 1980 it was 55%, in 1984 it was 56%... you get the idea [0]. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch2_tbl1.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalst...
    - mystraline 8mo ago
      "This is how its always been" is one of the banes of my existence. It explains why we're here, but not how to do better. There are ways to do better. A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times. We could do like Australia and mandate required voting. Prisoners should be able to vote. But this country is too hell-bent on punishment. Registration can be made on the same day of voting, rather than some states require 30 days, and others per state. But in reality, none of these are done. Changes are glacial, if they do happen. But these would all increase a democratic choice. Right now, its a horrendously gamified minority of a minority who decides, based on electoral college results.
      - decremental 8mo ago
        [dead]
      - koolba 8mo ago
        > There are ways to do better. A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times. Sure. But let’s get rid of all early voting and mail in balloting. No excuses right? Throw in voter id too. > We could do like Australia and mandate required voting. I never quite understand why mandatory participation is a meaningful goal. If people are neither informed nor interested, why do you want them to have a say at all? At best they’ll be picking a last name that sounds pronounceable. Or going with whichever first name sounds more (or less!) male. > Prisoners should be able to vote. But this country is too hell-bent on punishment. We already strip them of their freedom of movement. Why do you want everyone up to and including rapists, pedophiles, and murders voting? Is there a particular voting bloc that you think would add value with their point of view? > Registration can be made on the same day of voting, rather than some states require 30 days, and others per state. I’m generally for this though there are a bit of logistics when you’re dealing with preprinted paper ballots and some expectations of processing quantity. Prior registration also addresses people showing up at the wrong polls in advance. > But in reality, none of these are done. Changes are glacial, if they do happen. Not always a bad thing either. If all it took was the stroke of an executive’s pen, you’d see a lot of things I bet you would not be fond of rather soon. > But these would all increase a democratic choice. Right now, its a horrendously gamified minority of a minority who decides, based on electoral college results. The electoral college is a feature. It forces you to win across large and small States.
  - rayiner 8mo ago
    Multiple polls have found that if everyone had voted, Trump would have won by even more. https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%20Research%20Retrospective.pdf https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2... https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-election-non-voters-coalition https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec... The average person who doesn’t vote is a low-trust individual who is skeptical about government and institutions. Those people are Trumpier than average.
    - mrguyorama 8mo ago
      I would prefer that reality to our current one.
    - Zak 8mo ago
      I thought I had a decent understanding of the 2024 election; people were unhappy with the status quo, therefore mistrusting the people and institutions they believed responsible for it. Then I saw this and its supporting data in your first link: > Voters saw Harris as more ideologically extreme than Trump ... what?
      - rayiner 8mo ago
        According to Gallup, the record high support for increasing immigration was about 36%. Harris presided over an administration that saw a large increase in immigration. So believe didn’t find it credible when she said she wanted to control the border. And the position of wanting to increase immigration is more ideologically extreme than Trump’s position of wanting to shut down the border to illegal immigration just as a factual matter. The latest Harvard-Harris poll, which isn’t good for Trump, still shows people want to deport all immigrants here illegally by a 52-48 margin: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/HHP_Jan2026_KeyResults.pdf https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/HHP... (page 24). I don’t think even Trump intends to actually do that. He would have to dramatically escalate what he’s doing now in order to achieve that outcome.
- monero-xmr 8mo ago
  When democracy votes for something you don’t like just call it populism
  - decremental 8mo ago
    [dead]
- int_19h 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - delaminator 8mo ago
    Good job no-one has elected any fascists then
  - somenameforme 8mo ago
    I do not think the current government in the US is fascist, but electing fascists would indeed be an exercise in democracy. The entire point of democracy is that it's the will of the people, whether right or wrong. This is precisely why democracy was never seen as a tenable system for millennia. Thinkers of the past always assumed that the people would be incapable of picking the most skilled leaders, and would instead end up picking the most charismatic leaders. This is precisely what Plato's endlessly cited allegory of the Ship of State [1] is about. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State
    - mrguyorama 8mo ago
      Democracy is not "Whoever gets half + 1 vote is king" Winning representatives are still supposed to represent the people who didn't vote for them in fact. Democracy isn't about picking the "best" leader because that's not necessary. "The best" is almost never necessary, and you are much better off building a system that handles regularly not getting the best, because no system reliably picks the best, especially since "The best" is a criteria that cannot be rigorously defined.
      - somenameforme 8mo ago
        You're imposing your own ideological conditions that literally do not exist. It's like a supporter of e.g. imperial systems saying that the emperor is supposed to represent all of society. In society's opinion? Sure, but there is no such condition in reality. Some did, some didn't. The problem with democracy is that we don't get anywhere even remotely near the best. It tends to promote people that are highly charismatic and highly corrupt. The latter trait is not a coincidence, but a part of getting ahead in democracy. Give corporations what they want and your election coffers will be full, refuse and they'll instead fund your opponent and their media will frame you as unelectable, a threat to democracy, or whatever new FUD phrase focus tests best at the time. And that corruption tends to correlate strongly with a complete vacancy of morals or ethics - see: how our entire political class, globally, flocked to pedo island like flies to shit.
- watwut 8mo ago
  It is not democracy anymore. It is authoritarian regime dismantling the democracy.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    67% of people didn't vote against it.
    - JKCalhoun 8mo ago
      A half-empty kind of guy!

by TOMDM 8mo ago

sheepscreek 8mo ago

Yep. Democracy is working according to a non-minority in the country. Agree to disagree?

mystraline 8mo ago
Sure. I'll bite. The majority in this country is "didn't vote". Multitudes of reasons for this. They forgot. They dont care. They missed the registration deadline. They're homeless, and no address. They can't get proper papers, even though they are US born. They're in prison/jail. The candidates suck, so you dont vote. Can't afford to take time off work. They've been gerrymandered, so their votes are significantly degraded. To think that the minority segment that, due to election game rules and FPTP, that a minority of the minority somehow reflects a majority? I wholly reject that.
- monero-xmr 8mo ago
  I mean you can make up all the excuses you want for losing an election but you still lost. Doesn’t make the result illegitimate
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - olyjohn 8mo ago
    "you" lost? Did this guy you're replying to run for office? This whole my team vs your team bullshit is really one of the big problems in our country. No independent thought. Just stick with what news says. Always vote my team. Dumb. Here's a news bulletin for you, everybody lost.
    - monero-xmr 8mo ago
      Parent posted a list of excuses for why people didn’t vote. Doesn’t change an election
      - autoexec 8mo ago
        I think people not being able to vote because their right to vote has been taken from them, or their vote was made pointless through gerrymandering, or because of other acts of voter suppression does change elections. The ability for it to change the outcome of a race is why voter suppression happens. People who don't bother to vote for any reason changes elections. It also makes it very hard to make claims about what the majority of Americans want, since so many didn't make their opinions known
        FeepingCreature 8mo ago
        You can't gerrymander a presidential election. How would that work? It's not district-based. A majority of Americans either wanted Trump or didn't care enough to vote against him.
      - wavefunction 8mo ago
        In my experience in Texas, the right-wingers have this system set up where votes that were legally cast can be denied validity by some sort of "citizens election integrity board." I had no issue voting in Travis County but when I moved to a more conservative suburban county address I ran into this. There's a multitude of ways for anti-democratic forces in the US to deny citizens their rights. And it really hardened my opinion of these sorts of people that would do that to me and others. If they say my rights aren't valid how valid are their own, certainly nothing I should respect given their treatment of myself and others. That's why I have no tolerance for the right-wing I've seen their real face.
- pton_xd 8mo ago
  It's always been this way. According to Google 64% of the voting age population voted in 2024. In 1972 it was 56%, in 1976 it was 55%, in 1980 it was 55%, in 1984 it was 56%... you get the idea [0]. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch2_tbl1.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalst...
  - mystraline 8mo ago
    "This is how its always been" is one of the banes of my existence. It explains why we're here, but not how to do better. There are ways to do better. A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times. We could do like Australia and mandate required voting. Prisoners should be able to vote. But this country is too hell-bent on punishment. Registration can be made on the same day of voting, rather than some states require 30 days, and others per state. But in reality, none of these are done. Changes are glacial, if they do happen. But these would all increase a democratic choice. Right now, its a horrendously gamified minority of a minority who decides, based on electoral college results.
    - decremental 8mo ago
      [dead]
    - koolba 8mo ago
      > There are ways to do better. A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times. Sure. But let’s get rid of all early voting and mail in balloting. No excuses right? Throw in voter id too. > We could do like Australia and mandate required voting. I never quite understand why mandatory participation is a meaningful goal. If people are neither informed nor interested, why do you want them to have a say at all? At best they’ll be picking a last name that sounds pronounceable. Or going with whichever first name sounds more (or less!) male. > Prisoners should be able to vote. But this country is too hell-bent on punishment. We already strip them of their freedom of movement. Why do you want everyone up to and including rapists, pedophiles, and murders voting? Is there a particular voting bloc that you think would add value with their point of view? > Registration can be made on the same day of voting, rather than some states require 30 days, and others per state. I’m generally for this though there are a bit of logistics when you’re dealing with preprinted paper ballots and some expectations of processing quantity. Prior registration also addresses people showing up at the wrong polls in advance. > But in reality, none of these are done. Changes are glacial, if they do happen. Not always a bad thing either. If all it took was the stroke of an executive’s pen, you’d see a lot of things I bet you would not be fond of rather soon. > But these would all increase a democratic choice. Right now, its a horrendously gamified minority of a minority who decides, based on electoral college results. The electoral college is a feature. It forces you to win across large and small States.
- rayiner 8mo ago
  Multiple polls have found that if everyone had voted, Trump would have won by even more. https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%20Research%20Retrospective.pdf https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2... https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-election-non-voters-coalition https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec... The average person who doesn’t vote is a low-trust individual who is skeptical about government and institutions. Those people are Trumpier than average.
  - mrguyorama 8mo ago
    I would prefer that reality to our current one.
  - Zak 8mo ago
    I thought I had a decent understanding of the 2024 election; people were unhappy with the status quo, therefore mistrusting the people and institutions they believed responsible for it. Then I saw this and its supporting data in your first link: > Voters saw Harris as more ideologically extreme than Trump ... what?
    - rayiner 8mo ago
      According to Gallup, the record high support for increasing immigration was about 36%. Harris presided over an administration that saw a large increase in immigration. So believe didn’t find it credible when she said she wanted to control the border. And the position of wanting to increase immigration is more ideologically extreme than Trump’s position of wanting to shut down the border to illegal immigration just as a factual matter. The latest Harvard-Harris poll, which isn’t good for Trump, still shows people want to deport all immigrants here illegally by a 52-48 margin: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/HHP_Jan2026_KeyResults.pdf https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/HHP... (page 24). I don’t think even Trump intends to actually do that. He would have to dramatically escalate what he’s doing now in order to achieve that outcome.
monero-xmr 8mo ago
When democracy votes for something you don’t like just call it populism
- decremental 8mo ago
  [dead]
int_19h 8mo ago
[flagged]
- delaminator 8mo ago
  Good job no-one has elected any fascists then
- somenameforme 8mo ago
  I do not think the current government in the US is fascist, but electing fascists would indeed be an exercise in democracy. The entire point of democracy is that it's the will of the people, whether right or wrong. This is precisely why democracy was never seen as a tenable system for millennia. Thinkers of the past always assumed that the people would be incapable of picking the most skilled leaders, and would instead end up picking the most charismatic leaders. This is precisely what Plato's endlessly cited allegory of the Ship of State [1] is about. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State
  - mrguyorama 8mo ago
    Democracy is not "Whoever gets half + 1 vote is king" Winning representatives are still supposed to represent the people who didn't vote for them in fact. Democracy isn't about picking the "best" leader because that's not necessary. "The best" is almost never necessary, and you are much better off building a system that handles regularly not getting the best, because no system reliably picks the best, especially since "The best" is a criteria that cannot be rigorously defined.
    - somenameforme 8mo ago
      You're imposing your own ideological conditions that literally do not exist. It's like a supporter of e.g. imperial systems saying that the emperor is supposed to represent all of society. In society's opinion? Sure, but there is no such condition in reality. Some did, some didn't. The problem with democracy is that we don't get anywhere even remotely near the best. It tends to promote people that are highly charismatic and highly corrupt. The latter trait is not a coincidence, but a part of getting ahead in democracy. Give corporations what they want and your election coffers will be full, refuse and they'll instead fund your opponent and their media will frame you as unelectable, a threat to democracy, or whatever new FUD phrase focus tests best at the time. And that corruption tends to correlate strongly with a complete vacancy of morals or ethics - see: how our entire political class, globally, flocked to pedo island like flies to shit.
watwut 8mo ago
It is not democracy anymore. It is authoritarian regime dismantling the democracy.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  67% of people didn't vote against it.
  - JKCalhoun 8mo ago
    A half-empty kind of guy!