6 ms·

It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments. Iran has an unelected supreme leader. Israel has a large portion of its pop

by scoofy 8mo ago

It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments. Iran has an unelected supreme leader. Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised. The US has a generally democratically elected government. If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.

robin_reala 8mo ago
The US is at “flawed democracy” in the Economist Democracy Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
- edgyquant 8mo ago
  The US is a republic with some democratic institutions, but the economists index isn’t some platonic indicator that gets to define who’s a good government and who isn’t. Several of its higher ranking countries have outright banned extremely popular political parties in recent years.
  - tovej 8mo ago
    Care to tell us what the politics of those parties were? Because a functioning democracy would ban a nazi party.
- nebula8804 8mo ago
  So is France.
  - seszett 8mo ago
    And both have a similarly executive-centric form of government where the president and the majority party hold a disproportionate amount of power. Although the US is even worse than France on this regard as far as I know. I think it makes sense that both are categorised as flawed.
- groundzeros2015 8mo ago
  democracy is a lower form of government in the ancient world
  - Andrex 8mo ago
    I wonder who those critics were and what they were motivated by. (Rhetorical)
    - groundzeros2015 8mo ago
      If you want to talk about rhetoric look at the idea of a “democracy index” - a score suggesting a scientific approach for determining how good/free a nation is. We can play the “whose saying it game”, or look at the arguments. Democracy is rule by the lowest - and it’s easily manipulated by the popular. Buying votes, focus on the carnal, and immediate is a clear sign of democracy in decline.
      - Andrex 8mo ago
        I was more wondering about these emperors, kings, barbarians, and those in their influence who were casting aspersions at Athens. Why are we giving these historically incorrect people the time of day?
        groundzeros2015 8mo ago
        Once again, looking at incentives can help you find hidden motivations. But at some point you have to look at the arguments at see if they make sense or not. The US founders didn’t believe in democracy. More people do today, mostly out of a sense that it’s moral obligation. Very few actually will argue it leads to better government outcomes.
- refurb 8mo ago
  I wouldn’t assume some any index from a magazine is the end all authority on what a nation state is. I mean I can start my own magazine and create my own index however I want. Doesn’t mean it’s right.
  - hedayet 8mo ago
    I guess if your magazine's index reaches the height to have its wikipedia page, then, although it might not be right, but it will be pretty credible.
    - refurb 8mo ago
      Anyone can have a Wikipedia page? There is no hurdle.
shykes 8mo ago
> Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised. Care to elaborate? As far as I know, this is false. All Israeli citizens 18 or older can vote; there are no voting restrictions based on race, religion, gender or property; prisoners can vote (unlike in many US states for example); permanent residents who are not citizens cannot vote in national elections but may vote in municipal elections (not the case in the US). National turnout ranges between 65% and 75%. Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens vote and have representation in the Knesset. I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct.
- scoofy 8mo ago
  Very obviously, I’m referring to the Palestinians in the “Palestinian Territories” being de facto governed by Israel and are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
  - shykes 8mo ago
    There is nothing obvious about that statement. In fact it's catastrophically wrong. Palestinians in Gaza have been governed by Hamas since 2006. Before that, they had been governed by the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) since 1994. Palestinians in Judea and Samaria ("West bank") have been governed by the Palestinian Authority continuously since 1994, with the exception of Area C. Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed" by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority; receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools, hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict between them.
    - squibonpig 8mo ago
      The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections. You said "no, they're able to, uhh, not vote in the case of those under Hamas and they're able to vote in elections held by the Palestinian authority in the case of those in the west bank." I don't know a ton about this, but I don't believe the Palestinian authority elections are the same as the Israeli elections. As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.
diordiderot 8mo ago
> Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised. Does it?
- runako 8mo ago
  Consider the meanings of the following words: - sovereignty - border - population In that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.
- scoofy 8mo ago
  The Israeli government has de facto control of large sections of the Palestinian Territories. The people in those territories, however cannot participate in the elections of that government. The distinction being de jure and de facto control is something worth debating, but it’s trivially true that Israel controls large swaths of territory where people are not eligible to participate in that government.
  - bbshfishe 8mo ago
    Prior to October 7th this is simply not true.
    - scoofy 8mo ago
      It is very obviously true. Literally movement in the West Bank is controlled.
throw0101c 8mo ago
> It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments. Just ask the folks who tried on January 6. > The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds. Assuming elections are held fairly. "Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency": * https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/26/trump-elections-executive-order-activists/ https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2...
chinathrow 8mo ago
You still believe the US regimes will allow elections as the they know it?
pedalpete 8mo ago
For democratically elected governments, doesn't regime change occur when any sitting politician loses the next election to their oponent? In my thinking regime change doesn't only refer to the complete collapse of the political system, just change in direction of the leaders.
- scoofy 8mo ago
  If the legislature changes party, that party —-“the regime” if we can use that term—- will be unseated from power.
austin-cheney 8mo ago
The US and Israel are elected governments, but that should certainly not presuppose democratic. The Roman Republic was, for example, fully elected but simultaneously it was intentionally autocratic to the elite. That is why it fell to a dictatorship which then increased the liberty and standards of the people. Democracy is the directness by which social participation equates to governance. The US is a federal republic with only two parties each bound by the same hostile funding system that benefits political contributions over the vote. That is far from democratic.
- scoofy 8mo ago
  Democracy and Republic both mean “normal people are in charge of government” and are in opposition to monarchy. The distinction you are referring to was a contrived interpretation in the federalist papers to make a point.
  - austin-cheney 8mo ago
    No. Democracy and republic are fundamentally different. You want to equivocate them because there is a vote. They have always been different going back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans who each invented those terms.
kgwxd 8mo ago
> if polling holds. And The Constitution.
petre 8mo ago
> Iran has an unelected supreme leader Had. Israel probably has a list with the next 3 or 4 in line to replace Khamenei and is currently working towards eliminating them, like they did with the Hezbollah. Regime change could also be triggered through impeachment or PM losing support and government coalition getting dissolved in the case of Israel.

by scoofy 8mo ago

robin_reala 8mo ago

The US is at “flawed democracy” in the Economist Democracy Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

edgyquant 8mo ago
The US is a republic with some democratic institutions, but the economists index isn’t some platonic indicator that gets to define who’s a good government and who isn’t. Several of its higher ranking countries have outright banned extremely popular political parties in recent years.
- tovej 8mo ago
  Care to tell us what the politics of those parties were? Because a functioning democracy would ban a nazi party.
nebula8804 8mo ago
So is France.
- seszett 8mo ago
  And both have a similarly executive-centric form of government where the president and the majority party hold a disproportionate amount of power. Although the US is even worse than France on this regard as far as I know. I think it makes sense that both are categorised as flawed.
groundzeros2015 8mo ago
democracy is a lower form of government in the ancient world
- Andrex 8mo ago
  I wonder who those critics were and what they were motivated by. (Rhetorical)
  - groundzeros2015 8mo ago
    If you want to talk about rhetoric look at the idea of a “democracy index” - a score suggesting a scientific approach for determining how good/free a nation is. We can play the “whose saying it game”, or look at the arguments. Democracy is rule by the lowest - and it’s easily manipulated by the popular. Buying votes, focus on the carnal, and immediate is a clear sign of democracy in decline.
    - Andrex 8mo ago
      I was more wondering about these emperors, kings, barbarians, and those in their influence who were casting aspersions at Athens. Why are we giving these historically incorrect people the time of day?
      - groundzeros2015 8mo ago
        Once again, looking at incentives can help you find hidden motivations. But at some point you have to look at the arguments at see if they make sense or not. The US founders didn’t believe in democracy. More people do today, mostly out of a sense that it’s moral obligation. Very few actually will argue it leads to better government outcomes.
refurb 8mo ago
I wouldn’t assume some any index from a magazine is the end all authority on what a nation state is. I mean I can start my own magazine and create my own index however I want. Doesn’t mean it’s right.
- hedayet 8mo ago
  I guess if your magazine's index reaches the height to have its wikipedia page, then, although it might not be right, but it will be pretty credible.
  - refurb 8mo ago
    Anyone can have a Wikipedia page? There is no hurdle.

shykes 8mo ago

> Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised. Care to elaborate? As far as I know, this is false. All Israeli citizens 18 or older can vote; there are no voting restrictions based on race, religion, gender or property; prisoners can vote (unlike in many US states for example); permanent residents who are not citizens cannot vote in national elections but may vote in municipal elections (not the case in the US). National turnout ranges between 65% and 75%. Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens vote and have representation in the Knesset. I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct.

scoofy 8mo ago
Very obviously, I’m referring to the Palestinians in the “Palestinian Territories” being de facto governed by Israel and are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
- shykes 8mo ago
  There is nothing obvious about that statement. In fact it's catastrophically wrong. Palestinians in Gaza have been governed by Hamas since 2006. Before that, they had been governed by the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) since 1994. Palestinians in Judea and Samaria ("West bank") have been governed by the Palestinian Authority continuously since 1994, with the exception of Area C. Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed" by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority; receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools, hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict between them.
  - squibonpig 8mo ago
    The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections. You said "no, they're able to, uhh, not vote in the case of those under Hamas and they're able to vote in elections held by the Palestinian authority in the case of those in the west bank." I don't know a ton about this, but I don't believe the Palestinian authority elections are the same as the Israeli elections. As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.

diordiderot 8mo ago

> Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised. Does it?

runako 8mo ago
Consider the meanings of the following words: - sovereignty - border - population In that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.
scoofy 8mo ago
The Israeli government has de facto control of large sections of the Palestinian Territories. The people in those territories, however cannot participate in the elections of that government. The distinction being de jure and de facto control is something worth debating, but it’s trivially true that Israel controls large swaths of territory where people are not eligible to participate in that government.
- bbshfishe 8mo ago
  Prior to October 7th this is simply not true.
  - scoofy 8mo ago
    It is very obviously true. Literally movement in the West Bank is controlled.

throw0101c 8mo ago

> It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments. Just ask the folks who tried on January 6. > The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds. Assuming elections are held fairly. "Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency": * https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/26/trump-elections-executive-order-activists/ https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2...

chinathrow 8mo ago

You still believe the US regimes will allow elections as the they know it?

pedalpete 8mo ago

For democratically elected governments, doesn't regime change occur when any sitting politician loses the next election to their oponent? In my thinking regime change doesn't only refer to the complete collapse of the political system, just change in direction of the leaders.

scoofy 8mo ago
If the legislature changes party, that party —-“the regime” if we can use that term—- will be unseated from power.

austin-cheney 8mo ago

The US and Israel are elected governments, but that should certainly not presuppose democratic. The Roman Republic was, for example, fully elected but simultaneously it was intentionally autocratic to the elite. That is why it fell to a dictatorship which then increased the liberty and standards of the people. Democracy is the directness by which social participation equates to governance. The US is a federal republic with only two parties each bound by the same hostile funding system that benefits political contributions over the vote. That is far from democratic.

scoofy 8mo ago
Democracy and Republic both mean “normal people are in charge of government” and are in opposition to monarchy. The distinction you are referring to was a contrived interpretation in the federalist papers to make a point.
- austin-cheney 8mo ago
  No. Democracy and republic are fundamentally different. You want to equivocate them because there is a vote. They have always been different going back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans who each invented those terms.

kgwxd 8mo ago

> if polling holds. And The Constitution.

petre 8mo ago

> Iran has an unelected supreme leader Had. Israel probably has a list with the next 3 or 4 in line to replace Khamenei and is currently working towards eliminating them, like they did with the Hezbollah. Regime change could also be triggered through impeachment or PM losing support and government coalition getting dissolved in the case of Israel.