5 ms·

The people decided that this sucks and have spoken. Dear god, make America stupid again!

by andix 5mo ago

busterarm 5mo ago
So you're suggesting our systems should be less democratic, then? Maybe opposing points of view should pick better candidates that will actually win elections. That's how it works, right?
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > you're suggesting our systems should be less democratic I’ll take the bait. I think we need less electoral fetishisation. Our republic is woefully deficient on selection by lot, something which would seem to benefit e.g. our judiciary. > opposing points of view should pick better candidates Totally agree. But the primary-by-election system demonstrates, in a microcosm, why defaulting to electing everything isn’t a good strategy.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  > So you're suggesting our systems should be less democratic, then? Well, what should a democratic society do when that democracy votes to overthrow it and do fascism?
  - SiempreViernes 5mo ago
    Probably accept it wasn't actually a fair system and put in some proper legislation about district drawing algorithms, voting access, and campaign financing. You also have to take a good luck at the unelected legislative power of the supreme court, those clowns aren't doing democracy any favours.
  - loeg 5mo ago
    No one voted to "overthrow" democracy and do "fascism," cut the hyperbole.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      Stop freaking out at thought experiments. I'm asking what should happen in such a scenario. Should a democratic society be able to vote to nuke their least favorite city? Should they be able to vote for slavery? Should they be able to vote to legalize raping kids? What should a democratic populace not be able to inflict upon the less powerful segments of society?
      - loeg 5mo ago
        To clarify, you agree that the Trump admin / MAGA political movement isn't fascism and his election wasn't an overthrow of democracy? Your earlier remarks were just a thought experiment? That isn't really the sense I've gotten from your historical comments.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        I don't agree; it's simply irrelevant here. We either accept "there are some things you shouldn't be able to democratically vote for" like, say, the Holocaust or reinstating slavery, or we do not. You added Trump to the conversation, not me.
        just_some_guy_2 5mo ago
        Isn't that basically what a constitution is for? A constitutional monarchy limits the power of the king, and a constitutional democracy limits the power of the elected government?
        ryoshoe 5mo ago
        The constitution isn't static. Amendments can be repealed. An elected government could appoint judges to overturn any previous precedents
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > No one voted to "overthrow" democracy and do "fascism," Most Trump voters didn't. A sizeable fraction have openly agitated for, and supported, violently overthrowing our elected government.
- seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
  Maybe it’s time to split the country? We are so polarized with very different visions about the future and what is needed to reach and increase prosperity. Let Mississippi be Mississippi with Texas and Florida, let California find its own way with New York and Washington. Democracy is fine, but we are just too divided and either side thinks the other side is dragging all of us down, and refuse to believe it’s because of their own policies.
  - r2_pilot 5mo ago
    Don't consign us here in Mississippi, voting in every election, to not be represented in a democratic society. It's hard enough living here without getting dogpiled by external people who never visit and think that just because our "representatives" are a certain way that everyone here is like them, instead of the messier reality that power structures here are misaligned with the actual population's collective will.
    - seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
      I lived in Texas, Mississippi, Florida before, so I’m unsure what you mean by not visiting. I didn’t list a state that I hadn’t lived in for at least 3 months. Unfortunately that was 5 years in Mississippi. Regardless what would you have us do? More autonomy for states? You can’t go out alone, and we have a nice red-blue state now to base a division on.
      - greenie_beans 5mo ago
        no, they are saying that by discarding mississippi, you are ignoring like 45%+ of the state that didn't vote for whatever politician you hate. and also you are ignoring the centuries of disenfranchisement that prevents more people from voting against whatever politician you hate. it's not a monolith. mississsippi is the blackest state in the union yet coastal liberals who are supposedly anti-racist are quick to throw out the state.
        cucumber3732842 5mo ago
- unethical_ban 5mo ago
  This is trolling, or a glaring false dichotomy, or choosing not to recognize reality, or all three. Complaining about the outcome of an election is not equivalent to advocating for non-democracy. Much of what the US executive has done to intimidate foreign residents is illegal if not anti-American, such as revoking visas for writing op-eds in a student newspaper that the political leadership dislikes. The gutting of funding at various universities was also done as political punishment. So, I'm not sure what your point was.
- coryrc 5mo ago
  Our systems need to be MORE democratic! First Pass The Post is democratic, but the worst way of it. In most districts, 40-49% of voters are disenfranchised by gerrymandering. Mixed Member Proportional is far more representative. If you assume certain minority groups vote as a bloc, then you can't gerrymander them away like our current system does. The proportion of people not getting representation is capped by 1/number_of_reps. The whole "republicans in Senate stop the government from doing anything" needs to end. Parliamentary systems means the legislative body and head of state agree to work together. Our system means deadlock most of the time. Finally, "senior members" of the parties in both houses are the only ones who decide what bills can be voted on. That's not democratic. Every member should be able to bring at least some bills up for an up-or-down vote. Make them vote down "healthcare for veterans" instead of killing it in committee or amending it to add "only if you strip women of bodily autonomy".
  - busterarm 5mo ago
    We're (at least) 10 years into this mess now and still everyone is focused on restructuring our systems and prosecutions instead of putting forward a platform that broadly appeals to enough Americans to decisively win elections. What I said applies to both parties. We're not really all that different but all the incentives align towards pleasing extremists. Do you really need any more evidence of this than people getting shot and people/press generally being okay with it? Anything you build can be exploited against you when you're on the other side of the power balance. The solution is truly moving politics to the center.
    - CamperBob2 5mo ago
      Do you really need any more evidence of this than people getting shot and people/press generally being okay with it? Democrats who push gun control at the cost of everything else -- such as the possibility of turning Texas blue -- are a big reason why the party lacks power to influence anything else.
      - coryrc 5mo ago
        It's First Pass the Post that causes that. We have maybe 30% is the population that wants guns highly restricted and a different 30% that wants abortions highly restricted. We have something like 52% that want Medicare4All. But we just seesaw between gun grabber and pussy grabber because those M4A aren't the majority of either party primary. MMP means the person running on M4A gets ranked in the middle by everybody, which is enough for a seat.
- nkoren 5mo ago
  There are many ways that America could be more democratic, and simultaneously produce less stupid results: 1. Eliminate / work around the electoral college system, which makes it so that people in the most diverse, educated, and economically-productive parts of the country have dramatically less voting power than a small minority of people who live in more homogeneous, less educated, and less economically-productive areas. This would significantly change the messaging needed to win. 2. Eliminate first-pass-the-post voting, which encourage candidates with extreme views, eliminate anything other than (largely false) political binaries, make it possible to win elections while receiving a minority of the votes, and make it so that the only viable strategy is to vote for the lesser evil rather than somebody you actually want. 3. Get the money out of politics. Make untraceably-funded super-PACs illegal. 4. Gerrymandering should be super fucking illegal. Other places do this. They're more democratic than the US, and while they still frequently elect stupid politicians, none of those are as bottom-of-the-barrel as what the US is able to scrape together.
  - rangestransform 5mo ago
    re:2, proportional representation systems oftentimes have more extremist parties elected, they’re just severely kneecapped by not having enough votes to do anything extremist
    - busterarm 5mo ago
      Except that they can hold your coalition government hostage by making you concede on their pet issue or leave the coalition and force an election.
- andix 5mo ago
  I'm just stating an observation.
- nukedindia 5mo ago
  [dead]
- rexpop 5mo ago
  Are you trolling? Elections are won by spending, especially since Citizens United. Democracy has not survived oligarchical propaganda.

The people decided that this sucks and have spoken. Dear god, make America stupid again!

by andix 5mo ago

The people decided that this sucks and have spoken. Dear god, make America stupid again!

So you're suggesting our systems should be less democratic, then? Maybe opposing points of view should pick better candidates that will actually win elections. That's how it works, right?

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> you're suggesting our systems should be less democratic I’ll take the bait. I think we need less electoral fetishisation. Our republic is woefully deficient on selection by lot, something which would seem to benefit e.g. our judiciary. > opposing points of view should pick better candidates Totally agree. But the primary-by-election system demonstrates, in a microcosm, why defaulting to electing everything isn’t a good strategy.
ceejayoz 5mo ago
> So you're suggesting our systems should be less democratic, then? Well, what should a democratic society do when that democracy votes to overthrow it and do fascism?
- SiempreViernes 5mo ago
  Probably accept it wasn't actually a fair system and put in some proper legislation about district drawing algorithms, voting access, and campaign financing. You also have to take a good luck at the unelected legislative power of the supreme court, those clowns aren't doing democracy any favours.
- loeg 5mo ago
  No one voted to "overthrow" democracy and do "fascism," cut the hyperbole.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    Stop freaking out at thought experiments. I'm asking what should happen in such a scenario. Should a democratic society be able to vote to nuke their least favorite city? Should they be able to vote for slavery? Should they be able to vote to legalize raping kids? What should a democratic populace not be able to inflict upon the less powerful segments of society?
    - loeg 5mo ago
      To clarify, you agree that the Trump admin / MAGA political movement isn't fascism and his election wasn't an overthrow of democracy? Your earlier remarks were just a thought experiment? That isn't really the sense I've gotten from your historical comments.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        I don't agree; it's simply irrelevant here. We either accept "there are some things you shouldn't be able to democratically vote for" like, say, the Holocaust or reinstating slavery, or we do not. You added Trump to the conversation, not me.
        just_some_guy_2 5mo ago
        Isn't that basically what a constitution is for? A constitutional monarchy limits the power of the king, and a constitutional democracy limits the power of the elected government?
        ryoshoe 5mo ago
        The constitution isn't static. Amendments can be repealed. An elected government could appoint judges to overturn any previous precedents
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > No one voted to "overthrow" democracy and do "fascism," Most Trump voters didn't. A sizeable fraction have openly agitated for, and supported, violently overthrowing our elected government.
seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
Maybe it’s time to split the country? We are so polarized with very different visions about the future and what is needed to reach and increase prosperity. Let Mississippi be Mississippi with Texas and Florida, let California find its own way with New York and Washington. Democracy is fine, but we are just too divided and either side thinks the other side is dragging all of us down, and refuse to believe it’s because of their own policies.
- r2_pilot 5mo ago
  Don't consign us here in Mississippi, voting in every election, to not be represented in a democratic society. It's hard enough living here without getting dogpiled by external people who never visit and think that just because our "representatives" are a certain way that everyone here is like them, instead of the messier reality that power structures here are misaligned with the actual population's collective will.
  - seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
    I lived in Texas, Mississippi, Florida before, so I’m unsure what you mean by not visiting. I didn’t list a state that I hadn’t lived in for at least 3 months. Unfortunately that was 5 years in Mississippi. Regardless what would you have us do? More autonomy for states? You can’t go out alone, and we have a nice red-blue state now to base a division on.
    - greenie_beans 5mo ago
      no, they are saying that by discarding mississippi, you are ignoring like 45%+ of the state that didn't vote for whatever politician you hate. and also you are ignoring the centuries of disenfranchisement that prevents more people from voting against whatever politician you hate. it's not a monolith. mississsippi is the blackest state in the union yet coastal liberals who are supposedly anti-racist are quick to throw out the state.
      - cucumber3732842 5mo ago
unethical_ban 5mo ago
This is trolling, or a glaring false dichotomy, or choosing not to recognize reality, or all three. Complaining about the outcome of an election is not equivalent to advocating for non-democracy. Much of what the US executive has done to intimidate foreign residents is illegal if not anti-American, such as revoking visas for writing op-eds in a student newspaper that the political leadership dislikes. The gutting of funding at various universities was also done as political punishment. So, I'm not sure what your point was.
coryrc 5mo ago
Our systems need to be MORE democratic! First Pass The Post is democratic, but the worst way of it. In most districts, 40-49% of voters are disenfranchised by gerrymandering. Mixed Member Proportional is far more representative. If you assume certain minority groups vote as a bloc, then you can't gerrymander them away like our current system does. The proportion of people not getting representation is capped by 1/number_of_reps. The whole "republicans in Senate stop the government from doing anything" needs to end. Parliamentary systems means the legislative body and head of state agree to work together. Our system means deadlock most of the time. Finally, "senior members" of the parties in both houses are the only ones who decide what bills can be voted on. That's not democratic. Every member should be able to bring at least some bills up for an up-or-down vote. Make them vote down "healthcare for veterans" instead of killing it in committee or amending it to add "only if you strip women of bodily autonomy".
- busterarm 5mo ago
  We're (at least) 10 years into this mess now and still everyone is focused on restructuring our systems and prosecutions instead of putting forward a platform that broadly appeals to enough Americans to decisively win elections. What I said applies to both parties. We're not really all that different but all the incentives align towards pleasing extremists. Do you really need any more evidence of this than people getting shot and people/press generally being okay with it? Anything you build can be exploited against you when you're on the other side of the power balance. The solution is truly moving politics to the center.
  - CamperBob2 5mo ago
    Do you really need any more evidence of this than people getting shot and people/press generally being okay with it? Democrats who push gun control at the cost of everything else -- such as the possibility of turning Texas blue -- are a big reason why the party lacks power to influence anything else.
    - coryrc 5mo ago
      It's First Pass the Post that causes that. We have maybe 30% is the population that wants guns highly restricted and a different 30% that wants abortions highly restricted. We have something like 52% that want Medicare4All. But we just seesaw between gun grabber and pussy grabber because those M4A aren't the majority of either party primary. MMP means the person running on M4A gets ranked in the middle by everybody, which is enough for a seat.
nkoren 5mo ago
There are many ways that America could be more democratic, and simultaneously produce less stupid results: 1. Eliminate / work around the electoral college system, which makes it so that people in the most diverse, educated, and economically-productive parts of the country have dramatically less voting power than a small minority of people who live in more homogeneous, less educated, and less economically-productive areas. This would significantly change the messaging needed to win. 2. Eliminate first-pass-the-post voting, which encourage candidates with extreme views, eliminate anything other than (largely false) political binaries, make it possible to win elections while receiving a minority of the votes, and make it so that the only viable strategy is to vote for the lesser evil rather than somebody you actually want. 3. Get the money out of politics. Make untraceably-funded super-PACs illegal. 4. Gerrymandering should be super fucking illegal. Other places do this. They're more democratic than the US, and while they still frequently elect stupid politicians, none of those are as bottom-of-the-barrel as what the US is able to scrape together.
- rangestransform 5mo ago
  re:2, proportional representation systems oftentimes have more extremist parties elected, they’re just severely kneecapped by not having enough votes to do anything extremist
  - busterarm 5mo ago
    Except that they can hold your coalition government hostage by making you concede on their pet issue or leave the coalition and force an election.
andix 5mo ago
I'm just stating an observation.
nukedindia 5mo ago
[dead]
rexpop 5mo ago
Are you trolling? Elections are won by spending, especially since Citizens United. Democracy has not survived oligarchical propaganda.