5 ms·

>The U.S. is getting scarier by the day, folks. It really is. The facade of democracy is very quickly being peeled back to reveal something utterly terrifying.

by borgia 12y ago

>The U.S. is getting scarier by the day, folks. It really is. The facade of democracy is very quickly being peeled back to reveal something utterly terrifying. The response from the people has been the most disappointing and depressing thing though. The random sampling in NYC, of all places in the US, by Oliver's show was a brutal reminder of the mindset of the average person there.

hueving 12y ago
>The facade of democracy >The response from the people has been the most disappointing Which one is it? Is it that democracy has failed, or is it that the majority don't care about this particular topic?
- herbig 12y ago
  These two things are not mutually exclusive.
- ryan_j_naughton 12y ago
  You are supposing that they are separate/independent failings when in reality they are linked. The way the government and the media demonized Snowden and fed the public misinformation was designed to get people to not care about this issue. By attacking Snowden and misrepresenting the facts (such as congressmen claiming he was certainly working for foreign intelligence agencies), they muddied the waters and left people confused and consequently apathetic.
Someone1234 12y ago
Ignoring the republic/democratic state distinction, the US's democratic status has always been weak due to FPTP (ditto with the UK). It is essentially a system designed to keep the majority from even running and to keep the minority opinion silent. If the US (or UK) cared at all about democracy like they always claim they'd move to something better (e.g. Open list, party list, full on proportional representation, or a number of other alternatives). Heck even run off voting (i.e. multiple votes) in FPTP is superior like the Alternative Vote. But instead we have FPTP, and why? So we have this revolving door of "sameness" and monied politicians. Essentially bribery and corruption exist in the West, they're just completely legal and out in the open. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_cou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_repres... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  FPTP = First Past The Post, for people whose first language isn't English. Took me a bit to figure out :)
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Also for people whose first language is English.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for?
  - borgia 12y ago
    >The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for? Yes. People should be free to elect whoever they want to represent them. I'm not a National Front supporter, but they clearly have support and why should they be withheld from running in a free election simply because others dislike their campaign platform? The idea of "Only X parties that conform to Y beliefs should be able to run/hold government" is a very dangerous one. I would rather see a world full of governments made up of mixed up groups of representatives than that which the US currently has - two sides of the same coin being flipped every 4 years with a very small number of families establishing themselves as political dynasties. There's ~350m people in the US. There is no way the diversity of views in that 350m people is represented in the two parties that hold power there. Similarly, there are 350m people and yet those who hold the office of President are, and have been for decades, close relatives of former Presidents. 2016 is just around the corner and it's looking like the US may well have another Clinton or Bush in office. How the hell is that right? A nation's power structure should be free to change as the people want it to. The government is supposed to represent and serve the people, not the other way around. We're seeing former outlying political entities in Europe experiencing a large increase in support - UKIP in the UK, Syriza in Greece, Sinn Fein in Ireland, the separatists in Spain, etc. - because a hell of a lot of people feel the ruling entities there are no longer representing the people and are demanding change. That is something that should be welcomed and embraced. A nation should be free to make its own choices and deal with the consequences, not be shackled to approved political ideologies.
trendroid 12y ago
Not sure why HNers were so disappointed with people's response to Snowden in NYC. Isn't it easily possible that out of 200 people they questioned, only 10 didn't know about him but they of course edited out 190? That's how these comedy news shows work.

by borgia 12y ago

hueving 12y ago

>The facade of democracy >The response from the people has been the most disappointing Which one is it? Is it that democracy has failed, or is it that the majority don't care about this particular topic?

herbig 12y ago
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
ryan_j_naughton 12y ago
You are supposing that they are separate/independent failings when in reality they are linked. The way the government and the media demonized Snowden and fed the public misinformation was designed to get people to not care about this issue. By attacking Snowden and misrepresenting the facts (such as congressmen claiming he was certainly working for foreign intelligence agencies), they muddied the waters and left people confused and consequently apathetic.

Someone1234 12y ago

Ignoring the republic/democratic state distinction, the US's democratic status has always been weak due to FPTP (ditto with the UK). It is essentially a system designed to keep the majority from even running and to keep the minority opinion silent. If the US (or UK) cared at all about democracy like they always claim they'd move to something better (e.g. Open list, party list, full on proportional representation, or a number of other alternatives). Heck even run off voting (i.e. multiple votes) in FPTP is superior like the Alternative Vote. But instead we have FPTP, and why? So we have this revolving door of "sameness" and monied politicians. Essentially bribery and corruption exist in the West, they're just completely legal and out in the open. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_cou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_repres... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

spiritplumber 12y ago
FPTP = First Past The Post, for people whose first language isn't English. Took me a bit to figure out :)
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Also for people whose first language is English.
happyscrappy 12y ago
The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for?
- borgia 12y ago
  >The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for? Yes. People should be free to elect whoever they want to represent them. I'm not a National Front supporter, but they clearly have support and why should they be withheld from running in a free election simply because others dislike their campaign platform? The idea of "Only X parties that conform to Y beliefs should be able to run/hold government" is a very dangerous one. I would rather see a world full of governments made up of mixed up groups of representatives than that which the US currently has - two sides of the same coin being flipped every 4 years with a very small number of families establishing themselves as political dynasties. There's ~350m people in the US. There is no way the diversity of views in that 350m people is represented in the two parties that hold power there. Similarly, there are 350m people and yet those who hold the office of President are, and have been for decades, close relatives of former Presidents. 2016 is just around the corner and it's looking like the US may well have another Clinton or Bush in office. How the hell is that right? A nation's power structure should be free to change as the people want it to. The government is supposed to represent and serve the people, not the other way around. We're seeing former outlying political entities in Europe experiencing a large increase in support - UKIP in the UK, Syriza in Greece, Sinn Fein in Ireland, the separatists in Spain, etc. - because a hell of a lot of people feel the ruling entities there are no longer representing the people and are demanding change. That is something that should be welcomed and embraced. A nation should be free to make its own choices and deal with the consequences, not be shackled to approved political ideologies.

trendroid 12y ago

Not sure why HNers were so disappointed with people's response to Snowden in NYC. Isn't it easily possible that out of 200 people they questioned, only 10 didn't know about him but they of course edited out 190? That's how these comedy news shows work.