[RD] The threat to American Democracy

[Takhisis]

This is exactly what happened to unleash Trump on us. Everybody thought he was a joke candidate and had a grand old time mocking him and kept giving the fire all the air it needed to stay relevant and by the time people started realizing that the threat was real, it was too late. FWIW, I suspect that the results we got in the last election were not that different from what we would have gotten if the "push the MAGA candidates so we can beat them more easily" strategy wasn't used at all. Democrats kind of have a tendency to think that they are more clever than they actually are, and often ultimately end up outsmarting themselves. The 2016 election was a perfect example.

Yes, but in the time of Trump it wasn't so much an active, co-ordinated effort as people simply jollying him along and getting him on every platform to get higher ratings, clicks, and reposts.

On the side of his opposition, I mean.

On the side of the RNC there were gazillionaires like the FOX group donating hours of daily airtime to the Trump campaign, but it could've been kept as a niche thing instead of amplifying him or uncritically reporting his bombastic lies.
People who said that black people ought to go back to the plantations to pick cotton should have been taken not as neutral fanciful political commentary but as the retrograde aberration that it is. The same for those swastika-wielding goose-steppers and the cross-burners in pointed hats.

But it wasn't.

 

[Joij21]

So your proposal is basically surrender.
Since those who attempt to overthrow democracy are making significant inroads then we might just as well hand over power to them and somehow trust that they might altruistically decide to uplift us and share their wealth with them, I mean, with us. Right?

Significant inroads? Hate to break it to you but unfortunately all the so called "democracies" in this world have always been secret society run republics. Never been a true democracy, all an illusion.

The education system by which you were taught "we are a democracy" is part of their "selection process" whereby they determine who is worthy of entering into their elitist class as a patrician (or get weeded out into corporate as a plebian pretending to be a patrician (or fail/not go to college and become a true pleb)).

"republic" just means there isn't a monarchy my dude

I was told it is a system of representation where as democracy is direct.

i'm not sure that's true, it's not clear to me that any government is particularly stable long-term, and democratic republics have made decent showings in terms of how long they last before decadence/serious problems crop up, relative to alternatives.

The democratic republics are stable because they are run by Free Masons, Rosacrucions, Illuminati, Theosophists, or any combination of the aforementioned in a sort of "balance of power" agreement. Supported by the muscle of various mafias of course!

 

[Arwon]

I was told it is a system of representation where as democracy is direct.

I dunno where this came from, but it's just a really weird US folk saying.

Republics don't have monarchies, that is the only common and essential feature. North Korea, Switzerland, Russia, Germany and Mexico are all republics. Some are more democratic than others.

Australia, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, Thailand and Jordan are all monarchies, again that's about all they have in common. Some democracies, some not.

Some federal systems (what Americans sometimes mean when they talk about indirect representation) are republics, like the US or Russia or Brazil. Some federal systems are monarchies, like Canada, Belgium and the United Arab Emirates. Again, doesn't necessarily mean they are or aren't democratic.

 

[Joij21]

Some federal systems (what Americans sometimes mean when they talk about indirect representation) are republics, like the US or Russia or Brazil. Some federal systems are monarchies, like Canada, Belgium and the United Arab Emirates. Again, doesn't necessarily mean they are or aren't democratic.

This part makes no sense because you can technically have a highly centralized nation like France that is not a federation and yet they still have representatives that vote and craft legislation separate from the people being allowed to do so directly.

 

[Arwon]

Lol that is... literally all countries my man.

The only place I'm aware of where the main legislative body is the whole citizenry, rather than elected representatives, is a couple of the smaller cantons of Switzerland.

 

[Joij21]

Lol that is... literally all countries my man.

The only place I'm aware of where the main legislative body is the whole citizenry, rather than elected representatives, is a few of the smaller cantons of Switzerland.

Which is what we here in the United States would call the only true democracy on the planet.

 

[Arwon]

Again, that's a weird folk belief that mostly just seems designed to justify the ongoing existence of various anti democratic features of the US system

 

[Joij21]

Again, that's a weird folk belief that mostly just seems designed to justify the ongoing existence of various anti democratic features of the US system

Yeah IDK but the alternative is also a folk belief.

Can you define democracy, do you know the Greek origins of the word to have it truly defined once and for all?

 

[Arwon]

I'm pretty comfortable with it being free, fair and meaningful elections based on universal adult suffrage, the full range of civic and political liberties, along with functional judiciaries and media. This isn't really super complicated to be honest, unless you're of a bent to peddle obfuscating talking points in defence of the worst features of the US political system as they continue to help prop up rich white male interests in increasingly counter-majoritarian ways.

 

[Joij21]

defence of the worst features of the US political system as they continue to help prop up rich white male interests

And Australia doesn't have any of these problems?

 

[Narz]

What the exactly are rich white male interests? As opposed to rich Persian Jew interests or rich Asian interests?

Do rich people spend lots of time looking at things thru a racial lens?

 

[Remorseless1]

Which is what we here in the United States would call the only true democracy on the planet.

Maybe in the white militia regions. Most Americans understand that a country with 330 million citizens and a complex industrial-technical economy can't work as a direct democracy.

 

[Arwon]

And Australia doesn't have any of these problems?

It lacks pretty much every key anti majoritarian measure seen in the US.

It doesn't have any of the numerous forms of voter suppression that plague US elections, things like inconsistent and difficult enrollment rules and roll purges and the routine employment of court cases to try to declare enemy votes invalid. It doesn't have deliberately sparse polling places in urban and minority districts, which result in non-white voters facing on average double the queue waiting time, and drives down participation rates. Elections aren't held on a workday. It doesn't have the same barriers to absentee and early voting, and has much fuller usage of provisional ballots than many parts of the US.

It doesn't have the felony disenfranchisement rules which combine with racist policing to be something that actually tilts electorates (Australia does have super racist policing like the US does tho, don't over-interpret me there).

It doesn't have gerrymandering. Residents of territories have the vote and elect members in both houses. It does not have first past the post voting, and has a proportional representation upper house. Has easy ballot access for minor parties and no state mandated primary system controlling how parties choose candidates.

In short, while Australian politics aren't great, it doesn't have the US' array of electoral system defects and perversions. Most comparable countries don't - the US electoral system is an outlier in many ways.

What the exactly are rich white male interests? As opposed to rich Persian Jew interests or rich Asian interests?

Do rich people spend lots of time looking at things thru a racial lens?

Their key interest is electing more people from the United States Republican Party, to have more power than would otherwise occur in a fully fair and normal democratic electoral system. It's become something of an ethnic interests party for white Americans and for their ongoing hegemony, especially for the men.

To be very specific and explicit about the sum total of the impact of the anti majoritarian tilt, in many of the key US states where national elections are close, any Republican victory by less than maybe 5 percentage points was probably carried over the line by the dodgy structural stuff.

 

[Arwon]

This is also the subtext when you hear the MAGA/Trump people, and their various associated ranks of white supremacists and borderline fascists, talking about their recent lost elections being full of illegitimate and stolen and illegal votes. They basically mean those voters are fundamentally illegitimate and if they're the majority they need to be more thoroughly prevented from being counted.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes, but in the time of Trump it wasn't so much an active, co-ordinated effort as people simply jollying him along and getting him on every platform to get higher ratings, clicks, and reposts.

On the side of his opposition, I mean.

On the side of the RNC there were gazillionaires like the FOX group donating hours of daily airtime to the Trump campaign, but it could've been kept as a niche thing instead of amplifying him or uncritically reporting his bombastic lies.
People who said that black people ought to go back to the plantations to pick cotton should have been taken not as neutral fanciful political commentary but as the retrograde aberration that it is. The same for those swastika-wielding goose-steppers and the cross-burners in pointed hats.

But it wasn't.

I vaguely remember Democrats, including Hillary Clinton amusedly gloating that they welcomed a Trump nomination, because of how easily they were going to beat him. I'll admit that although I was very confident, pretty early on that Trump would get the Republican nomination, I was also pretty confident that Hillary was going to win the presidency. Election night was a pretty cold wet-fish-slap across the face for me, along with a lot of others.

I don't remember Democrats actively fundraising for Trump with the notion being that he would be easier for Hillary to beat, however the media was certainly giving Trump a lot of free press, and I suspect some of it was based on a cynical notion that showcasing Trump would increase the likelihood that he would get the nomination, while simultaneously thinking he had no chance to actually beat Hillary. I recognize and will acknowledge that this is a self-serving outlook on my part. I'm essentially saying that there were lots of folks in the media, particularly the liberal/Democratic-leaning media, who mistakenly thought the same thing I did.

 

[Narz]

Their key interest is electing more people from the United States Republican Party, to have more power than would otherwise occur in a fully fair and normal democratic electoral system. It's become something of an ethnic interests party for white Americans and for their ongoing hegemony, especially for the men.

Seems like a losing game in the long run as whites are a shrinking demographic.

Most republican policies are not in the interests of their voters. I don't think the politicians particular care about their white constituents (male or female, maybe the rich ones as much as they can add to their powe) they just realize divisiveness can catalyze voters

 

[El_Machinae]

Political parties will have clubs associated with them that try to represent specific minorities that lean in the direction of that party. Log Cabin Republicans might be the example that is most familiar. So, if you want to know what a politician is saying that they think will woo them, listen to those speeches. Tracking their total time with various parties will very likely show that well-moneyed donors or putative leaders will take up most of their time.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I vaguely remember Democrats, including Hillary Clinton amusedly gloating that they welcomed a Trump nomination, because of how easily they were going to beat him. I'll admit that although I was very confident, pretty early on that Trump would get the Republican nomination, I was also pretty confident that Hillary was going to win the presidency. Election night was a pretty cold wet-fish-slap across the face for me, along with a lot of others.

I don't remember Democrats actively fundraising for Trump with the notion being that he would be easier for Hillary to beat, however the media was certainly giving Trump a lot of free press, and I suspect some of it was based on a cynical notion that showcasing Trump would increase the likelihood that he would get the nomination, while simultaneously thinking he had no chance to actually beat Hillary. I recognize and will acknowledge that this is a self-serving outlook on my part. I'm essentially saying that there were lots of folks in the media, particularly the liberal/Democratic-leaning media, who mistakenly thought the same thing I did.

 

[Zardnaar]

I vaguely remember Democrats, including Hillary Clinton amusedly gloating that they welcomed a Trump nomination, because of how easily they were going to beat him. I'll admit that although I was very confident, pretty early on that Trump would get the Republican nomination, I was also pretty confident that Hillary was going to win the presidency. Election night was a pretty cold wet-fish-slap across the face for me, along with a lot of others.

I don't remember Democrats actively fundraising for Trump with the notion being that he would be easier for Hillary to beat, however the media was certainly giving Trump a lot of free press, and I suspect some of it was based on a cynical notion that showcasing Trump would increase the likelihood that he would get the nomination, while simultaneously thinking he had no chance to actually beat Hillary. I recognize and will acknowledge that this is a self-serving outlook on my part. I'm essentially saying that there were lots of folks in the media, particularly the liberal/Democratic-leaning media, who mistakenly thought the same thing I did.

I thought Trump would win. I got the 2000 election wrong.

 

[Joij21]

It lacks pretty much every key anti majoritarian measure seen in the US.

It doesn't have any of the numerous forms of voter suppression that plague US elections, things like inconsistent and difficult enrollment rules and roll purges and the routine employment of court cases to try to declare enemy votes invalid. It doesn't have deliberately sparse polling places in urban and minority districts, which result in non-white voters facing on average double the queue waiting time, and drives down participation rates. Elections aren't held on a workday. It doesn't have the same barriers to absentee and early voting, and has much fuller usage of provisional ballots than many parts of the US.

It doesn't have the felony disenfranchisement rules which combine with racist policing to be something that actually tilts electorates (Australia does have super racist policing like the US does tho, don't over-interpret me there).

It doesn't have gerrymandering. Residents of territories have the vote and elect members in both houses. It does not have first past the post voting, and has a proportional representation upper house. Has easy ballot access for minor parties and no state mandated primary system controlling how parties choose candidates.

In short, while Australian politics aren't great, it doesn't have the US' array of electoral system defects and perversions. Most comparable countries don't - the US electoral system is an outlier in many ways.


Their key interest is electing more people from the United States Republican Party, to have more power than would otherwise occur in a fully fair and normal democratic electoral system. It's become something of an ethnic interests party for white Americans and for their ongoing hegemony, especially for the men.

To be very specific and explicit about the sum total of the impact of the anti majoritarian tilt, in many of the key US states where national elections are close, any Republican victory by less than maybe 5 percentage points was probably carried over the line by the dodgy structural stuff.

And as an Australian you care about the USA's problems because?

Don't you guys have your own country to worry about? This is an internal matter, it's not like we tell Aussies how to communicate with their Aboriginals.