It's what they call a "flawed democracy" now. It's not at the point where thousands of people simply disappear and every aspect of political life is dictated by one party's leadership.
But it's sliding downward.
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
The amount of voter suppression, the broken FPTP system and mass media influence over the US electoral system, means that for all intents and purposes, the USA federal election is just picking your favourite of the two viable owning-class-endorsed candidates. "The people" never had a realistic chance of representation or empowerment. This is not a new critique, it's been discussed for at least a century and a half.
There is simply no real value in calling the USA a democracy at any point during our lifetimes, regardless of whether you are allowed to vote or even write-in candidates, regardless of the two-party system, because the power imbalance between the working class and the owning class surrounding that vote makes it as much a sham election as Russia's sham elections. But even compared to other (until recently) close allies, the US implementation of federal voting has long been an absolute circus.
It hasn't been a democracy since it had the 'electoral college' and unequal representation. So, forever..
But within the context of the previous status quo - I'd say it stopped being a democracy exactly when Trump was allowed to be a candidate for the presidency after the Jan 6 coup attempt, and parallel attempts to invent votes and pressure states to lie about their vote counts. Which was blatantly unconstitutional and illegal. More than enough evidence to bar him from being a candidate, and yet the senate allowed it to proceed - that was the end.
One interesting thing I haven't read here yet (haven't read all the comments though) is religion. Sure, officially there's separation of church and state, but Christianity is everywhere in your country, including government. The amount of times I've heard "God bless the United States" being said is ridiculous. To me, that's undemocratic and I would feel very uncomfortable with that as an atheist.
Yeah, it's a cheap knock off Christianity, too. It's just there for the subjugation of people who cannot be bothered to think for themselves.
Christianity Lol
No my friend these people worship Mammon. They were taught to believe it was god
Of course you would be uncomfortable with that because you're an atheist... You're an atheist. The US has freedom of religion, this freedom also applies to government officials.
For a long while I thought America was a democracy but that the population was rather uneducated. Their media and culture seemed to glorify ignorance and shame intellectualism.
I now consider America a fascist state, early stages. I've seen too many simulations to know that the level of organized resistance required to prevent the descent into fascism is either too morally grey or too risky to be worth it. It must get much worse before resistance is meaningful.
At best an American is a victim, at worst they are a fascist.
Resistance to early fascism is not morally grey or too risky.
Whether it's effective when 90% of the population is made of shallow, consumerized brainlets is another question.
Not when they have the Electoral College bullshit upending every election in favor of a minority.
If this is true how to democrats win elections?
Well, it takes a bigger portion of voters voting blue just to reach equilibrium, which then results in a few swing states because that's the stupid system they have. The whole purpose is to dilute the blue vote so Republicans can have a coin flip chance. So whoever wins the swing states instead of the popular vote wins the election. One example is Trump vs Clinton. Technically, Clinton won the popular vote but not the electorate.
So, really, it's not "why are Dems winning elections?" but "why are Reps winning them at all?"
In the case of this election. The Republicans won the popular vote, so by your logic they should have won this year anyways.
Even so, if you look at voting distribution on a US map. Densely populated urban centers vote blue and there are large swathes of land that vote red. Do you propose that the people who live in these densely populated areas should have the power to choose the president every election?
In my view, the fact that the elections are close and both parties win is evidence that the system works.
by your logic they should have won this year anyways
They had a higher probability of winning and they took full advantage of that, yes.
Do you propose that the people who live in these densely populated areas should have the power to choose the president every election?
Yes. That's how it's done in all other modern democracies that I know of including my own. I don't understand this idea that population density must result in devaluing one's vote. It's punishing the cities for existing. That just because you live in the city your power should be diminished because other people chose to live in Bumbuck, Iowa. Like, what does your residence have to do with anything? It's a foreign concept to me. Like, you're not even hurting, you're just upset that your views aren't those of the nation.
Not to mention that's a curious mindset to have. It implies that people in the city can't be trusted to decide an election despite their candidates being great. Coincidentally, most of the people in the cities are POC and I find that to be more than a coincidence. I'm inclined to think it's yet another tool used to disenfranchise Black voters and suppress minorities given the US's notoriously racist history. We even got threads on this site expressing how that fixation on race makes us foreigners uncomfortable.
is evidence that the system works
Yes, it works great in favor of Republicans by tipping the scale. I'm surprised you replied with that given how I just explained that it's a rigged system and you said, yes it's wonderful...
What you are proposing gives complete power of the elections to small spheres of influence in the US. Candidates only have to appease to people who live in the cities to win. I don't see how this can be seen as a good thing. The current system forces candidates to get both the rural and urban residents' votes to win.
The current system forces the candidates to appeal to a number of states artificially. How is that any better? Lol It doesn't even do what you claim it does.
And also, most of those red areas on the map are empty, as you said. Why bother saying it's empty when it's convenient only to present a fully red map as if it means anything?
Lastly, cite your sources, please. We have no idea where you got that image.
Are you referring to the swing states? They have to appeal to those states because they already have the other states locked in, but they can't just ignore the places they usually get votes each election either. Part of the reason the Republicans won the popular vote this year is because many counties flipped from Democrat to Republican. They aren't appealing to swing states artificially, they are trying to win the votes of a population that votes either direction and isn't practically a guarantee.
Those red areas are in fact not empty, there are people who live in those regions. That map was made by a redditor here : https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/6914AUEoEf. When I initially saw the post (a few years ago), I verified the information presented at that time. You are of course free to double check.
Are you referring to the swing states?
We're not talking about anything else.
They have to appeal to those states because they already have the other states locked in, but they can't just ignore the places they usually get votes each election either.
Candidates regularly ignore states while campaigning. I know for a fact that happened last year with both Trump and Harris. They do know their states are locked in.
They aren't appealing to swing states artificially,
I'm saying the swing states are created artificially to create a close race. It wouldn't be close otherwise and instead decidedly blue if it were a fairer system that doesn't devalue people's votes arbitrarily.
And also, your map needs population density to be meaningful. And a better source.
Those red areas are in fact not empty, there are people who live in those regions
It's hyperbole. Their populations are peanuts to the cities, which is why we weed the population density so you can stop pointing at the map and be like "see all this red land??" and I stop internally screaming.
swing states are the result of the voting populace going 50/50 on what party they vote for. One doesn't create a swing state.
I see where you're coming from. Popular vote wins the election, easy enough. People don't vote like that. I don't understand why you are refusing to see the other perspective.
People with similar ideologies clump together. Democrats are a majority in the US, and the greater share of which live very close to one another in select cities across the country. What you are saying is that only what they think matters and they will always get their way because there is more of them.
People who live in the city live very different lives and have different concerns than people live in rural areas. I don't necessarily think it is okay for one group to have all the power, especially since they are so out of touch with one another.
An election system should be consistent and maintain a competitive election, and should not succumb to mass politics or control from people in power.
swing states are the result of the voting populace going 50/50 on what party they vote for. One doesn’t create a swing state.
Yes, by tipping the voting base to go 50/50. It's literally like 60/40 if the electoral college is removed, and that's my entire point. I'm not here to argue the hows and whys about why it is that way. Voter disenfranchisement is my main point and that's my only point.
I don’t understand why you are refusing to see the other perspective.
Because I know the other perspective and it's a load of bullshit. Here, all of this:
People with similar ideologies clump together. Democrats are a majority in the US, and the greater share of which live very close to one another in select cities across the country. What you are saying is that only what they think matters and they will always get their way because there is more of them. People who live in the city live very different lives and have different concerns than people live in rural areas. I don’t necessarily think it is okay for one group to have all the power, especially since they are so out of touch with one another.
All of it is apologetic bullshit and an excuse for the right wing to hinder and diminish other people's rights to vote, as they always do. The only time location actually matters (and should matter) is whether you're voting from abroad or not. That's how we do it and that's how everyone I know does it... except for the US because of its bullshit conservative mental gymnastics, as always.
especially since they are so out of touch with one another
I've never in my life seen a more out of touch party than the Conservatives, tbh. Being "out of touch" is not a strong argument, and doubly so in today's American political circus.
An election system should be consistent and maintain a competitive election, and should not succumb to mass politics or control from people in power.
Pfft. No. That honestly sounds like you have an agenda in your mind that somehow, and for some reason, must give special concessions to the lesser party so that you have a minority rule at the expense of people's voting rights and dignity. That's evil and that's not democratic in the way that aligns with most people's values.
You don't appear to understand how the electoral college works. Each state has electors who vote on behalf of the citizenry. These electors always go with the populace. So essentially popular vote applies to win the electoral votes of a state. Some states do winner take all, some split the electoral votes proportional to how the populace voted. A state that Is 50/50 doesn't become 60/40 if the electoral college is removed. People vote how they vote and that's that.
I don't mean out of touch in the traditional sense. I mean the rural residents and urban residents are out of touch with each other, meaning they live very different lives.
I have an agenda in mind? You are quite literally advocating for single-party dominance, and all they need to do to is maintain control over their already established small spheres of influence in large cities. Appeal to a couple local politicians and their citizens, maintain power, leave the rest of the country in ruin.
It's true I don't know the details because of being a foreigner and all, but I have seen its grander effects on the election results and that's all that matters. Like I said, "I’m not here to argue the hows and whys. Voter disenfranchisement is my main point and that’s my only point."
I don’t mean out of touch in the traditional sense. I mean the rural residents and urban residents are out of touch with each other, meaning they live very different lives.
And so what? What does that have to do with the elections and the presidency? Why is that ever relevant? And why is that used as part of having to decide how much a vote is worth?
I mean, if by "different lives" you mean different realities with the right skewing towards conspiracy, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it matters. Q Anon, JFK revival parade, the Deep State and Hillary Clinton/pizza gate. Holy crap. I don't think pandering to them electorally is the right call. I mean, they promoted and elected convicted felon Trump twice and pushed your country squarely into plutocracy leaning towards kleptocracy.
You are quite literally advocating for single-party dominance,
What, you think the left is one single homogeneous group? I was about to say you're on Lemmy, you should know better, but I see your account is only 1 month old. Also, consider the state of the Overton window in the US before you accuse anyone of such things: Your left is my right and your right does not exist here because it's a lil' bit crazy.
leave the rest of the country in ruin.
As opposed to the Republican presidents who have never ever done that? What is happening now with your Cheeto in Charge? And Bush? And Regan? Hello?
No, because I'm sure it's passed the tipping point towards autocracy. There's endless different forms of both it and democracy, but it's a constant that democracy begets democracy and autocracy begets autocracy, so that's my "line in the sand".
In America's case as of now, all the checks and balances that used to work are still there, but they've been questionable for many years and aren't going to do anything going forwards, so they're functionally more like Canada's monarchy.
If you're looking for a perspective on what's normal and what's not, consider that when there's a big social problem in Canada, it's only a matter of time until a law trying to address it gets passed. That's what a functioning democracy is like. Meanwhile, there's been a known place in the US where no courts have jurisdiction to prosecute serious crimes for two decades now.
Sure, though the developments are worrying. If Donald gets a third term, I will consider USA an autocracy.
See, as a German, when I see a country go down the same route as the Weimar Republic after handing over the power to the Nazi party, I think it's just very obvious. Hitler took some two months to completely destroy democracy, and the US are juuust in the middle of that. History doesn't repeat, but sometimes it rhymes, and the similarities are just remarkable.
So yeah, I guess that would be a big fat trench in the sand.
still consider
It has only two political parties, and a weird system where all votes are not equal and the actual vote majority doesn't always win.
It has frequently had multiple people from the same families running for office, and only wealthy people have a shot. Corporations get to lobby for laws in their favour.
It also spies on its own citizens, holds people indefinitely without trial, has a huge prison population, a militarized police with a high homicide rate, and is the only western nation with the death penalty.
Trump and Musk are laying bare how fragile the veneer of "democracy" really is in that country.
A struggling democracy, in the beginning of an Orban/Hungary-like overtake of the country.
Its possible to revert, but you seem to have atleast a 1/3 of the country that would walk down a straight up facist line willingly and happily do so.
You need to fix your shit america.
Line in the sand? Going after political opponents. Censoring information. Dismantling media. Abandoning rule of law. Business and government mixing too much.
USA is speed running these.
I consider it an autocratic regime with strong fascist characteristics.
Am Dutch. I have considered the US an incomplete democracy since I learned about voting in school. It’s not one person one vote, which to me is crucial for a democracy. The US right now is still a nation of laws, but democracy is sharply in decline. The voter-roll issues and Gerrymandering come to mind immediately. Not to mention the fact that guaranteed access to polls has been pulled by the courts. Which is insane to me.
Canadian here.
Before Trump? Ehhh, not really. I've always viewed the US as a place where you vote for which oligarch-backed monarch you'd want to put in absolute power for 4 years. Every 4/8 years the new incoming overlord just rips up whatever the previous one did and nothing of substance is actually achieved.
After Trump 2.0? No. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Trump is going to surrender all that power he and the GOP have accumulated. And why would he? He doesn't have to. He literally controls every branch of government that he can and ignores those that he doesn't. If the US ever has another election it will purely be for show, like China's elections. The mask is now fully off and the charade of US democracy is over as those who actually wield the power now do so openly on their sleeves.
Absolutely not. A two party system was barely nominally a form of democracy. Current government walks like a dictatorship and quacks like a dictatorship. They might hold a fake election one day like many of those do, but still no.
Absolutely not. When laws don't apply to the president, the jig is up. Trump clearly plans to be in power forever. Either there won't be elections or they'll be rigged.
The US had always been a questionable democracy with the hyperfixation on the president and just two parties setting the agenda, but I'd argue that it's still a democracy, though it is a rapidly deteriorating one.
I never considered it a democracy. It's one-party system with two parties, what can be democratic about it? Smoke and mirrors.
I barely considered it a democracy as a two party system as the elites controlled it all, but now it's just even more messed up. They need to hold people accountable and not elect criminals to office.
I fear for the future of America as a country.
When was the US the last time a democracy?
You can vote democrats or republicans, which mostly get bankrolled by the same rich assholes. As a normal citizen of the US you have almost no influence at politics at all, because the media is controlled by rich people, the biggest internet platforms are controlled by rich people, elections are paid for by rich people, ...
The current situation is not a spontaneous, miraculous, magical result of Trump and his gang, it was years in the making by lobby groups, influential/rich/powerful people and neo liberal brainwashing of the masses.
Same holds true for most other western so called democracies.
lol
Nope, it's an oligarchy pretending it's a democracy.
Anyone who is eligible to vote, and chooses not to, implicitly throws their support behind whoever wins.
On 2024-11-05, ⅔ of US citizens who were eligible to vote told the rest of the world they don’t want to be taken seriously for at least 2 years.
To me it never really was. If you look into how they do voting here, its insane, really.
US citizens always loved to make these "we'll bomb some democracy in to you" but they never brought democracy either. I think it's fair to say that no other country started asa y dictatorships as the US has
Add to that;
Bush lost the election and became president anyway.
Trump has heen successfully lying his way through the past four years (and well, yeah the 4 years before that too) instigated an insurrection and was never held accountable