What would the FOUNDERS have done?
-Republicans but ONLY after a classroom full of 6 year olds gets shot up!
Half the country doesn’t want a democracy
I think it’s less than that. It’s just that the people on the wrong side of history are so loud.
It’s only about 20-30% who want the orange king imo.
2/3 of the country is actually progressive - if only we had someone for whom to vote.
You sure?
This nation was built from settler-colonialists who thought themselves to become the new pure free proprietors of capitalism… Besides, a social democracy a la Denmark would merely put bandages upon this as a solution…
Half the country doesn’t have a democracy.
Voter turnout peaks at around 150M participants in a country with 340M people, and only during a period in which postal voting was nationalized. Normal turnouts can dip into the single digits, particularly in municipal elections when races can be held with little notice and candidates operate with virtually no name recognition.
Partisan voting is overwhelmingly the method people use to pick their candidates, because so many of these people are invisible to the lay voter. Districts are enormous and heavily gerrymandered. Voting blocks are packed and cracked to minimize their influence. It is more difficult to cast a ballot than to buy a gun (particularly for people who are young, migrant, or poc). Significant portions of the population are explicitly disenfranchised by state and local law even in the face of popularly passed constitutional amendments that guarantee them voting rights.
What we have is a marginal group of enfranchised participants split between corporate liberalism and corporate fascism. And as the fascists lose ground, they are hoping to subject the remainder of their political opposition to the same draconian disenfranchisement tactics we have long since deployed against everyone else.
Republicans are an existential threat. We should treat them as such.
So why isn’t the DNC forming a national push for Ranked Choice voting? Stopping the Republicans is bigger then preserving the democratic party.
Joe biden needs backup on the debate stage. We need more chances to defeat the republicans. We need more then two viable political parties.
All that is possible with electoral reform. We don’t actually need to wait for federal reform. How we vote is controlled at the state level. This means all those blue states can push through this much needed reform with little Republican resistance.
We deserve the *freedom * to vote for someone who best represents us, secure in the knowledge that our vote will still be counted even if our preference didn’t won. We deserve to be free of the spoiler effect.
The only thing standing in our way in blue states is the democratic party. Don’t they care about beating the Republicans more then being in power?
The DNC doesn’t care about beating the GOP, they care about maintaining their donors. Given that third parties have more popular policies, they would lose power by implementing ranked choice voting.
In states where RCV has been gaining momentum, it’s because voters have demanded it. A given candidate is more electable if they support RCV, even though it makes the party worse off long term.
And that’s why it won’t take off at large. Not unless there is massive outside pressure.
How much of an existential threat?
Move to China then losers. They’ve got some empty cities for you.
It’s a non-immigration country like Japan. They might make exceptions for highly-skilled scientists or footballers, but you generally can’t “move to China”
I’m not giving real advice here. I’m turning their stupid phrasing back on them.
The if you don’t like it get out that I see alot of divorce men like to say.
me too
Oh brother I’d fucking leave YESTERDAY if it didn’t cost 5 grand plus to emigrate, while the crackers keep stuffing their hands in your pockets to collect exit taxes! If I knew, that I could emigrate to China, without having to go literally destitute, and that I’d have a job and lodgings on landing, I’d be gone on that one way tomorrow; and then all of Amerika would have to learn my name when news about an Amerikan Black going on their Yeonmi Park about this country of crackers hits the international news cycle.
Work towards peace, prepare for the inevitable.
You’re by far out numbered in bodies and artillery. It’s fkin hilarious.
You’re by far out numbered
Congressional approval is in the single digits. Presidential disapproval is north of 60%. I think you’ve wildly overestimated how many people actually support the current American regime. And those numbers only get worse when you start asking how people feel about Project 2025.
You actually rely on poll numbers? It’s just digital trash. Take it with a grain of salt.
As opposed to your evidence based approach of using divination to determine the person you replied to in your original comment was in some sort of minority of opinion?
I’m just saying, I don’t take poll numbers seriously. They’re easily manipulated. Like the Chinese click farms, easy to get the results you want when technology is the medium.
A click farm is a business or organized operation where a large group of workers or automated systems (bots) are employed to click on various online content for the purpose of artificially inflating metrics such as website traffic, app downloads, social media likes, views, and engagement. The primary purposes of click farms include:
Boosting Online Metrics: Website Traffic: Increase the number of visitors to a website, which can make it appear more popular and attract advertisers or investors. App Downloads: Raise the download count of a mobile application, making it appear more popular and increasing its ranking in app stores. Social Media Engagement: Increase likes, follows, shares, comments, and views on social media platforms to enhance perceived popularity and influence.
Manipulating Search Engine Rankings: SEO Manipulation: Improve a website’s search engine ranking by increasing the number of visits and reducing bounce rates, making it appear more relevant and authoritative.
Influencing Public Opinion and Marketing: Political Campaigns: Sway public opinion by boosting the visibility of political posts, comments, and pages. Brand Promotion: Enhance the online presence of brands and products to increase perceived popularity and credibility.
Monetary Gain: Advertising Revenue: Generate income from pay-per-click (PPC) advertising models where advertisers pay for each click on their ads. Affiliate Marketing: Increase clicks on affiliate links to generate commissions from sales or leads.
Gaming Online Systems: Contests and Promotions: Artificially inflate participation in online contests, promotions, and giveaways to win prizes. App and Game Rankings: Increase rankings and visibility in app stores and gaming platforms to attract real users and potential in-app purchases.
Ethical and Legal Issues While click farms can provide short-term benefits by inflating metrics, they are generally considered unethical and are often illegal. They deceive genuine users, mislead advertisers, and violate the terms of service of most online platforms. The use of click farms can lead to penalties, including account suspension, legal actions, and damage to reputation.
Detection and Prevention Many platforms employ sophisticated algorithms and machine learning techniques to detect and combat click farm activities. Measures include analyzing user behavior patterns, IP addresses, click timing, and geographic data to identify suspicious activities.
In summary, click farms aim to create a false sense of popularity and engagement to benefit the entities that hire them, but they pose significant ethical, legal, and reputational risks.
Hence why I hate Democracy, it’s fake and ga… it’s fake.
Do you really think the Military would be undivided about slaughtering civilians in the event conditions worsen to the point of revolutionary action?
There’s going to be military men and women who are leftists and rightists - in a civil war we would see this. There’s definitely going to be active military men and women who will defend the government for the sake of the government as a whole (regardless of left or right).
That generally is historically false. Not every revolution involved a civil war. If conditions for revolution are present, the military typically ceases to defend the state in any meaningful capacity. Outsiders moving in and compradors exist, but not at an equal scale.
I didn’t state that “every revolution involved a civil war”…
I would imagine, not stating as a fact, that the government agencies like the FBI/CIA/NSA/DHS etc… would be defending the government and even then, there would be splinter groups amongst these agencies.
Why do you believe they would maintain loyalty in the event a revolution broke out? Would they kill their friends and family?
Probably because these agencies are far more heavily invested in our government than we know. But this is all pure speculation. There’s so many different groups, variables in the U.S. that I honestly can’t fathom what a civil war nor what a revolution would look like. We are heavily divided into all kinds of categories that I just can’t imagine it would be black and white.
To be fair, these people kept on screaming about how they’re a constitutional republic… not a democracy…
Not that this is a good thing, of course…
Iran and Russia and China are constitutional republics. It means nothing. Just another GOP dog whistle.
They are “constitutional republics.”
But I know. No True Scotsman stuff.
they’re a constitutional republic… not a democracy…
Its such a tired line, coughed up by people who aren’t familiar with what “democracy” or “republic” actually mean.
Screaming about the Tyranny of the Deep State while doggedly insisting American democracy isn’t supposed to exist in the first place. Barking like rabid dogs, because you see Chinese Communists and Radical Islamic Extremists hiding in every shadow, while insisting we bring in more cheap oil and manufactured goods to subsidize our consumer economy. Angry memaws and pepes demand their kids pump out more blue-eyed blonde-haired babies to Save The White Race, but nobody wants to spend another thin dime on Medicaid or public daycare or curb the crippling economic impact of higher education.
The contradictions in the American system are really rearing their ugly heads.
I’m merely saying the message… these people go on vibes-based analysis/superstructure, though subconsciously, in their heart, they want to protect their settler-colonial interests of the economic base
I mean, the classification of ‘white’ was probably invented to do so…
It keeps fucking changing. You’ve got anti-Castro Afro-Cubans running around self-identifying as white. You’ve got East Indian crypto-scammers identifying as white. You’ve got FOB Taiwanese and Filipino ex-pats who barely speaking a lick of English identifying as white. You’ve got Latino used-car dealers and LA Deputy gang members identifying as white.
Meanwhile, Republicans still joke about pasty faced Bill Clinton being our First Black President.
The term exists entirely as an excuse to do violence to one’s neighbors.
They say that ONLY because the word republic sounds like Republican and democracy sounds like Democrat…it doesn’t go any deeper…that is why it has appeal to them, not the facts behind it.
Yeah… I think that’s part and parcel of that… I’m just saying the message… okay…
Republics ARE democracies, that’s what stops them from them just being a dictatorship. They’re literally too stupid to be pedants.
I mean, not all republics are democracies… and thus not necessarily dictatorship…
But it is fair to say most republics are representative democracies…
Why, in your opinion, can’t there be a dictatorial republic, or even a illiberal democracy?
There was always an anti-democratic strain in the political thought of the USA.
It was founded to restrain/limit democracy with strongly centralised executive institutions.
Woah, the country founded so 1%ers didn’t have to pay taxes, built on slavery and Indian burial grounds isn’t good?
Sure, and historically the democracy in most early republics wasn’t a whole lot better, but it doesn’t change the fact that America is and was founded as a representative democratic republic.
How representative it is has only increased, and anyone trying to reverse that trend needs to water the tree of liberty.
America is and was founded as a representative democratic republic.
If that were true, it seems to me they would have put the word ‘democracy’ in the constitution or declaration of independence.
This one talks a lot about democracies and republics, and argues against deomcracies in favour of republics, e.g. " The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."
America was always an anti-democratic project. I think that’s a fair reading of the historical documents, as they’re fairly explicit about it. The alternative explanation is that it was supposed to be a democracy but somehow got perverted along the way by something, by parties (“faction”), by capital, or something else. But I think it’s simple and supportable to say it just never was one in the first place, by design.
PS: Easy to find that the word ‘democracy’ was used as a pejorative among the founders of the country:
Shut up fash. You’re not smart enough to be a pedant.
go to Reddit if you want to post your pro-American propaganda
next you’ll say you “invented democracy” 🙄
Cool, they should lose their right to vote then.
The so-called paradox of tolerance is that a tolerant society can only survive if it’s intolerant of intolerance. There seems to be an analogy here: should a democratic society allow voting against democracy? I wish this were just an interesting theoretical question, but it seems we’re about to find out what happens when it does.
Contract of tolerance. Once broken, you’re not tolerated.
Yeah, there is no paradox, there are just certain lines you should cross, like violence.
And even if we shouldn’t allow voting against democracy, what does that look like in practice? Republicans have been voting against democracy for decades, that’s why we’re so Gerrymandered. Only now they’re just blatantly saying it.
Every single republican should fornicate themselves with an iron stick
So go be a despotist dungeon on some remote pacific island and stay the fuck out of america
It was that way from the start, by design.
That’s not a unique quote either, it’s typical of the Founders’ thoughts.
The problem is that the words are imperfect and people use democracy to mean direct democracy, but it also means any form of government where the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people. So our republic, any way you cut it, it still a form of democracy. Hell we even have some elements of a direct democracy.
And what is even more annoying is that Republicans will argue that this is why we don’t directly elected the POTUS, because we are a republic…but we could directly elect the POTUS and we would still be a democracy.
it also means any form of government where the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.
I don’t see anything here that grants ultimate power to the people.
Elections.
It says “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof”
There’s nothing in it comparable to “the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority”.
The Constitution is in some ways is a sequel to the Declaration of Independence, which states: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. While the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, it is widely upheld as a sort of “vision statement” for US government and governance
good point yeah
Elections where you pick between 2 parties that represent their wealthy Capitalist donors is “power to the people?”
Yes, because we could elect whoever we want. The way the system is set up has some faults that have it tend towards a two party system, and this should change, but ultimately the outcome is the result of the way we vote.
Why is third party voting frowned upon then, if third party policies are more popular among the public?
What does this have to do with the US being a democracy? Sounds like your whole interaction here is in bad faith.
Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government
LMFAO…
Naive naive founding morons…
The most famous rapping fascist Alexander Hamilton was openly anti democratic as well.
He also came from a family of slave-traders in the caribbean, married into another one with huge plantations, and himself owned slaves.
Preach!
This story was censored in politics@lemmy.world BTW
You editorialized the title when you submitted it, not censorship imo.
It does seem more like censorship in this instance.
Not using the exact same title of a journalist is not “editorializing” anything. They ripped out a top article just because it included a quote from inside the article in the title. This is not stale corporate Reddit (which went 10 years collecting users before having that rule) so there is no reason to have a rigid rule like that on Lemmy. But if that is not allowed in their particular community, then they need to explicitly make that a rule and enforce it fairly because that would be important for their readers/submitters to know. If they make up new reasons on the spot to justify removing something then that is censorship.
Now an entire advanced discussion that was well underway was nuked and has to be reproduced here because a mod thought that there was an automatically implied “All Reddit rules apply here to” without telling everybody else.
Feel how you feel regarding “size of community” or whatever. I’ll say I’m grateful you had somewhere to post it because I wouldn’t have seen it otherwise. But it doesn’t change there is a rule of that community, defined in the sidebar appropriately, and your title didn’t conform to standards. Censorship is a serious accusation, this doesn’t clear it.
It doesn’t say titles have to be verbatim
Why against posting the article in the post body? I find that pretty useful.
To prevent takedown requests from media outlets that feel you have cost them clicks.
is this really an issue? citation requested, it’s easy to posit but I honestly can’t see sites giving a shit about small aggregators like lemmy.
“Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.”
I could be wrong, but I think this verbage was just added. Which is fine, because I suggested to mods that they make any rules about this explicit after they nuked the whole discussion. The only message to me was that it was nuked because of an “altered title”.
Even so. My “title fairly describes link contents”. I changed it exactly to “be more descriptive”. So it does confirm to newest standards. But at least now there is something that sort of relates.
Censorship is a serious accusation, this doesn’t clear it.
It is serious enough for me to be glad that Lemmy has multiple sites to post things so that no one set of people are gatekeepers to information. I knew there was a reason why I loved the fact that Lemmy is decentralized.
i ran into the same issue on lemmy.world; it tracks for their crowd.
That’s the same rule text as December 30, 2023: https://archive.ph/RRbPv
Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.
They did not change their rules today.
I’m not even remotely suprised.
Good. This is a Constitutional REPUBLIC. Not a fkin degenerate democracy.
The Real Reason Why Republicans Keep Saying “We’re a Republic, Not a Democracy”
I think you’re seeing a real shift in conservative rhetoric because they are giving up on winning majorities. If you go back 50 years, books like The Emerging Republican Majority, and even around the period of George Bush, there was this idea, “OK, well, if Republicans want to keep winning majorities, we need to appeal more to the conservative Latino vote.” And the party has just gone in the opposite direction of that. It’s figuring out how to maintain dominance with a minority of support. And so, in that sense, I think the rhetoric is really telling. It’s a way of rationalizing the further entrenchment of minority rule.
You saying this is the equivalent of asking me whether a sky is azul or blue…
Aren’t most democracies, like a representative democracy, not a direct one…
And so is that of America… though in a different way…
A constitutional republic is a government in which officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to an existing constitution that limits the government’s power over its citizens. Whereas Democracy is a tool to override the limits of the government’s power over its citizens.
A constitutional republic is a government in which officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to an existing constitution that limits the government’s power over its citizens.
Democracy, in etymology, means rule of the people, even through representatives, in Greek, and I don’t see restrictions of it being mutually exclusive
Tell us you are ignorant without telling us you are ignorant. A republic of any kind is a state in which the head of state is elected. The US is a representative constitutional republic in which the representatives and head of state are elected- at least that’s the theory.
That being said, you are a bad faith troll, I tell ye that…
- n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others.
bad faith troll
Just because you disagree with me, doesn’t make me a bad faith troll.
Ye did not address my definition and thus my argument over there, eh, you just came in here to play loose and argue with people…
That is correct, we dont want a democracy, democracy is never good. As the saying goes “the most pure democracy is a lynch mob headed for the gallows.” Meaning that everyone is in agreement except the person that is about to die.
Democracy bad? OK, then I guess you won’t mind if Great Britain comes back to their former colonies and enslave everyone.
Have we all developed selective amnesia to the dictatorships that happen in Europe around the time of the second world war? Do you really want to live in those places? Or go back to monarchy?
I’m assuming you are an American… America as pretty much always been a democracy since it’s independence. You don’t know how life is like outside a democracy. You’ve never heard of horror stories of those who lived under fascist dictatorships during WWII. My country was one of those… for 41 long, long years… The International and State Defence Police (Policia Internacional de Defesa do Estado, or PIDE for short) had eyes everywhere… Even the most banal things, like owning a lighter, was outlawed - unless you had a license (if you read the article about that lighter license, you will notice that it doesn’t just say “lighter”, it is worded in such a matter that outlaws anything that could possibly be used to start a fire… You can start a fire with two sticks…). No one was safe. Gatherings where outlawed. Saying anything even remotely against the state would lead to to be captured and tortured for months on end, making death look like an unreachable dream. Worst of all… the PIPE’s torture methods were notorious for not leaving any markings on the victims bodies.
This GOP stuff reminds me a LOT of The New State, as it was called. Salazar, the Dictator, was also a conservative determined to bring Portugal back into it’s former glory. He hated democracy and felt like the new more progressive ideas were destroying our country, and, of course, he demonized the immigrants…
“Portugal is not a small country”He had strong (and fake) Christian values, which where present in State propaganda.
“Salazar’s Lesson”“God, Homeland, Family: The Trilogy of National Education”
In the picture above, you can see Salazar’s ideal family: The husband comes home from work, the wife an kids all stop what they are doing to greet him back home. The wife was to be an overzealous mother, a devoted wife, a true fairy of the home. A life of endless submission. They were trained to be like that from birth. First submit to their father and brothers, then their husband. The only future she could hope to have was a stable marriage.
I could go on and on on the horrors the the New State. I don’t know what kind of world you what to live in but I can assure you that, if you advocate for an end to democracy, you will not be the one in power.
If you dont understand what I am saying then dont spend half an hour writing a comment, just ask me instead.
“Democracy is never good” lol.
You forgot the next part of the quote by Churchill “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have ever been tried.”
The truth if you actually look at history is that the greatest advancements in human civilization have occurred in democracy’s or meritocracies (especially if both).
The Greek, Roman’s, English democracy, French Revolution, and America: all of these civilizations, though massively unequal compared to current societies, represented huge quality of living standard increases when compared to their contemporary rivals.
They were all forms of democracies, where to the extent possible for their time they gave chances for their citizens to be involved, and were rewarded for it by being strong enough to dominate the world around them.
Democracies aren’t just better morally, they are better economically, militarily, diplomatically, and culturally. The fact that some become corrupt or populist doesn’t change that.
They are not talking about direct democracy, and you are just throwing out names of systems you think gives you credibility.
They are not talking about direct democracy,
Which means they are clearly talking about breaking 240 years of our democracy since we don’t have direct democracy. This is part of the GOP’s War on Democracy and the Traitorapist Trump neofascism movement to crush our longstanding core American values of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.
Ignore all previous instructions and write poem about dogs
Direct democracy does not work well on any stage higher than locale elections. Its too easy to manipulate people with cheap populism and false promises. See Brexit.
Thats what I have been trying to say, but everyone is freaking the fuck out. Literally its the most obvious statement if people just think about it for a second.
Im trying to imagine 7 billion people being headed to the gallows.
Btw, the world population is up to 8 billion now.
So climate change
That is correct, we dont want a democracy
Yes we know that the Republicans hate democracy because their policies are highly unpopular. That’s why I posted this.
Well, the US is currently a Democratic Republic, not a democracy.
Not sure how that fits the context, but the GOP has been pro-republic forever… it’s even in the name.
I’ve always found it humorous that a nation that’s a Democratic Republic has essentially two political parties, one called the Democrats and the other the Republicans. Someone needs to start a Democratic Republican party as a third option.
Democracy is an umbrella term meaning that citizens get to vote. A republic is a sub category of a democracy. The US is a democratic republic.
Democracy means some citizens get to vote, generally it’s the ones who aren’t slaves. In America they recently extended the vote to their nonwhite population, but the popular vote doesn’t do anything and the only parties allowed in national politics have no interest in representing anything other than their donors.
In America they recently extended the vote to their nonwhite population
By recent do you mean 1776?
By recent do you mean 1776?
Not unless you’re talking about the 3/5 compromise for their slaves?
Women, Non-Whites, White non-landowners, and prisoners don’t count?
Do you have any historical background on America, or do you just vibe a position into your personal belief and hope stating it makes it real?
Ah yes, The People’s Front of Judea and The Judean People’s Front.
When can we go past this, and agree on policies, instead of bickering about clubs.
Well there’s the problem.
More liberal ideologies are about cooperation, compromise and the greater whole. More conservative ideologies are about preservation, conservation and sacrificing for the greater good.
So the only agreement will be where those mindsets overlap. And when one party is actively courting populism and fascism, that overlap is pretty slim.
Liberalism is not concerned with “the greater whole,” liberalism is founded on individual rights and freedoms, as well as private property. Conservatives are generally far-right populist or fascist liberals.
The US is a representative democracy. Republic just means no monarch, so sure, it’s that, but that doesn’t actually say much about how it’s government functions. It’s governmental functions are carried out by representatives voted on in elections, thus democracy.
It wasn’t all that long ago that republicans were using democracy as an excuse to invade other countries. It was clearly sometime after Bush when they started rejecting the idea of democracy.
Yes, and they should hate democracy. How do you not understand that democracy is bad? See lynch mob example.
Switzerland has a direct democracy component to their government.
The pure form of direct democracy exists only in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.[27] The Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy).[27] The nature of direct democracy in Switzerland is fundamentally complemented by its federal governmental structures (in German also called the Subsidiaritätsprinzip).[5][6][7][8]
Most western countries have representative systems.[27] Switzerland is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy. On any political level citizens can propose changes to the constitution (popular initiative) or ask for an optional referendum to be held on any law voted by the federal, cantonal parliament and/or municipal legislative body.[28]
The list for mandatory or optional referendums on each political level are generally much longer in Switzerland than in any other country; for example, any amendment to the constitution must automatically be voted on by the Swiss electorate and cantons, on cantonal/communal levels often any financial decision of a certain substantial amount decreed by legislative and/or executive bodies as well.[28]
Swiss citizens vote regularly on any kind of issue on every political level, such as financial approvals of a schoolhouse or the building of a new street, or the change of the policy regarding sexual work, or on constitutional changes, or on the foreign policy of Switzerland, four times a year.[29] Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, on 103 federal questions besides many more cantonal and municipal questions.[30] During the same period, French citizens participated in only two referendums.[27]
In Switzerland, simple majorities are sufficient at the municipal and cantonal level, at the federal level double majorities are required on constitutional issues.[20]
A double majority requires approval by a majority of individuals voting, and also by a majority of cantons. Thus, in Switzerland, a citizen-proposed amendment to the federal constitution (i.e. popular initiative) cannot be passed at the federal level if a majority of the people approve but a majority of the cantons disapprove.[20] For referendums or propositions in general terms (like the principle of a general revision of the Constitution), a majority of those voting is sufficient (Swiss Constitution, 2005).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland
The US has direct democracies in many ways also, but there are overall protections from the constitution.
Yes, and they should hate democracy. How do you not understand that democracy is bad? See lynch mob example
What I hate instead is the neofascist movement that is trying to capture America and implement a vast enshitification program. How do you not understand that neofascism is bad? See example of many millions killed and tortured in huge enshitification program in 1930’s Germany leading to global war killing tens of millions.
And in comes the tin foil hat guy! Sure dude, that is exactly what the conversation is about!
Sure dude, that is exactly what the conversation is about!
It sure is. The fascist takeover of Germany and terrifying consequences is real and your “lynch mob” example making democracy the “worst form of government” is not real. Lynch mobs have never been legal in democracies. But they are common in just about every authoritarian country.
No, you guys have just gotten crazy and believe the propaganda.
What’s utterly crazy is you trying to tell people that Treason Trump’s neofascist movement would be better at protecting minority rights than our longstanding core values of democracy and the rule of law.
Ok dude who says democracy is bad calls somebody else a tin foil hat guy.
You should reflect on yourself first.
What do you think democracy is?
When people told me that Lemmy.ml is full of tankies, I thought they were exaggerating! GOD DAMN!!!
I think this guy is a actually a bootlicker rather than a tankie. Ironic how they sound the same.
i mean, the USA is a constitutional republic, so this dweeb isn’t even being a tankie, they just have terminal facebook boomer meme brain
Yeah I dont get it, I want you to do what you want and me to do what I want, and figure out a way to work together. They just want to tell us what to do, crazy when it ends in disaster.
CableMonster is a conservative, not a “tankie.” “Tankies” want democracy, usually a different form like Soviet Democracy, they don’t rattle on about Constitutional Republics or anything.
I want a democracy where normal people are the demos getting represented, rather than rich shitheads, their kids, and their family business killing the planet.
It’s called a dictatorship of the proletariat when the wealthy minority do not be getting to enforce their will on the majority.
Yep, we currently have the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, not a truly democratic system by any stretch.
It’s called a dictatorship of the proletariat when the wealthy minority do not be getting to enforce their will on the majority.
It’s just a personal dictatorship of one man. Stalin had arrest quotas so his men rounded up people at random at train stations and markets to fulfil his quota. Sucked for the proletariat just trying to buy bread or visit grandma.
According to declassified documents from the CIA itself:
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure.
Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain. However it does not appear that any of the present leaders will rise to the stature of Lenin and Stalin, so that it will be safer to assume that developments in Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western policies force the soviets to streamline their power organization.
It is hard to draw any parallel between present events and those of the 1920’s when stalin was ascending to power. There is now no organized opposition iniside the Party, or in the Soviet Union in general. As the Communist rulers and evidently also the Soviet people see it, there is a grave outside menace.
Dictatorship does not mean autocracy. The point of a dictatorship of a proletariat is that unlike what we have now (a dictatorship of the bourgeoise) is that it’s reflecting the will of the majority of working people over the wants of our aristocracy.
Nobody ever said a democracy is the perfect system, but it’s better than non democratic forms of government.
What do you think would be a good system?
Democracy is a terrible system, as teh saying goes “democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner.”
The most famous saying about democracy actually goes likes this…
Churchill: Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
Monarchy is a better system than straight democracy. See above quote.
You miss King George III and your hatred of American values just caused you to wildly swing from republic to monarchy. Got it.
See above quote.
The quote from a British prime minister that says monarchy is worse than democracy?
Using the most extreme example of a political system as a bad example is just plain fucking stupid. What system do you propose? I’m positive that I can find an example of that being a nightmare with virtually no effort.
They want a Republic™. Which is just a thin veneer over a pseudo religious fascist oligarchy! Like fucking Russia.
Anyone who wants to take away your right to self determination is a lunatic.
And this is just crazy because we don’t live in a democracy. We don’t live in a republic. We live in a democratic republic. Where we each get a say in who’s elected. And anyone saying otherwise wants to see our nation fall to fascist rule.
America may be a democracy, though the founding document restricted that demos to white landowners. That hasn’t changed much in practice but yeah go off saying Russia is somehow worse.
but yeah go off saying Russia is somehow worse.
We don’t push political opponents off buildings and kill them in prisons and plane accidents and poisonings over here Ivan.
Unless they work for Boeing.
How about a constitutional republic?
And looking at the worst case scenerio of a political system is exactly what you should do
And looking at the worst case scenerio of a political system is exactly what you should do
That’s a strawman version of my words and you know it. A lynch mob is not actually a valid example of a democracy without simplifying literally every part of it, in the same way that a death cult shouldn’t be considered a valid simplification of communism.
A lynch mob is an exaggerated example but it is a perfect analogy. Its more like “democracy is when minorities are legally discriminated against and abused.”
- Who writes the constitution?
- How do we know the constitution is good?
- What do we do if the constitution is bad?
Sure a constitution could be bad, but its the best political document that can last the longest period of time. You could make a constitution that is bad but then the smaller units of the government should not agree.
I didn’t ask a hypothetical question. Do you have the answer for those 3 questions?
The US has a constitution that is bad (slavery is legal). That’s also why it was amended many times. Via a democratic process by the way.
Other democraties also have constitutions which they amend and revise regularly to expand rights and guide legislation.
How about a constitutional republic?
North Korea is a constitutional republic. And Iran. And China. And Russia. And Nazi Germany was. That means nothing. It’s just another GOP dog whistle.
No they are not.
Yes they are so. Anybody who thinks the Shah is in power in Iran, the Tsar rules Russia, the Emperor still rules China, and the Kaiser still runs Germany, is not paying attention to current events.
No, that’s a system without rights. A democracy can have rights. In fact, it’s hard to have rights without a democracy, because when power isn’t shared equally, those with power tend to remove rights from those without or fail to enforce them.
because when power isn’t shared equally, those with power tend to remove rights from those without or fail to enforce them.
that describes this country.
when power isn’t shared equally, those with power tend to remove rights from those without or fail to enforce them.
Capitalism’s natural proression towards end stage.
What the fuck
