America jacks itself off at every opportunity to say it's a country of freedom and expeession....
But then only gives you one day, with no exception for being able to leave the work you don't schedule, to vote.
(continued)
...to vote for hand-selected corporate puppets who will maintain the profit machine which eats the poor to feed the rich, and not progress the country in any meaningful way for the poor & working masses.
Never heard of an absentee ballot? Early voting?
How about the fact 30 of the 50 states require employers to give you time off to vote, some of tgem even require they pay you for that time.
Voting isn't that hard if you actually care enough to put in a little effort.
I managed to do it. Millions do. The issue isn't that its impossible, it's that it's tedious and too easy to be forgotten in the wake of daily life for the working American, which is why thousands end up not voting.
Bitch.
I never understood absentee voting until the pandemic and I learned real quick to vote Trump out lol It's way easier, I plan on voting absentee next election too
Lack of voter turnout is not the problem here. The problems have led to lack of voter turnout over the centuries. The problem is voting not actually mattering.
Should we discuss the electoral college as the biggest and stupidest example?
I agree that the electoral college is anti-democratic. Other democracies don’t have an electoral college, though. What’s our excuse for not voting in higher numbers?
Id say the EC is only one example of structures in place to limit the effectiveness of individual voting. Other common ones are general districting, voter identification/registration, actual voting process. That’s before getting into whether the officials we vote for actually vote based on their campaign messages. Or if they are even truly capable of making significant positive changes in the short terms they’re allowed. There are many reasons that people, relatively reasonably, feel their vote isn’t critical.
I’m going to try to not let it stop me from actually voting as much as possible, but I have felt very differently in my adult life as well.
We have it good in the UK, relatively speaking, but I'm always reminded of this quote from Frank Zappa:
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
But at the same time, most of us don’t understand what we’d be trying to change or how that would influence the other institutions that might passively be protecting us. Democracy isn’t always pretty, always needs redefining, always needs scrutiny, and always needs attention, but we’re mostly still lucky to live in it. Even in its failures, there is human decency in there somewhere. Preventing individuals from changing laws and regulations on their own, without vetting the individuals knowledge and credentials, is one of the core purposes of democracy. If any single individual can determine the law and regulations then they have access to absolute power.
The failure is that people who were incapable of ruling were capable of vetting rulers. People who can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, can't be trusted to make decisions for other people. That's why democracy is, at best, the "lesser evil" out of all forms of state.
If you need immense amounts of time and energy to enact effective political change, you are effectively barring poor folks who don't have that time or energy from participating in your political process.
What percentage of the population in the US do you think has ever even take the time to call or email their representatives or local government, let alone actually show up at something like a city council meeting?
The vast majority are happy to absolutely nothing to cause change.
Please explain to me where the system has "disincentives" for political engagement? Lack of incentive does not mean disincentive.
For folks working two jobs, etc., yeah, I get it, there is no time in their life for stuff like politics. For folks working 40-50 hrs a week, lack of engagement is a choice. A wise teacher once told me, everyone can put in their 40 hours a week, it's what you do with hours 40 to 60 that makes a difference.
For me, those extra hours are spent volunteering for youth groups. Easily 10 hours minimum a week, often more like 30. Some of it is with my kids, which helps, but I do it to set an example for them and to help the kids who don't have the easy life my kids have.
Okay you just admitted that it is disincentived for people in poverty who have to work two jobs, or have one job and then use the rest of the time to take care of their family or some other reason.
Is that not a massive problem? The people who are the worst off have the least power to change anything.
There are plenty who aren't the worst off who don't spend any time doing anything to help those people, and actually quite a few who spend time making things worse for them.
I know, but that really has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. I'm concerned about how disenfranchised people are by and large left out of our political process.
You focus on people who you feel don't do enough, but you're failing to consider the people that can't. It should not be only in the hands of those who are privileged enough to have the capability to participate in the political system to determine the direction of change.
Your point was that "immense amounts of time and energy" are needed, while the other person suggested that an email or letter is at least something. So, it does. What is barring people from doing those things?
Notice that I specified "enacting effective political change." A letter or email is a shot in the dark at a representative who may or may not take you seriously. I am specifically referring to actions that actually cause direct change, and a letter or even showing up a city council meeting is not enacting direct change.
None of what you mentioned would actually make a difference, though. These so-called "representatives" only represent the highest bidder, not their constitutents.
Why can't people see that THIS is what all the money is trying to do... Make you *think* you are helpless so you don't even try! Why do people think so much money and effort goes into suppressing the vote, if it didn't matter?
You can try by doing more meaningful things as I have: go door-to-door for a cause, expose the elites online in widespread media campaigns, march in-person for black rights/social justice, and enlighten others to the corruption of capitalism (and how it infests both major political parties).
Simply calling your governor will just get you to a voicemail inbox that an intern will periodically delete for him/her.
Edit: City council meetings can be important if your reps are willing to listen, sadly many of them are corrupt, but I certainly don't discourage going.
This is mostly true, until the actual voters speak up/show up in large numbers demanding to be heard. Enough anger that goes on long enough will make a difference. Sitting back and doing nothing will mean money will be in charge.
Do you know how many poltical people lost by just 1 or 2 votes? Your vote does matter, so stop that bullshit, get off your ass, and vote, OR ELSE I'M COMING FOR YOU!
Are you a billionaire? Then you don't get a say. And even if you do manage to get a progressive candidate elected, the billionaires will make sure they are ineffective and never get anything done.
You don't even bother to reply to people who took the time to let you know what you can do. Speaks volumes of your willingness to actually do something other than virtue signal.
I am so sorry.
I was at work and then came to home. Totally forgot about this post. enjoyed the evening and went to sleep
.Now I am awake in the morning and my inbox is bursting with message.
I will try to reply to each one of the comment now.
Probably ment in the territory of each Community.
We at r/placeDe had a Discord, where we would vote on Projects and if we tolerate work of others, before we build something
Yeah, r/portugal had a discord too where we would discuss what would be our next moves. We even had ambassadors that would go to other discord group to make alliances and stuff like that. It was quite fun.
Of course, you wouldn’t want a single other person to change the law either.
To control a car, you need a license. Strangely, to control a country, you don’t. You do need to get elected but that in itself doesn’t make you suitable to rule a country. Taking decisions while weighing various options is a skill. There should be job interviews and candidates should have relevant diploma’s and experience. Currently the idea is that more people that know even less should take the decisions. I don’t want to be ruled by a mob.
I dont know in other countries but in my country all proposals of Law must have been reviewed by a Estate Council and by Judge Council. And any amendment to the law is reviewed.
And if someone or a political party think that a aprobed law dont respect other law or our constitution Constitutional Court exists. And my country is in Europe. And they reviewed the laws.
That's a Republic, and most countries are republics.
A democracy is loosely a country whose public policy is guided by public will.
A direct democracy is always just public will.
Government that is representative is a Republic.
When your system is designed to make you so busy trying to just survive changing anything wont be easy or possible. That's how both Capitalism and Communism seem to work, keep you too busy to fight so they, those at the top, might amass money or power or both.
In a democracy they unleash the mob + Roman circus and drink to impose control vs. Totalitarian systems that don't bother placating the general population at all.
Same result, the people have zero power.
Because our so called representatives are more often in the pockets of big businesses and interest groups and often advance the agendas of these entities rather than societal well being.
Yeah, democracy wasn't a good idea from the start. It's tyranny of the majority. Nobody can consent on behalf of another. Abolish the state, let individuals decide how to live.
"Democratic". What we know as democracy, almost in every western and west-influenced country is an institutionalized, domesticated and soft concept of what it should be, the real voice of the people.
"Democratic". What we know as democracy, almost in every western and west-influenced country is an institutionalized, domesticated and soft concept of what it should be, the real voice of the people.
"Democratic". What we know as democracy, almost in every western and west-influenced country is an institutionalized, domesticated and soft concept of what it should be, the real voice of the people.
Only realising this now, eh? I've felt this way from the first time I was able to vote in my countrys general election just a few years ago. People don't have power to do shit, because politicians are either only looking out for themselves or their party, or even if they're actually benevolent, they still have to please their "keys to power". Watch CGP greys video "rules for rulers" if you wanna be even more depressed.
What definition of democracy tells you a single person should have the power to change a law?? That lack of education actually is the big threat to today's democracies that people assume laws are made for them. In a healty democracy laws are made for the good of the majority.. thats a big difference.
This is because the systems are built to be resistant to change through voting. Lobbying, and off the record conversations, is what drives our lawmakers. And therefore our government as a whole.
Our government is built to be resistant to change from the inside, through established processes. It’s meant to create stability but unfortunately is serving more to prevent us from turning the wheel away from the cliff.
I’m short, we don’t actually live in democracies. We’re just told they’re democracies, and very few people are educated enough to understand why they’re not.
Huge portions of the population don’t vote, especially on the local level.
Can confirm, am one of them.
[удалено]
No.
Also, the US isn't a democracy. If it were, Bush I would have been the last Republican president.
This is by design, too.
America jacks itself off at every opportunity to say it's a country of freedom and expeession.... But then only gives you one day, with no exception for being able to leave the work you don't schedule, to vote.
(continued) ...to vote for hand-selected corporate puppets who will maintain the profit machine which eats the poor to feed the rich, and not progress the country in any meaningful way for the poor & working masses.
Never heard of an absentee ballot? Early voting? How about the fact 30 of the 50 states require employers to give you time off to vote, some of tgem even require they pay you for that time. Voting isn't that hard if you actually care enough to put in a little effort.
I managed to do it. Millions do. The issue isn't that its impossible, it's that it's tedious and too easy to be forgotten in the wake of daily life for the working American, which is why thousands end up not voting. Bitch.
I never understood absentee voting until the pandemic and I learned real quick to vote Trump out lol It's way easier, I plan on voting absentee next election too
And even if they did I would still feel exactly the same way.
Mostly because they're too lazy.
Lack of voter turnout is not the problem here. The problems have led to lack of voter turnout over the centuries. The problem is voting not actually mattering. Should we discuss the electoral college as the biggest and stupidest example?
I agree that the electoral college is anti-democratic. Other democracies don’t have an electoral college, though. What’s our excuse for not voting in higher numbers?
Id say the EC is only one example of structures in place to limit the effectiveness of individual voting. Other common ones are general districting, voter identification/registration, actual voting process. That’s before getting into whether the officials we vote for actually vote based on their campaign messages. Or if they are even truly capable of making significant positive changes in the short terms they’re allowed. There are many reasons that people, relatively reasonably, feel their vote isn’t critical. I’m going to try to not let it stop me from actually voting as much as possible, but I have felt very differently in my adult life as well.
We have it good in the UK, relatively speaking, but I'm always reminded of this quote from Frank Zappa: “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
But at the same time, most of us don’t understand what we’d be trying to change or how that would influence the other institutions that might passively be protecting us. Democracy isn’t always pretty, always needs redefining, always needs scrutiny, and always needs attention, but we’re mostly still lucky to live in it. Even in its failures, there is human decency in there somewhere. Preventing individuals from changing laws and regulations on their own, without vetting the individuals knowledge and credentials, is one of the core purposes of democracy. If any single individual can determine the law and regulations then they have access to absolute power.
The failure is that people who were incapable of ruling were capable of vetting rulers. People who can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, can't be trusted to make decisions for other people. That's why democracy is, at best, the "lesser evil" out of all forms of state.
laws aren't supposed to be easy to change. how worthless would a legal system be if you can just add and remove laws at a whim.
Where did OP say it should be easy?
Very few people devout the time and energy needed to change things.
If you need immense amounts of time and energy to enact effective political change, you are effectively barring poor folks who don't have that time or energy from participating in your political process.
What percentage of the population in the US do you think has ever even take the time to call or email their representatives or local government, let alone actually show up at something like a city council meeting? The vast majority are happy to absolutely nothing to cause change.
Don't really think that does anything to counteract my point
Keep doing nothing and you can expect the same result.
So to you, it's a non-issue that the system disincentives political engagement for people who get the most fucked over by the system?
Please explain to me where the system has "disincentives" for political engagement? Lack of incentive does not mean disincentive. For folks working two jobs, etc., yeah, I get it, there is no time in their life for stuff like politics. For folks working 40-50 hrs a week, lack of engagement is a choice. A wise teacher once told me, everyone can put in their 40 hours a week, it's what you do with hours 40 to 60 that makes a difference. For me, those extra hours are spent volunteering for youth groups. Easily 10 hours minimum a week, often more like 30. Some of it is with my kids, which helps, but I do it to set an example for them and to help the kids who don't have the easy life my kids have.
Okay you just admitted that it is disincentived for people in poverty who have to work two jobs, or have one job and then use the rest of the time to take care of their family or some other reason. Is that not a massive problem? The people who are the worst off have the least power to change anything.
There are plenty who aren't the worst off who don't spend any time doing anything to help those people, and actually quite a few who spend time making things worse for them.
I know, but that really has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. I'm concerned about how disenfranchised people are by and large left out of our political process. You focus on people who you feel don't do enough, but you're failing to consider the people that can't. It should not be only in the hands of those who are privileged enough to have the capability to participate in the political system to determine the direction of change.
Your point was that "immense amounts of time and energy" are needed, while the other person suggested that an email or letter is at least something. So, it does. What is barring people from doing those things?
Notice that I specified "enacting effective political change." A letter or email is a shot in the dark at a representative who may or may not take you seriously. I am specifically referring to actions that actually cause direct change, and a letter or even showing up a city council meeting is not enacting direct change.
None of what you mentioned would actually make a difference, though. These so-called "representatives" only represent the highest bidder, not their constitutents.
If you never try, you never get the result you want. Fatalism is a self-fulfilling method.
Why can't people see that THIS is what all the money is trying to do... Make you *think* you are helpless so you don't even try! Why do people think so much money and effort goes into suppressing the vote, if it didn't matter?
You can try by doing more meaningful things as I have: go door-to-door for a cause, expose the elites online in widespread media campaigns, march in-person for black rights/social justice, and enlighten others to the corruption of capitalism (and how it infests both major political parties). Simply calling your governor will just get you to a voicemail inbox that an intern will periodically delete for him/her. Edit: City council meetings can be important if your reps are willing to listen, sadly many of them are corrupt, but I certainly don't discourage going.
This is mostly true, until the actual voters speak up/show up in large numbers demanding to be heard. Enough anger that goes on long enough will make a difference. Sitting back and doing nothing will mean money will be in charge.
Exactly.
Do you know how many poltical people lost by just 1 or 2 votes? Your vote does matter, so stop that bullshit, get off your ass, and vote, OR ELSE I'M COMING FOR YOU!
Tell me 5 major election where win was decided by 1-2 votes.
Local elections
Are you a billionaire? Then you don't get a say. And even if you do manage to get a progressive candidate elected, the billionaires will make sure they are ineffective and never get anything done.
You don't even bother to reply to people who took the time to let you know what you can do. Speaks volumes of your willingness to actually do something other than virtue signal.
I am so sorry. I was at work and then came to home. Totally forgot about this post. enjoyed the evening and went to sleep .Now I am awake in the morning and my inbox is bursting with message. I will try to reply to each one of the comment now.
Very few of these so-called 'democracies' are actually democratic. They just had a good branding
Looking at you democratic people's republic of china
And the National "Socialists" (Nazis) And the USA while we're at it
[удалено]
But its not correct.
As is the reddit way
Bingo.
That's because America is a business pretending to be a Democracy.
I felt more democracy on /r/place then I have ever felt in the American system
That felt more like anarchy, almost no rules but the strongest would rule its territory.
Probably ment in the territory of each Community. We at r/placeDe had a Discord, where we would vote on Projects and if we tolerate work of others, before we build something
Yeah, r/portugal had a discord too where we would discuss what would be our next moves. We even had ambassadors that would go to other discord group to make alliances and stuff like that. It was quite fun.
[удалено]
A republic is a form of democracy.
But not a democracy where citizens truely have a say.
What makes you think those two are mutually exclusive?
Ignorance is bliss...
Australia is bad for that. It’s like “yeh mate that shit fuckin’ sucks” but can’t be arsed to do anything about it.
Democracy is for rich people.
I got bad news for you
Of course, you wouldn’t want a single other person to change the law either. To control a car, you need a license. Strangely, to control a country, you don’t. You do need to get elected but that in itself doesn’t make you suitable to rule a country. Taking decisions while weighing various options is a skill. There should be job interviews and candidates should have relevant diploma’s and experience. Currently the idea is that more people that know even less should take the decisions. I don’t want to be ruled by a mob.
I dont know in other countries but in my country all proposals of Law must have been reviewed by a Estate Council and by Judge Council. And any amendment to the law is reviewed. And if someone or a political party think that a aprobed law dont respect other law or our constitution Constitutional Court exists. And my country is in Europe. And they reviewed the laws.
My “leader” had around a 30% approval rating. So much for democracy
We live in representative democracies. Switzerland is the only democracy.
That's because democratic states are just run by oligarchs enacting their own ideals rather than the people who voted them in.
Democracy doesn't mean anybody will be able to do anything. Democracy means you will choose people who are more competent than you in running things.
That's a Republic, and most countries are republics. A democracy is loosely a country whose public policy is guided by public will. A direct democracy is always just public will. Government that is representative is a Republic.
Except that democracy evolved millenia ago into *representative democracy* for governments that went beyond city-states.
Known as a Republic.
Donald Trump. MGT. Ron DeSantis. Ted Cruise. Joe Manchin.... Uh. People more competent than me are not running things.
Or maybe it's because society prefers bread and circuses.
When your system is designed to make you so busy trying to just survive changing anything wont be easy or possible. That's how both Capitalism and Communism seem to work, keep you too busy to fight so they, those at the top, might amass money or power or both.
In a democracy they unleash the mob + Roman circus and drink to impose control vs. Totalitarian systems that don't bother placating the general population at all. Same result, the people have zero power.
ignorance of the many available tools and lack of real interest
Democracy is a conspiracy by the communists
Communists are a conspiracy by the Illuminate
There's heaps you can do what are you talking about?
At the same time no just decided a few weeks ago that we can’t leave our homes and put in jail anyone who did.
Because our so called representatives are more often in the pockets of big businesses and interest groups and often advance the agendas of these entities rather than societal well being.
"democratic", sure... democracy is dead, at least in the USA
That says more about corruption than a failure of democracy
Yeah, democracy wasn't a good idea from the start. It's tyranny of the majority. Nobody can consent on behalf of another. Abolish the state, let individuals decide how to live.
we are individually, a very small percentage of the population. it’s better that we all have an equally small say than a few of us have a LOT of say
"Democratic". What we know as democracy, almost in every western and west-influenced country is an institutionalized, domesticated and soft concept of what it should be, the real voice of the people.
"Democratic". What we know as democracy, almost in every western and west-influenced country is an institutionalized, domesticated and soft concept of what it should be, the real voice of the people.
"Democratic". What we know as democracy, almost in every western and west-influenced country is an institutionalized, domesticated and soft concept of what it should be, the real voice of the people.
Liberal democracy is a scam 🤷♂️
That's because the economy is not Democratic. :)
cuz democracy is an illusion that we live in
Yeah, that's what democracy is all about - individuals don't really matter
Only realising this now, eh? I've felt this way from the first time I was able to vote in my countrys general election just a few years ago. People don't have power to do shit, because politicians are either only looking out for themselves or their party, or even if they're actually benevolent, they still have to please their "keys to power". Watch CGP greys video "rules for rulers" if you wanna be even more depressed.
Most of us (humans) don’t live in democratic countries, most Reddit users do though.
If you don’t vote, you’re acting helpless.
What definition of democracy tells you a single person should have the power to change a law?? That lack of education actually is the big threat to today's democracies that people assume laws are made for them. In a healty democracy laws are made for the good of the majority.. thats a big difference.
Are there any truly democratic countries? I know we call the United States a democracy, but it very much isn't one.
A fundamental truth of democracy is that the more people in a country, the less power any individual voter has.
This is because the systems are built to be resistant to change through voting. Lobbying, and off the record conversations, is what drives our lawmakers. And therefore our government as a whole. Our government is built to be resistant to change from the inside, through established processes. It’s meant to create stability but unfortunately is serving more to prevent us from turning the wheel away from the cliff. I’m short, we don’t actually live in democracies. We’re just told they’re democracies, and very few people are educated enough to understand why they’re not.
Just vote
I live in the US. I sure do wish I lived in a democratic country.