What is your line in the sand?
Edit: thank you all for your responses. I think it’s important as an American we take your view points seriously. I think of a North Korean living inside of North Korea. They don’t really know how bad it is because that is all hidden from them and they’ve never had anything else. As things get worse for Americans it’s important to have your voices because we will become more and more isolated.
Even the guy who said, “lol.” Some people need that sort of sobering reaction.
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.
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.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.
To be honest, not even from the start was it a true democracy, the Electoral College is a layer on top of democracy to give different weight to each vote.
Never have, they are ruled by their uniparty and indeed they can’t see outside their box.
I am probably that lol guy.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.
Also president having so much power was clearly never democratic to begin with as we can see it all play out now.
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.
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.
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.
Not since I saw this graph:
From this paper:
This was published in 2014, back when Obama was in office.
The institutions are completely captured. Yes, even the ones you thought were on your side all this time.
I am a bit too dumb to understand that graph and asked ai for an explanation. It helped me, maybe it also helps others:
This graph comes from a study by Gilens and Page that examines how different groups influence U.S. policy decisions. It has three separate charts, each showing how policy adoption (whether a policy is enacted) relates to the preferences of different groups:
1. Average Citizens’ Preferences (top chart)
2. Economic Elites’ Preferences (middle chart)
3. Interest Group Alignments (bottom chart)
Breaking It Down:
• X-axis:
• In the first two graphs, it represents how much each group supports a policy (from 0% to 100%).
• In the third graph (Interest Groups), the x-axis shows alignment, with negative values meaning opposition and positive values meaning support.
• Y-axis:
• The left y-axis (dark line) shows the predicted probability of a policy being adopted.
• The right y-axis (gray bars) shows how often different levels of support occur in the data (percentage of cases).
Key Takeaways & Surprises:
1. The top chart (Average Citizens) is nearly a flat line.
• This means that whether the general public strongly supports or opposes a policy has little impact on whether it gets adopted.
2. The middle chart (Economic Elites) has a rising curve.
• This suggests that policies supported by the wealthy have a much higher chance of being adopted.
3. The bottom chart (Interest Groups) also shows a strong upward trend.
• The more interest groups align in favor of a policy, the more likely it is to be adopted.
Big Picture:
This graph suggests that the opinions of average citizens have little to no effect on policy decisions, while economic elites and interest groups have significant influence. This challenges the idea that the U.S. operates as a true democracy where the will of the majority decides policy.
I consider it an autocratic regime with strong fascist characteristics.
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 is still a democracy, but that democracy is in crisis. You will know over the next 2/years if it will survive, although the next federal election will be the real test.
- if the judicial and congress still share power,
- if elections are still fair.
Democracies can recover if they keep their representation.
Elections in the US aren’t really all that fair TBH.
Researchers at the Brookings Institution agree that the strategic manipulation of our electoral process is largely to blame for the erosion of US democracy in recent years. Brookings says this manipulation takes various forms: the intentional addition of administrative barriers to voting, unfairly drawing electoral maps, the subversion of the election certification and counting process, and the violent coup attempt on January 6, 2021.
The United States is experiencing two major forms of democratic erosion in its governing institutions:
- Strategic manipulation of elections. Distinct from “voter fraud,” which is almost non-existent in the United States, election manipulation has become increasingly common and increasingly extreme. Examples include election procedures that make it harder to vote (like inadequate polling facilities) or that reduce the opposing party’s representation (like gerrymandering).
- Executive aggrandizement. Even a legitimately elected leader can undermine democracy if they eliminate governmental “checks and balances” or consolidate power in unaccountable institutions. The United States has seen substantial expansions of executive power and serious efforts to erode the independence of the civil service. In addition, there are serious questions about the impartiality of the judiciary.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-democratic-decline-in-the-united-states/
One thing that I think they may have missed in this analysis is erosion from the inside. Our supreme Court overturned or instituted a couple major rules that have allowed corporations to funnel billions of dollars directly to politicians with citizens united decision, then helped erode administrative functions of government by overturning Chevron deference. When you combine that shit with the way we allow corporate lobbying in the US, we’re not even close to “democracy” in this shit hole. It’s a corporate oligarchy masquerading as a republic/democracy. Corporations own this country, the government protects them, that bullshit you hear about the “land of the free” is about corporations not individuals.
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.
Firstly, the USA is obviously not a “dictatorship”. Come on, be serious. Words mean things.
Second, America’s two-party system also has internal factions and primaries, many of them completely open (you don’t even need to declare allegiance to the party). The primaries are effectively the first round in a two-round electoral system (of which there are plenty in the world). The whole point is to create a binary choice in the final round. For some reason this always gets missed by otherwise informed observers. “There are only two parties” is just not a valid argument in this debate.
Of course, none of these facts will be popular here, since the real point of this thread is to allow participants to performatively dump on the shared hate-object. Classic social media, I get it.
Firstly, the USA is obviously not a “dictatorship”.
You sure about that? Have you read the news lately?
Yeah I have and saying that kinda just makes you seem uninformed.
Like the people who call the US “a 3rd world country in a Gucci belt”. It just makes it super obvious that you don’t understand how high quality of a life the average person has in the US. Especially globally.
I’m not going to list all the red flags, but there is a reason people feel like this. A few major ones, president talking about taking over other countries out of the blue, attacking our allies to the point where Americans are suffering much more than necessary, his sidekick doing Nazi salutes on stage, literal commercials for his $idekick on the white house lawn.
It’s pretty clear there is no rule of law for blatant corruption and no accountability. Replace USA/Trump with Russia/Putin or NK/Un, guess what, same shit, different smell. Either follow orders or get shipped out is the example they’re trying to set, as well as making free speech illegal.
We’re FAR from a functioning democracy.
While I don’t consider the system of governance there very good, I’ll have to agree. While I do absolutely worry for the American democracy, it isn’t a dictatorship in its current form. I also agree that the primaries do make the system better and more democratic. I still think that the two part system is abysmal, but the primaries do make the claim to democracy stronger.
That’s a balanced and fair-minded take. Unfortunately it won’t be appreciated here, because what people are looking for in this thread is catharsis and confirmation of their biases.
The primaries that are not required to be democratic and can simply be rigged by the party?
I wouldn’t call America a dictatorship yet, but I would claim that it is heading there at a rapid pace. Trump and Republicans actions such as disregarding the Constitution, removing rights, beginning mass deportations including legals, bringing in a billionaire to shred the government, and ignoring court orders is not a good look for a democratic government.
Yes, I know all that and I completely agree. It’s all but impossible to imagine that the USA will ever be an actually dictatorship, despite the ignorant shrieking around here. Because of its traditions of individual freedom and federalism.
But it’s obviously looking less and less like democracy.
First off, I’m an American. Born a stone’s throw from the location of one of the critical events in the history of the American revolution.
To answer the question, no. Leaving aside the whole Republic versus democracy argument, my point of realization was when one party seized upon a minor technical issue and disenfranchised countless voters via lawsuit, sufficient to allow the race to be called in their favor.
I’m sure there are many readers who believe I’m talking about 2016. For those readers, your keyword search is “hanging Chad”.
Another key search from the same events is “Brooks Brothers Riot”.
Wow, this happens before I was born, had no idea this shit happened before.
Wrelcome to what the few of us paying attention have been trying to shout at everyone else for a quarter century.
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
So many people not reading the “people outside the US” part.
I am outside the US, not a citizen, just someone whose life constantly seems to be affected by shitty US politics
