238
submitted 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) by GiddyGap@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

Trump's falsehoods — and what Democrats say is the threat he poses to democracy — have even some Democrats questioning whether their party should accept a loss in the Nov. 5 election.

While 19% of Republicans say Trump should reject the election results if he loses, 12% of Democrats say Kamala Harris should do the same if she loses.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 43 points 18 hours ago

"1 in 5 Republicans admit they just plain don't like democracy."

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

How many people really like democracy when they are not part of the majority?

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Democracy is four cannibals deciding what’s for dinner.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 54 minutes ago

That'd be all human societies. Some of us are sort of like vegetarian, consciously refusing to eat humans. That would be libertarians and maybe left anarchists. But the basic system still is this.

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 44 minutes ago

Libertarians are the “vegetarians” of politics— they like everyone to equate them with vegans, but in reality have no issues eating fish, chicken and other meats, and in reality have a pretty loose definition of what’s “not meat.”

The real political vegans are those who go off to form their own communities and reject the ENTIRE political structure, not just the parts that don’t directly benefit them.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 29 minutes ago

Not entirely correct, if you read about panarchy and contract jurisdictions and georgism and NAP, you might see that mostly they approach the same point of the river flow, just walking on the other shore, so to say.

We can agree on libertarians being the whole spectrum from "vegetarians" to "vegans" in politics, and left anarchists being only in the "vegan" area, if you will.

Still,

The real political vegans are those who go off to form their own communities and reject the ENTIRE political structure, not just the parts that don’t directly benefit them.

  • such libertarians exist too, and the more radical part of them is fully of this kind.
[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Still better than every other option.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

There are variants of democracy. With certain groups differently represented in the population, democracy based on sortition is better than democracy based on voting if you want one's chance of doing something to be proportional to their faction's number. While with voting you can have 60% in favor of A and 40% in favor of B, and A will win 10 times in row and get their way, not 60%. While with sortition it will be 60% for a member of A to be chosen, and 40% for a member of B. Just math.

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

That's a bit more than just math. When considering a policy, I don't tend to take into account where the different parties stand. It's better to think for yourself and not resort to tribalism. With that in mind I do think the majority should win 100% of the time. It has been insanely annoying here in the US how some policies have had popular support for years if not decades yet go nowhere because of small interest groups who use cheap tricks like the fillibuster and the electoral college to ensure the will of the minority wins out. I do acknowledge the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but I think protections against it should be provided by the rights outlined in a strong constitution.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

Sortition is connected to population numbers, so it makes the weight of a vote in the majority equal to the proportion of that majority, and same with minorities. It can't be compared to electoral college and filibuster.

It also is one way to kill the degenerate dominance of two major parties.

Also majorities are slow to change, and it's simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one's vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.

I see where you are coming from in the context of the US, but our world had a democracy that took will of the majority to the absolute, it took just a couple of years for it to turn into dictatorship. Then after like 60 years that system (which never died on paper) was resurrected, with not the best results either. That'd be Soviets.

Well, and there are many countries around frankly with "good enough" (in year 1999) political systems, which don't seem good enough anymore.

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

"Also majorities are slow to change, and it's simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one's vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of."

It doesn't. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn't make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

I'd say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren't due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.

Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.

Edit: and by minority votes I'm talking about policies with less than 50% support.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less.

If your group's percentage is 45% and the chance of its common position becoming reality is less than 45%, which it is with voting as opposed to sortition, it is.

It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

More people disagreeing with me than agreeing doesn't mean that they should always have their way (because there's more of them) and I never. It means that proportionally to our numbers sometimes they should have their way and sometimes I mine.

This is simply closer to the real wishes of the voters. And that can be delivered by sortition.

Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.

And I'm saying that that minority-supported policies should pass proportionally to that minority. 20% percent minority included, for example.

If you are afraid of what that 20% percent will make you do if their representatives get up through sortition - well, shouldn't give any central government the ability to hurt you that much.

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

I think we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about individual policies, and I think you are talking about elected representatives. I do agree that percentages of representatives should match the population, but votes on individual policies should always match what the majority of the population wants.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 56 minutes ago

Eh, no. What good then are the percentages of representatives?

The whole point is that policies should average to matching what the average citizen wants. Not the majority.

It's fair - sometimes the majority gets their way and the minority has to obey. Sometimes other way around. With frequency according to percentages.

That's the point. Actual power to make decisions should be balanced by representation of positions in the society. Not held by majority.

this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
238 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19082 readers
3719 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, 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. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS