That would almost certainly be a better method than superdelegates and corporations/lobbyists/PACs influencing the election. The election is a year out and we already know with certainty who our two choices will be, and at least one of them would never be an option for most people.
The electoral college elects the president. We just vote on which side gets to send it’s people there. Don’t know a single name of one of these voters and they can and do vote against the will of the people. It’s a partial democracy at best and really needs to change to popular vote already.
Last time I checked nobody in the US got an option to vote for “let’s not be an psychotic, thoroughly evil mass-murdering neocolonialist monstrosity that threatens the entire planet with nukes.”
I’m so tired of seeing thread #35738272 of Lemmy not understanding how a liberal democracy works. ‘WHY ARE WE NOT VOTING OUT THE OBVIOUS FASCISTS AND VOTING IN THE SOCIALIST UTOPIA RIGHT NOW, CLEARLY DEMOCRACY IS BROKEN’
Or does it perhaps mean “engage in a rigged spectacle every four years where the majority of people get to choose between two overmoneyed bureaucrats whose allegiance to the status quo has been vetted by corporate interests?”
“Liberal democracy” is no more democratic than “social darwinism” is socialist - or Darwinist.
Yeah but western elections aren’t rigged are they. You get a lot of choice. The two final candidates are just one part of that in the US system. Elsewhere there is much more variety, but the people tend to vote for safe, mainstream moderate candidates (with notable far right exceptions), which is why they consistently govern Europe and North America. Sadly, the world isn’t just confused populist leftists. Everyone does actually just want what they’ve all voted for.
but the people tend to vote for safe, mainstream moderate candidates
Really? Is that so? It has nothing to do with the fact that it’s the wealthy that prefers funding these (supposedly) “safe, mainstream moderate candidates” that won’t upset the status quo that benefits said wealthy at the expense of everyone and everything else?
No, not really. Funding is no guarantee of political success, some of the most expensive campaigns in US history have been failures. People don’t want the status quo upset, that’s why it’s the status quo. People are continually voting for it.
What, did your President chosen by a kiss from a bald eagle?
Edit: guys, issa joke.
That would be more acceptable than the real way, which is simply being chosen by the American oligarchs.
That would almost certainly be a better method than superdelegates and corporations/lobbyists/PACs influencing the election. The election is a year out and we already know with certainty who our two choices will be, and at least one of them would never be an option for most people.
The electoral college elects the president. We just vote on which side gets to send it’s people there. Don’t know a single name of one of these voters and they can and do vote against the will of the people. It’s a partial democracy at best and really needs to change to popular vote already.
It’s extremely rare for that to happen and I think last time it did happen the states made it illegal right after.
Last time I checked nobody in the US got an option to vote for “let’s not be an psychotic, thoroughly evil mass-murdering neocolonialist monstrosity that threatens the entire planet with nukes.”
I’m so tired of seeing thread #35738272 of Lemmy not understanding how a liberal democracy works. ‘WHY ARE WE NOT VOTING OUT THE OBVIOUS FASCISTS AND VOTING IN THE SOCIALIST UTOPIA RIGHT NOW, CLEARLY DEMOCRACY IS BROKEN’
It’s very easy to understand (so-called) “liberal” democracy - as long as you understand that there is absolutely nothing democratic about it.
Except loads of stuff, like your ability to vote, and for that vote to contribute to deciding who leads the country.
What does the word democracy mean?
Does it perhaps mean, “rule by the people?”
Or does it perhaps mean “engage in a rigged spectacle every four years where the majority of people get to choose between two overmoneyed bureaucrats whose allegiance to the status quo has been vetted by corporate interests?”
“Liberal democracy” is no more democratic than “social darwinism” is socialist - or Darwinist.
Yeah but western elections aren’t rigged are they. You get a lot of choice. The two final candidates are just one part of that in the US system. Elsewhere there is much more variety, but the people tend to vote for safe, mainstream moderate candidates (with notable far right exceptions), which is why they consistently govern Europe and North America. Sadly, the world isn’t just confused populist leftists. Everyone does actually just want what they’ve all voted for.
Really? Is that so? It has nothing to do with the fact that it’s the wealthy that prefers funding these (supposedly) “safe, mainstream moderate candidates” that won’t upset the status quo that benefits said wealthy at the expense of everyone and everything else?
No, not really. Funding is no guarantee of political success, some of the most expensive campaigns in US history have been failures. People don’t want the status quo upset, that’s why it’s the status quo. People are continually voting for it.
I suspect the bald eagle would have kissed someone else.
deleted by creator