9
No. And I haven't for a while now. Looking at your electoral system (electoral college, gerrymandering etc.), it probably never was but it was never as obvious as it is now.
I grew up in the US and have lived outside it for 10 years now. I would agree with this. Voting and representation have never been total and is definitely less available for many groups. Further things are being stripped away.
Yeah. My wake-up call was quite early in life, when SCOTUS handed the election to GWB. If I was born a generation earlier I'd have called it with Watergate. If I was an ancestor currently dead, I would have called it around the time an assassin put the presidency in the hands of the opposite party, and a drunk asshole subsequently decided reconstruction efforts should fail. Or possibly just prior, when we somehow decided not to hang every man Jack of the confederacy for treason.
Edit: an earlier still version of me would have overseen the death of a culture brought on by poxy mad white religious extremists, and laughed ruefully to hear that centuries later the utter bastardy continues unchanged.
I consider it an autocratic regime with strong fascist characteristics.
Not at all, you are just an autocracy now but don't fully realise it, and as the other commentator had said, not even really a good democracy in the loosest of terms before this entire mess going on ATM!
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.
Never have, they are ruled by their uniparty and indeed they can't see outside their box.
I am probably that lol guy.
No, unfortunately.
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
I do. On my imaginary scale around 4 out of 10. So far the mess looks to me like it was voted in.
Serious answer : I am not living there, have no idea how to compare, nor whether the court system works as a safeguard.
Troll answer In democracy you have the right to healthcare and education, so it's been a while it isn't
No. I agree with the comment about the electoral system and gerrymandering as fundamental issues. And the current administration does not respect the judiciary branch, that much is clear, and their actions are completely undermining the supposed divisions of power, without which there is no democracy.
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.
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.
Are you referring to the swing states?
We're not talking about anything else.
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.
Candidates regularly ignore states while campaigning. I know for a fact that happened last year with both Trump and Harris. They do know their states are locked in.
They aren't appealing to swing states artificially,
I'm saying the swing states are created artificially to create a close race. It wouldn't be close otherwise and instead decidedly blue if it were a fairer system that doesn't devalue people's votes arbitrarily.
And also, your map needs population density to be meaningful. And a better source.
Those red areas are in fact not empty, there are people who live in those regions
It's hyperbole. Their populations are peanuts to the cities, which is why we weed the population density so you can stop pointing at the map and be like "see all this red land??" and I stop internally screaming.
swing states are the result of the voting populace going 50/50 on what party they vote for. One doesn't create a swing state.
I see where you're coming from. Popular vote wins the election, easy enough. People don't vote like that. I don't understand why you are refusing to see the other perspective.
People with similar ideologies clump together. Democrats are a majority in the US, and the greater share of which live very close to one another in select cities across the country. What you are saying is that only what they think matters and they will always get their way because there is more of them.
People who live in the city live very different lives and have different concerns than people live in rural areas. I don't necessarily think it is okay for one group to have all the power, especially since they are so out of touch with one another.
An election system should be consistent and maintain a competitive election, and should not succumb to mass politics or control from people in power.
swing states are the result of the voting populace going 50/50 on what party they vote for. One doesn’t create a swing state.
Yes, by tipping the voting base to go 50/50. It's literally like 60/40 if the electoral college is removed, and that's my entire point. I'm not here to argue the hows and whys about why it is that way. Voter disenfranchisement is my main point and that's my only point.
I don’t understand why you are refusing to see the other perspective.
Because I know the other perspective and it's a load of bullshit. Here, all of this:
People with similar ideologies clump together. Democrats are a majority in the US, and the greater share of which live very close to one another in select cities across the country. What you are saying is that only what they think matters and they will always get their way because there is more of them. People who live in the city live very different lives and have different concerns than people live in rural areas. I don’t necessarily think it is okay for one group to have all the power, especially since they are so out of touch with one another.
All of it is apologetic bullshit and an excuse for the right wing to hinder and diminish other people's rights to vote, as they always do. The only time location actually matters (and should matter) is whether you're voting from abroad or not. That's how we do it and that's how everyone I know does it... except for the US because of its bullshit conservative mental gymnastics, as always.
especially since they are so out of touch with one another
I've never in my life seen a more out of touch party than the Conservatives, tbh. Being "out of touch" is not a strong argument, and doubly so in today's American political circus.
An election system should be consistent and maintain a competitive election, and should not succumb to mass politics or control from people in power.
Pfft. No. That honestly sounds like you have an agenda in your mind that somehow, and for some reason, must give special concessions to the lesser party so that you have a minority rule at the expense of people's voting rights and dignity. That's evil and that's not democratic in the way that aligns with most people's values.
You don't appear to understand how the electoral college works. Each state has electors who vote on behalf of the citizenry. These electors always go with the populace. So essentially popular vote applies to win the electoral votes of a state. Some states do winner take all, some split the electoral votes proportional to how the populace voted. A state that Is 50/50 doesn't become 60/40 if the electoral college is removed. People vote how they vote and that's that.
I don't mean out of touch in the traditional sense. I mean the rural residents and urban residents are out of touch with each other, meaning they live very different lives.
I have an agenda in mind? You are quite literally advocating for single-party dominance, and all they need to do to is maintain control over their already established small spheres of influence in large cities. Appeal to a couple local politicians and their citizens, maintain power, leave the rest of the country in ruin.
It's true I don't know the details because of being a foreigner and all, but I have seen its grander effects on the election results and that's all that matters. Like I said, "I’m not here to argue the hows and whys. Voter disenfranchisement is my main point and that’s my only point."
I don’t mean out of touch in the traditional sense. I mean the rural residents and urban residents are out of touch with each other, meaning they live very different lives.
And so what? What does that have to do with the elections and the presidency? Why is that ever relevant? And why is that used as part of having to decide how much a vote is worth?
I mean, if by "different lives" you mean different realities with the right skewing towards conspiracy, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it matters. Q Anon, JFK revival parade, the Deep State and Hillary Clinton/pizza gate. Holy crap. I don't think pandering to them electorally is the right call. I mean, they promoted and elected convicted felon Trump twice and pushed your country squarely into plutocracy leaning towards kleptocracy.
You are quite literally advocating for single-party dominance,
What, you think the left is one single homogeneous group? I was about to say you're on Lemmy, you should know better, but I see your account is only 1 month old. Also, consider the state of the Overton window in the US before you accuse anyone of such things: Your left is my right and your right does not exist here because it's a lil' bit crazy.
leave the rest of the country in ruin.
As opposed to the Republican presidents who have never ever done that? What is happening now with your Cheeto in Charge? And Bush? And Regan? Hello?
Democracy is an umbrella term. These are the types of democracy the US is:
-
Representative Democracy
-
Constitutional Democracy
-
Presidential Democracy
-
Liberal Democracy
Types of Democracy the US is not:
-
Direct Democracy
-
Parliamentary Democracy
-
Illiberal Democracy
-
Participatory Democracy
-
Social Democracy
So yes, it's a democracy.
You are confusing a lot of pol science terms, as well as using some which aren't part of pol science at all.
All modern democracies are representative democracies, as in voters votes for representatives to represent them. Switzerland has elements of direct democracy, but on a foundation of representative democracy as well. Constitutional, presidential and liberal democracy are not an actual meaningful terms in political science.
Technically the US is a representative democracy, but I am pretty sure OPs is asking about the practice of the thing. And the practice is very different from the written word about how it was supposed to be, especially this recent presidential term.
I didn't confuse anything, this isn't a pol sci class, so I don't care what is or is not considered a pol sci term. Yes, they are mixed and some are subtypes of others
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.
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.
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.
The answer depends of the reference point. I was born in Russia (I'm living abroad from 2022) and compared to the putin's dictatorship US is a democracy. You guys still have a freedom of speech, not fake opposition to Trump and independent courts. From the other side, most of the countries are democracies if compared to Russia..
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
9 points (90.9% liked)
Ask Lemmy
31095 readers
906 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS