Well, some are markedly more democratic than others. I still wouldn’t give the US high marks for democracy, but “The ability for the majority of the population to freely choose a candidate of their choice” is miles ahead of “There is one candidate and the Central Committee approved them”, even with all the other fuckery that goes on.
Independents are allowed to run without the approval of the party, as are third parties in the US system. Furthermore, the two party ‘central committees’ choose the candidates through primary votes. That’s a pretty vast fucking difference.
You are right in that I wouldn’t consider the US system as bad at giving individuals a voice as the Chinese/Russian systems. It is actually worse than the Hungarian system even afte Orbán fucked it up even more though.
How many of those primaries happened before the previous election? If I run as an independent, will I get the same campaign resources as the other parties? Otherwise the whole election and the mandate is only about as meaningful as that of Orbán. I don’t consider Hungary a democracy, it’s an electoral autocracy.
Considering the meaning of democracy is just that decisions are made by the will of the polity’s population, gonna go with ‘yes’.
If you try to think of democracy as some perfect decision-making machine that will decide in accordance with your moral code, the only democracy you’ll find is autocracy.
Democracy results in decision-making that is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It results in decision-making with broad consensus or acquiescence by the polity’s population. That’s all.
How many people? How many people have to vote to make it a democracy? At what point does something stop being a democracy? How many people are allowed to be excluded ? How many people are allowed to be exterminated before it ceases to be a democracy? Would you classify apartheid as democracy for instance?
Not entirely sure any of those are democracies.
Well, some are markedly more democratic than others. I still wouldn’t give the US high marks for democracy, but “The ability for the majority of the population to freely choose a candidate of their choice” is miles ahead of “There is one candidate and the Central Committee approved them”, even with all the other fuckery that goes on.
I’ll be honest with you, “there are two candidates and the two party central comittees approved them” sounds only marginally better.
Independents are allowed to run without the approval of the party, as are third parties in the US system. Furthermore, the two party ‘central committees’ choose the candidates through primary votes. That’s a pretty vast fucking difference.
You are right in that I wouldn’t consider the US system as bad at giving individuals a voice as the Chinese/Russian systems. It is actually worse than the Hungarian system even afte Orbán fucked it up even more though.
How many of those primaries happened before the previous election? If I run as an independent, will I get the same campaign resources as the other parties? Otherwise the whole election and the mandate is only about as meaningful as that of Orbán. I don’t consider Hungary a democracy, it’s an electoral autocracy.
I mean, that’s my main point of contention. Beyond that I’m not trying to say much.
The US?? That’s laughable. There is already systems in place to make it difficult for certain demographics to vote, and it’s getting worse: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-voting-rights-groups-warn-the-save-act-may-make-it-harder-for-married-women-to-vote
You just spent the last year campagning for a genocider because the other genocides was even worse.
I’m sorry, did we redefine democracy to mean “Democracy except when the vast majority of the population is in favor of supporting a genocidal state”?
Well the corollary of this is that American deserve collective punishment.
You know, since they support it for others
Can we? Like not really seeing a downside to imposing that rule…
More “At that point, we’re discussing moral issues OTHER than democracy” rather than “We shouldn’t try to stop this”
Is it though? Can a democracy truly exist when it decides to exterminate entire peoples? Is that democracy?
Considering the meaning of democracy is just that decisions are made by the will of the polity’s population, gonna go with ‘yes’.
If you try to think of democracy as some perfect decision-making machine that will decide in accordance with your moral code, the only democracy you’ll find is autocracy.
Democracy results in decision-making that is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It results in decision-making with broad consensus or acquiescence by the polity’s population. That’s all.
How many people? How many people have to vote to make it a democracy? At what point does something stop being a democracy? How many people are allowed to be excluded ? How many people are allowed to be exterminated before it ceases to be a democracy? Would you classify apartheid as democracy for instance?