If only we had any historical examples from, say, the past century, showing that the way to stop fascism is NOT by voting the socialdemocrats/liberals into power…
The majority voted for the candidate I don’t like. That means democracy is broken.
Don’t worry, the US democracy was already broken. That became painfully clear when Trump started whining about not winning the popular vote when he was elected the first time. Being able to lose while having the support of the majority of voters is proof enough:
Hillary: 65,853,625 votes
Trump: 62,985,106 votes
Not every vote has the same weight, which is just completely bonkers and proof that your archaic system is due for a retrofit. Let’s just hope it won’t get chucked away entirely in the coming years.
Why? Trump won fair (proverbial at least, I don’t think all the misinformation that has been spewed on X counts as ‘fair’) and square this year, but that doesn’t mean your system isn’t flawed. Votes from certain states still carry less weight due to improperly distributed electors. Same happened with Gore vs Bush by the way.
What part of “he won the popular vote” did you not understand? Across all states, more people voted for him than for Harris. Even if there was no electoral college, he would still be president.
Unless you’re arguing that electoral college votes should be redistributed in a way that ensures the winner will always be a Democrat…
Across all states, more people voted for him than for Harris.
I never said otherwise.
Unless you’re arguing that electoral college votes should be redistributed in a way that ensures the winner will always be a Democrat…
No, I’m saying that your system needs to be fixed so every vote has the same weight, that’s all. The fact that the term ‘popular vote’ exists at all is the flaw. Who won this year is irrelevant to the argument.
I think us non-USians are alluding to the clusterfuck of only having an either/or choice. That’s not how democracy works in most democratic places. There’s only ever two runners and riders that stand any real chance of winning over there. Most people would call that a fixed race.
While there technically might be more choices available in other places (for instance, in Germany there’s usually at least 2-3 smaller parties that have a legitimate chance to make it into the Bundestag), de facto it still boils down to the two major parties (conservatives and social democrats) duking it out amongst themselves, and voting 3rd party is merely a matter of choosing who their junior partner will be. It might help sway the resulting coalition’s direction on some minor issues but the overall direction is still very much decided by the 500 lbs gorilla.
Someone downvoted you for spitting facts? Interesting. The two US parties are both right of centre, which gives an immediate imbalance. Small parties can have some bearing on their senior partners policies, like you say. I’m assuming Germany has local elections, mayoral elections etc. surely some of the smaller, more niche parties, pick up seats in those if they happen. Trends identified by smaller parties will get picked up by bigger parties, so they serve their worth there, too.
Unfortunately, the day after Trump was elected, coalition talks between the non-nazi parties in Saxony, a German state, failed. Which means there is no likely way to build a government coalition without a re-election or admittting the far right party in that state now.
And the day after that, the center-left federal government coalition broke apart, leaving it without a majority, which will trigger an early federal election next year.
And with current sentiments, the result of that election will likely pose the exact same problem Saxony now has, but for all of Germany.
Whilst things do appear quite bleak across a lot of the European continent right now at least with a parliament that’s receptive to multiple parties there is a hope that one could quickly rise-up from the ashes of those defeated should the AfD (? + others) lurch the country far from the centre in the not too distant future. My confidence isn’t that high, but it is a possibility.
And yet not everyone votes or even has a chance to vote in this democracy. And don’t get me started on the college of representarives. Seems pretty broken to me.
Well, it is nearly dead now.
The majority voted for the candidate I don’t like. That means democracy is broken.
Trump said the exact same thing in 2020 and was rightly condemned for it. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Get used to it.
He literally said you won’t need to vote again. Fucking brain-dead take there.
Threatening to use the armed forces against your political opponents is generally considered not a great sign for a democracy as well.
If only we had any historical examples from, say, the past century, showing that the way to stop fascism is NOT by voting the socialdemocrats/liberals into power…
Sorry. Can’t upvote your post coz its on 66 and this really does give “execute order 66” vibes
What a stupid fucking take given this whole election.
Republicans literally wrote a playbook on how they’re going to do it called Project 2025 ya dunce.
It’s clear Americans need to learn the hard way just like Europe did a long time ago.
Germany is heading that way again. Maybe we all haven’t learned the real lesson yet.
Capitalism always trends towards end stage no matter how much you reform it?
There is no lesson to learn. Humanity itself is fascist. We are the problem
Yes democracy will be broken since Orangeman promised that this will be the last election you will ever need to vote in. Congrats.
Don’t worry, the US democracy was already broken. That became painfully clear when Trump started whining about not winning the popular vote when he was elected the first time. Being able to lose while having the support of the majority of voters is proof enough:
Hillary: 65,853,625 votes
Trump: 62,985,106 votes
Not every vote has the same weight, which is just completely bonkers and proof that your archaic system is due for a retrofit. Let’s just hope it won’t get chucked away entirely in the coming years.
FYI, Trump DID also win the popular vote this year. Perhaps it’s time to retire this argument.
Why? Trump won fair (proverbial at least, I don’t think all the misinformation that has been spewed on X counts as ‘fair’) and square this year, but that doesn’t mean your system isn’t flawed. Votes from certain states still carry less weight due to improperly distributed electors. Same happened with Gore vs Bush by the way.
What part of “he won the popular vote” did you not understand? Across all states, more people voted for him than for Harris. Even if there was no electoral college, he would still be president.
Unless you’re arguing that electoral college votes should be redistributed in a way that ensures the winner will always be a Democrat…
I never said otherwise.
No, I’m saying that your system needs to be fixed so every vote has the same weight, that’s all. The fact that the term ‘popular vote’ exists at all is the flaw. Who won this year is irrelevant to the argument.
I think us non-USians are alluding to the clusterfuck of only having an either/or choice. That’s not how democracy works in most democratic places. There’s only ever two runners and riders that stand any real chance of winning over there. Most people would call that a fixed race.
While there technically might be more choices available in other places (for instance, in Germany there’s usually at least 2-3 smaller parties that have a legitimate chance to make it into the Bundestag), de facto it still boils down to the two major parties (conservatives and social democrats) duking it out amongst themselves, and voting 3rd party is merely a matter of choosing who their junior partner will be. It might help sway the resulting coalition’s direction on some minor issues but the overall direction is still very much decided by the 500 lbs gorilla.
Someone downvoted you for spitting facts? Interesting. The two US parties are both right of centre, which gives an immediate imbalance. Small parties can have some bearing on their senior partners policies, like you say. I’m assuming Germany has local elections, mayoral elections etc. surely some of the smaller, more niche parties, pick up seats in those if they happen. Trends identified by smaller parties will get picked up by bigger parties, so they serve their worth there, too.
Results of the last German Federal election:
It’s really not 2 major parties and their junior partners anymore.
Nice. I was hoping it might look a bit like this. Thanks for researching / posting.
Unfortunately, the day after Trump was elected, coalition talks between the non-nazi parties in Saxony, a German state, failed. Which means there is no likely way to build a government coalition without a re-election or admittting the far right party in that state now.
And the day after that, the center-left federal government coalition broke apart, leaving it without a majority, which will trigger an early federal election next year.
And with current sentiments, the result of that election will likely pose the exact same problem Saxony now has, but for all of Germany.
Whilst things do appear quite bleak across a lot of the European continent right now at least with a parliament that’s receptive to multiple parties there is a hope that one could quickly rise-up from the ashes of those defeated should the AfD (? + others) lurch the country far from the centre in the not too distant future. My confidence isn’t that high, but it is a possibility.
This is either bad faith or supreme levels of stupidity.
Probably supreme levels of stupidity, caused by bad faith. Most people don’t get this dumb without a little elbow grease.
I mean… you’re kind of right, but this is a “read the room” situation.
And yet not everyone votes or even has a chance to vote in this democracy. And don’t get me started on the college of representarives. Seems pretty broken to me.
Congrats for getting the most downvotes on Lemmy I’ve ever seen. Which you absolutely deserve by the way, in my opinion.
KȮNTEKST Z F Ð WIK!!!
spoiler
CONTEXT IS FOR THE WEAK!!!