I love how I’m just suppose to trust the official texts on China and Cuba, but not the US. That’s what these “do your own homework” posts always imply.
Ah, yes, the famous democratic soviet elections with a single candidate.
There would be plenty of other options if they stopped falling out of buildings or suffering sudden terminal illness!
It’s absolute monarchy with extra steps really.
More elections and more candidates than in any time of US history.
China would be a democracy if the candidates put on the ballot for public approval weren’t chosen by the CPC. In theory, their voting system is more fair and democratic than first-past-the-post (which is objectively the worst voting system).
Unfortunately, that’s a pretty big barrier to being democratic.
But I agree that FPTP is one of the worst systems, and desperately needs to be replaced.
I mean, yall really think Hillary Clinton was not chosen by the state? Or Biden/Harris last year?
Not really defending China here but, it’s not like our bullshit is better. The DNC and RNC run their bullshit how they want.
I mean, yall really think Hillary Clinton was not chosen by the state?
Do you not fucking remember the 2016 primary
Where the DNC took in money for “the winner” of the primary, and gave it to Clinton to spend on the primary to skirt campaign finance law?
Yeah, I remember it. The DNC was against Bernie, and did everything they could to stop him so Hillary could get the nomination. They likely would’ve chosen Hillary even if he won the primary anyways.
My point is more it’s the DNC who runs all of that, not some magic free and fair democracy. They’re still the one choosing who runs.
Where the DNC took in money for “the winner” of the primary, and gave it to Clinton to spend on the primary to skirt campaign finance law?
So now we’ve changed from “The state chooses our candidates!” to “There’s party favoritism”? Also not what fucking happened, bad as it was, but facts are so unexciting in comparison, aren’t they?
Yeah, I remember it. The DNC was against Bernie, and did everything they could to stop him so Hillary could get the nomination. They likely would’ve chosen Hillary even if he won the primary anyways.
Jesus fucking Christ.
My point is more it’s the DNC who runs all of that, not some magic free and fair democracy. They’re still the one choosing who runs.
Bruh, considering that your opinion is that the DNC would’ve just nullified the primary if Bernie had won, I’m pretty sure your opinion on American elections is worth jack shit.
So the article stating they gave Clinton control of the victory fund during the primaries is not the same as… giving her money collected by the DNC to allow her collect more than legally allowed by campaign finance laws? Cuz…. The article goes into exactly that?
You can keep pretending america is perfect I guess man. Have fun. I’m just saying it’s not. Our elections are not some magical choice of the people who runs. It’s billionaires, DNC, and RNC running the show.
In smaller elections it’s possible for a non-DNC candidate to win, mostly because the DNC has literally given up on small elections, or Florida as a whole, but in larger ones they will all but guarantee they lose.
So the article stating they gave Clinton control of the victory fund during the primaries is not the same as… giving her money collected by the DNC to allow her collect more than legally allowed by campaign finance laws? Cuz…. The article goes into exactly that?
Did you not read the fucking article.
Or did you just not understand it.
You can keep pretending america is perfect I guess man. Have fun. I’m just saying it’s not.
Nice backpedal. This you?
I mean, yall really think Hillary Clinton was not chosen by the state? Or Biden/Harris last year?
Not really defending China here but, it’s not like our bullshit is better. The DNC and RNC run their bullshit how they want.
Sorry, what are you reading in the article? The “technically this wasn’t illegal” and “I didn’t find other evidence other than this funding agreement”?
It goes into how she skirted campaign finance laws. The DNC is allowed to collect like 15x more than individual campaigns. Allowing the Clinton campaign access to that about a year before the decision for the nominee, means she had access to up to 16x the amount Bernie sanders had access to. Was it technically legal? Sure. Because the DNC is usually controlled by an incumbent there’s nothing making it illegal for that to happen, is it effectively just skirting campaign finance law? Yes.
I’m sure it’s legal for the CCP to choose the nominees as well. Does not make either of these right.
(Also, yes I know the DNC and RNC are legally “not the government” but to pretend they don’t have legal control over primaries, have part in actual elections, and help control all of their elected officials who make up the government is a stupid fucking distinction that does not matter unless you’re the type who believes all laws are good and thus it’s morally right as long as it is legal.)
Also, sorry, saying “we’re not better than China” and saying “just saying we’re not perfect” are… so… different? Like, is the DNC/RNC LITERALLY the state? No. But are they effectively the state? Yeah. Are the perfectly exactly controlling it? No. Are they effectively controlling it? Yes. My point mostly being I’m over people pretending we’re way better than China in every way possible when we’re just as fucking bad. We need to accept we are not good so we can make fucking improvements, not deflect elsewhere to pretend we’re the best.
… do you think the DNC is the government?
They’re a part of our corrupt and unrepresentative electoral system. They don’t need to be the government for them to fuck up our democracy.
Good thing you can go down to your county DNC headquarters and start actively working to change things
Well, I imagine if you’re Chinese, you can go start changing the CPC as well.
In communism, you can vote so long as you vote for pre-approved candidates.
Unfortunately, our system isn’t that much better with the fuckery in the political parties. Primary elections that set who is eligible to be elected at the national level. But that’s just garden variety authoritarianism for you.
Well I think you are wrong on a deep fundamental level.
The difference is staggering.
In democracy, you can chose to boot someone out, that’s not an option un dictatorships and it bakes all the difference in the world.
You really should look up the difference between a democracy and a republic
Why? I was discussing the difference between democracy and dictatorship.
Because the United States is not a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic. A constitutional republic that is sliding into authoritarianism and towards dictatorship.
If you would like to see an example of democracy, you should look up ancient Athens.
As worrisome as the trump presidency is, the USA is still a democracy. Also, a republic can be democratic and also Athens democracy was the first but largely not what we call a democracy today.
I find it interesting that to you the definitions have changed and what I was taught in school 20 years ago is no longer accurate.
Words have meanings. In a democracy your vote is direct. In a republic your vote is not direct but you are passing your power onto representatives who will wield and control your power on your behalf.
Reading about tankies while being from the post soviet bloc is especially aggravating since we all remember and some still have to endure our drunk parents glorifying the „good old days” when milk was a luxury item and people listened to your phone calls.
I mean people still listen to your phone calls even in western countries and egg is looking to become a luxury item.
Well you are comparing one totalitarian regime to another. The US is no longer a „western” country.
Nah, it totally is. Being western isn’t signified by “Good Values” it’s signified by its location on the map.
And cultural-geopolitical factors.
I mean in the USSR, you definitely had choice when it came to voting. There was the right choice and the wrong choice. You’d better choose correctly.
If you were allowed to vote, only 15% voted IIRC.
It’s not a democracy unless the official name of the country includes the word “democratic”.
This will spark valid discussion and not invoke weird tribalism that ignores the fact that we’re all ruled by the rich under all of those systems. No siree. Just valid, non-divisive, discussions happening for this one.
“We’re ruled by the rich in all of these systems!” when the issue being talked about is some basic level of democracy is missing the point entirely, jfc.
Some of these states take actual steps to limit the power and influence of the rich…
Name one.
I could name three, but I think you can too.
So go ahead and name one.
Sorry I thought you could perform basic subtraction. Those would be the USSR, China, and Cuba.
Sure, the USA’s 2 party system is kind of shit, but China literally only has 1 party ruled by a single guy for whom the term limits have been lifted in 2018.
Did you guys read this whole comment thread? I feel like you’re not replying to what I’m talking about.
Oh I just wanted to see if you were ignorant enough to say it out loud.
This isn’t .ml bud. We don’t lick boots here.
By the way. You saying this dumb shit violates rule 2 of this community.
Lmfao, it’s against the rules to state objective fact? Report me man.
So China is a democracy where virtually everyone just happens to vote for the incumbent?
We prolly gonna have to get the guy to define democracy first. It likely ain’t what we think he thinks it is.
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.
Serious question, what truly successful, stable and properly representative democracies are there?
Like, even if we remove the major issues around capitalism, the US democracy is as far from representing the people as democratically possible. Heck, even if you remove the electoral college it would still be a super unrepresentative democracy because of the two party system and other factors.
So what countries are out there that have functional democracies that truly represent the will of the people while being stable?
Serious question, what truly successful, stable and properly representative democracies are there?
Most of the EU. Aussieland and New Zealand. Canada. Taiwan. Mongolia. Mexico and Brazil, if you’ll allow a little wiggle room in ‘stable’. Possibly SK and Japan, depending on your definitions of ‘properly representative’.
I don’t know, but that list is suspiciously long. Are there really that many? Have I been 4chaned into believing that democracies around the world are failing?
Yes.
Am in Aus, our system is doing fine. One of our major parties are moronic pieces of shit that constantly lie but that isn’t different to other places. No one is taking away our right to vote, infact the opposite. If I don’t vote in the federal election I’ll get a fine lmao
Kind of. There are a lot of serious threats to democracies around the world, but so far most seem to be holding out fairly firmly, if not necessarily ideally.
Italy
<bursts out laughing>
not going to go full tankie and praises those democracies, but without a doubt, the US democracy is a farce.
