you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -12 points 5 months ago (17 children)

How is the United States not a democracy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    (1)In a democracy the people elect a representative of their ideology to govern them in fair elections

    (2)Both parties in the US in the 21st century start wars on foreign countries, lie about policies, submit to corrupt lobbying

    (3)Both parties in the US are not representative of the people of the US

    (4)The US is not a democracy

    Which of these is wrong?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    (4) because both parties are elected to power by voters

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    4 is deduced from 1,2,3 the deduction is just using definition and the fact both parties lead to the same outcome to come to a contradiction

    Both parties have been elected (1), both led to (2), both aren't representative (3), You can't blame voters if they have no power over the outcome, there's no democracy in US

    If the point you're trying to make is that outcome is irrelevant and only voting itself is what constitutes a democracy then this needs to be applied to other countries as well, North Korea is a democracy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Both parties definitely don't lead to the same outcome. One party supports cutting welfare for the poor and the other party doesn't.

    The voters absolutely have power over the outcome. They voluntarily chose Trump over Harris in 2024.

    North Korea is a one party "democracy". In the United States, you have multiple parties, more than the two that most people voluntarily vote for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Both parties definitely don’t lead to the same outcome. One party supports cutting welfare for the poor and the other party doesn’t.

    This statement is inherently contradictory. So one party is for cutting welfare. If they win, welfare gets cut. If the other pary wins, welfare stays the same, or gets cut only a little (good ol across the aisle compromise). Next cycle the other party wins, welfare gets cut. Same outcome.

    Now, if the other party was for increased welfare, or for stopping fracking, or for naturalizing more undocumented immigrants, or for reducing military spending, then you'd have a point. But in selling the democratic party as the alternative to vote for, you can't even bring yourself to say they stand for something positive. Best we get is that they're not actively harmful on purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    When the "good" party eschews primaries because they cannot abide giving the people an opportunity to vote against genocide, that's only democracy to people who like genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    You do realise that there are more than two parties right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Suggest voting for a third and watch what happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Most Americans support genocide unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    And most genocide supporters will never vote for a democrat. Chasing them to the right and doing what they want alienates voters you can actually get.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments