Ugly US election race a poor ad for democracy in China

[GennGreymane]

The US certainly cant push democracy anymore

[Kaleredar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/ho...-are-the-swin/



That's not democracy. If you count my vote for X candidate for Y, then it's anything but democracy.

They aren't counting your vote of X for Y. They're measuring your vote for X with other people that voted for X against other people that voted for Y in your state. The candidate that wins that state wins that block of votes.

No one's saying "Everyone in this state voted for Y." They're saying "the majority of the people voted for Y, hence these representative votes go to y"

That is democracy... in fact it has a name... representative democracy. Canada, the UK, the US, and numerous other countries have this form of democracy in various degrees of implementation.


Are you pretending the electoral college is some new conspiracy no one's ever heard of? That shit's been around since practically day one in the United States. It's clunky and antiquated, but it isn't something you're "blowing the lid off of"

[Flarelaine]

I mostly meant how there's only a "real" choice between two people. (as in, 50 50 chance).

Anyways, I don't like either of them, but the fact that someone LIKE Trump has a chance is why, exactly, Democracy doesn't work. Tremendously bad people can get elected.

They can indeed.

Of course the people who gave us the term "democracy" also had a way of getting rid of the guys they thought worst. Every year, they'd vote on who is the most dangerous to the state; the "winner" would be exiled for 10 years.

As a linguistic sidenote, "democracy" was not exactly a positive term to begin with; "demos" can mean "crowd" or "mob" as well as "people"...

[Azadina]

They aren't counting your vote of X for Y. They're measuring your vote for X with other people that voted for X against other people that voted for Y in your state. The candidate that wins that state wins that block of votes.

No one's saying "Everyone in this state voted for Y." They're saying "the majority of the people voted for Y, hence these representative votes go to y"

That is democracy... in fact it has a name... representative democracy. Canada, the UK, the US, and numerous other countries have this form of democracy in various degrees of implementation.


Are you pretending the electoral college is some new conspiracy no one's ever heard of? That shit's been around since practically day one in the United States. It's clunky and antiquated, but it isn't something you're "blowing the lid off of"

So you admit that US has never seen democracy then? It's not a democracy, if you either count votes for whom they were not intended, or flat out ignore they exist, because "they didn't win".

[willtron]

I'd say they're right.

Regardless of who wins this election, I think worldwide opinions of the U.S. is at an all-time low. Who'd of thought there was a number lower than what it already was?

That sums this election. Rock bottom keeps being lower than everyone thought.

[Deleted]

And when has that ever elected someone?

Newsflash: If you're not popular enough to get enough votes you won't be elected in a democracy. It's working as intended.

[Kaleredar]

And when has that ever elected someone?

You want to see a real democracy?
Here you can start a party and actually run the country within a few years.
And you don't have to be a billionaire to do so. That is democracy.

Having an idea doesn't automatically qualify you to run the country, nor does it guarantee any number of people will agree with you.

You know why the communist party and green party and Libertarian party and other fringe parties never gain traction? Because fundamentally people find some element of their party disagreeable. Notions like Communists are "too radical," the green party is "too liberal," Libertarians are "a bunch of high schoolers that never grew up." Shit like that.

The parts that people DO like are usually subsumed by the major Political parties so as to gain their potential voter base. Which actually begins to shift the platform of the party slowly.

Do you think democrats were pushing equal rights for gays 20 years ago? Nope. But they are now.


Which is why the US continues to have a two party system.

And so the question is, how do you break the "two parties" from simply absorbing the elements they want into their platform? Are you going to stop them from changing their platform? Are you going to force parties to narrow the extent of their appeal so that there "can be more individual parties and therefore more democracy" or somesuch?



Again, you can complain about how it exists and so forth, but there's really no excuse for not understanding why it exists the way it does.

[caervek]

For decades it has said that American democracy is a sham, rigged by and for a narrow elite. Now the Republican candidate for the White House says the same.

I don't think it's rigged, if it was Trump would never have become a nominee. However I do think that if he had been given the same level of support that GW Bush or any recent nominee received then he would currently be waiting to collect the White House keys. Considering how he is still in with a shot (albeit a very very long shot) despite Hillary's campaign throwing all the mud it can at him while the Republican party and it's backers just sit and watch, you have to believe that if given proper backing and a campaign that fought as hard as hers he would still be ahead.

Like Trump said, Nixon was forced to resign for less than the FBI have on her, the fact fact that the GOP seemingly have so little interest in sticking it to her seems to imply they would actually prefer her as president than him, which sends a terrible message to all the republican voters who chose him.

[Kaleredar]

So you admit that US has never seen democracy then? It's not a democracy, if you either count votes for whom they were not intended, or flat out ignore they exist, because "they didn't win".

Then a hell of a lot of countries "aren't democracies."

Any country that elects congressmen or maintains a parliament where officials are elected by the people isn't a democracy in your book? Those are ALL forms of representative democracy, just like the United States has.



I mean your congressment/member of parliament isn't asking YOU, directly, what to vote for. You don't get to vote for the laws that directly effect you. Your voice in laws are determined by the vote of some guy (and it isn't even necessarily a guy you initially voted for) voting on them in some stuffy chambers building somewhere. Welcome to the majority of the western world, not just "The broken ol' US."

If you're calling the US "not a democracy" for this reason, you've signed off practically every western country. Which leaves me wondering what exactly your example of a "paragon of democracy" is, if apparently no countries are democracies in your book.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it's rigged, if it was Trump would never have become a nominee. However I do think that if he had been given the same level of support that GW Bush or any recent nominee received then he would currently be waiting to collect the White House keys. Considering how he is still in with a shot (albeit a very very long shot) despite Hillary's campaign throwing all the mud it can at him while the Republican party and it's backers just sit and watch, you have to believe that if given proper backing and a campaign that fought as hard as hers he would still be ahead.

Like Trump said, Nixon was forced to resign for less than the FBI have on her, the fact fact that the GOP seemingly have so little interest in sticking it to her seems to imply they would actually prefer her as president than him, which sends a terrible message to all the republican voters who chose him.

Trump is an example of when people like to believe that the kid running for class president can actually put soda in the drinking fountains.


Perhaps you didn't stop to think that the reason the GOP and a large chunk of the country don't like Trump is because they think he'd be a terrible, incompetent president and aren't willing to sell themselves up the creek for party lines.


For once.


It's actually kind of heartwarming. I mean, I'd prefer it if politicians were willing to cross party lines because a candidate or cause was so good that they were willing to defer their partisanship for it, but it's somewhat reassuring to know that a candidate and cause that's so god awfully bad can illicit the same response and bring joint opposition.

[Azadina]

Then a hell of a lot of countries "aren't democracies."

Any country that elects congressmen or maintains a parliament where officials aren't elected by the people isn't a democracy in your book? Those are ALL forms of representative democracy, just like the United States has.

I mean your congressment/member of parliament isn't asking YOU, directly, what to vote for. You don't get to vote for the laws that directly effect you. Your voice in laws are determined by the vote of some guy (and it isn't even necessarily a guy you initially voted for) voting on them in some stuffy chambers building somewhere. Welcome to the majority of the western world, not just "The broken ol' US."

If you're calling the US "not a democracy" for this reason, you've signed off practically every western country. Which leaves me wondering what exactly your example of a "paragon of democracy" is, if apparently no countries are democracies in your book.

From the best of my knowledge, here when I vote for a presidential candidate, it's counted as a vote for that presidential candidate. That is democracy. You don't have such a system. You ignore vast amount of peoples votes. That's not a democracy.

But hey, you are free to rename things, like pizza into vegetable, corruption into freedom of speech, and so on. You're on a roll with that already, so why not rename your system "democracy" too. Doesn't mean any of those are true.

[Kaleredar]

From the best of my knowledge, here when I vote for a presidential candidate, it's counted as a vote for that presidential candidate. That is democracy. You don't have such a system. You ignore vast amount of peoples votes. That's not a democracy.

But hey, you are free to rename things, like pizza into vegetable, corruption into freedom of speech, and so on. You're on a roll with that already, so why not rename your system "democracy" too. Doesn't mean any of those are true.

So you're choosing one aspect and that's the election of a president? The president is but one branch of the government.

What about the laws that affect you every day? Again, you don't directly vote on those, you elect someone else to do it for you, and sometimes it's not the person you voted for. Are those laws that govern trade agreements and taxes and what is illegal and what isn't and what people will possibly spend their lives in jail for are not as important? Is it okay, in your book, for those to not be "democratically voted on?" And why is that?

How can you say that you live in a democracy if, by your own admission, people are selected to vote on things for you? Something you said was "anything but democracy?"

It's the exact same way with the electoral college. Arguably less so, because the electoral college still votes based on the majority vote from each state. The guy you stick into parliament or congress or whatever could vote however he wanted once he gets into office.

[Azadina]

So you're choosing one aspect and that's the election of a president? The president is but one branch of the government.

What about the laws that affect you every day? Again, you don't directly vote on those, you elect someone else to do it for you, and sometimes it's not the person you voted for. Are those laws that govern trade agreements and taxes and what is illegal and what isn't and what people will possible spend their lives in jail for are not as important? Is it okay, in your book, for those to not be "democratically voted on?"

How can you say that you live in a democracy if, by your own admission, people are selected to vote on things for you? Something you said was "anything but democracy?"

It's the exact same way with the electoral college. Arguably less so, because the electoral college still votes based on the majority vote from each state. The guy you stick into parliament or congress or whatever could vote however he wanted once he gets into office.

There's a world of difference between valuing each citizens vote as one vote, versus ignoring vast amounts of votes.

Where do I draw the line? Every voters vote has to count. That's simple, and it's democratic. Every citizen has equal voting power. You do not have that, at all.

[Hiricine]

This is what you get with a system thats set up to allow for even the dumbest members in society to elect officials to rule each other. Theres a reason that the US constitution tried to divide up the power into as small of units as practical, and theres a reason the elections have gotten about progressively more bombastic people as that gets torn to shreds.

[Kaleredar]

There's a world of difference between valuing each citizens vote as one vote, versus ignoring vast amounts of votes.

Really now?

So, again, you vote for someone to go into your representative government house, and the opposition wins. A new law comes to that house and they vote on it.

Was your vote, essentially, not simply ignored? You had absolutely no input on that law. And even were your guy to get in, he could simply ignore the platform he ran on if he so desired.

You're really splitting hairs here.

"Oh it doesn't matter if my input is ignored in this step of the process, but at this other step it's literally Satan's doing?"

You're almost saying "You can either count my vote as one OR you can simply ignore it and do whatever you want, but god help you majority votes simply aren't acceptable!"

[Vash The Stampede]

Gotta agree, but not because of Trump but because of Hillary. Both are shit choices, but Hillary and democrats manipulated the voting system for Hillary. Bernie was clearly the better choice to run against Trump, and was going to do great things for America, but the wealthy wanted Hillary to win and here we are. This is why nobody believes news channels and why Hillary is considered just as bad as Trump. If anyone else was running against Hillary, she would lose. It takes someone as terrible as Trump for Hillary to even have a fighting chance.

But at the same time we don't have a Democracy cause our votes don't matter as much as they should. So when the Chinese observe us, they're probably wondering why anyone would want a democracy. Then again, the Chinese just recently started driving cars while Americans had it for nearly 100 years. If we want to be a model democracy then we need to fix it. Some recent videos I came across point out these issues.

[Blur4stuff]

Consider how much damage has been done so far and how much more there would be if Trump won, I'd say the Chinese have a point. And then of course there's all the legitimate baggage of Clinton (not the conspiracy shit).

It hardly matters if 6% of China votes, if 89 million people isn't enough to figure out which direction to go then adding another few hundred million wouldn't help.

[May90]

American democracy is such a failure... The fact that millions Chinese come here to work and study, getting permanent residence in the process, while the opposite flow is negligible - is a pure coincidence!

I would prefer to live in a democratic country ruled by Trump with 90% of his tiny brain removed, rather than in a communist state.

[Kaleredar]

We vote for people to represent us because if every citizen was to vote on every law, nothing would ever get done.

Well according to the person I quoted that "is anything but democracy."

[Healing Rain]

Well America has impeachment(which would need to happen immediately to Crooked Hillary if she was elected).

[Gaaz]

It's 6%. That's not a lot of people, 6% should not decide in which direction a country is headed if they're democratic.

Yeah right...