278
Is this a coup? Home of the Coup-o-meter
(isthisacoup.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
278 points (100.0% liked)
Internet is Beautiful
1314 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to Internet is Beautiful Lemmy and Mbin community.
Find a cool or useful website on the internet. Share it here so others Lemmings can bookmark it too.
Rules
-
- No Political Content .
-
- No Gore or Disturbing content.
-
- If you want to repost atleast wait 3 months.
-
- No NSFW or adult content.
Related Communities
- Daily Games: !dailygames@lemmy.zip
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
Is a fair election when a violent insurrectionist, a literal traitor to the republic, is allowed to run for office?
We zigged when we should have zagged a long time ago.
The American system is broken by design
No, it's been broken; the original design wasn't bad, but they told us not to let a two party system happen and we did it anyway.
The original does not protect against an entire party determined to undermine it, imo
isnt that what the "overthrow the government" part is for?
Not like we could actually do that anyways ๐
Yes it does, it has quite clear instructions in fact. People just aren't willing to do what's necessary to follow those instructions... Yet.
We definitely should have several large books at him... but also 75 million people shouldn't have voted for him.
People are systematically, deliberately denied votes in every American election. Their entire voting system was a compromise with slave states. American elections are bad by design.
And yes, let's also highlight the fact that a violent insurrectionist was allowed to run for office. Putting it mildly, that is not a sign of a healthy normal election.
If you're going to hate Americans be my guest, but hate them for tolerating the existing system at all. It's a structurally unjust society from the ground up and they're ridiculous for tolerating it.
To help put things into perspective for you, Trump didn't even get a majority of the vote. Normal countries have runoff elections if no one reaches a majority, but not the US!
And of course he's only a politician today because when he ran in the 2016 race he was appointed President by the electoral college despite not even getting a plurality of the vote that time. He's actually never gotten 50%+ of voters to vote for him.
The system is structured this way so that the slave-ocracy could elect presidents.
He got a plurality. He didn't actually win more than 50% of the vote, and that's only speaking of voters. If you count everyone he got something like 22% of citizens.
That's why I'm not counting everyone, just the people that voted.
Winning the popular vote just means winning a plurality of the votes. He got more votes than Harris. Once you account for all the other candidates, though, his total comes out to less than 50% of all the people that voted. No one got a majority.
And in many countries if no one gets a majority there is a runoff. This is another structural problem that the US has.
The point being made is that in a healthy democracy, voting is either very high turnout or mandatory, as in some countries. It's also worth pointing out that getting 20% of all possible voters is an extremely weak mandate, and one of the norms we've been relying on is the idea that you don't have the right to fundamentally reshape the country according to your preferences.