• t3rmit3@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It’s never a binary on/off switch. Democracy dies through slow corrosion.

    There are a lot of ways to define what qualifies as Democracy: is it the mere presence of voting? Is it the impact of that voting? Is it equal/ universal voting rights? Is it the ability to enforce voting outcomes? Or the ability for voters to choose what is voted on?

    Some of those are clear binaries, and some of those are gradations or thresholds.

    Personally, I think it has to be a combination of universal voting rights, voter-led ballot control(i.e. choosing what to vote about), and enforceability.

    To me, we’ve been failing as a democracy for a long time.

    If we let Trump off with all of those crimes he committed, and allow him to get re-elected, all of those crimes are now unenforceable.

    The unenforceability of those laws is not determined by his reelection, they’re determined by the actual court cases charging him with crimes. We do not have the ability to force SCOTUS to allow him to be held accountable, and comforting ourselves that we actually can, merely by not re-electing him, means you already realize the laws are not going to be enforced against him in the “Justice” System.

    But, do you know what happens when these candidates drop out? They immediately fall in line.

    Which is exactly what every Democrat challenger does as well.

    • acastcandream@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      There are a lot of ways to define what qualifies as Democracy: is it the mere presence of voting? Is it the impact of that voting? Is it equal/ universal voting rights? Is it the ability to enforce voting outcomes? Or the ability for voters to choose what is voted on?

      You’re broadening the scope of the conversation so much that it’s losing any meaning or focus.

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, if someone is claiming that democracy is being killed, it’s very important to define what that actually means. If Democracy is the simple act of some any given sub-group being allowed to vote, it’s never going to ‘die’ in the US. If on the other hand it’s the actual ability for individuals to overrule those in power via voting, then it’s arguably already dead. Definitions are important.

        • acastcandream@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Definitions are important. Muddying the waters of a term we all more or less understand is not productive.

          When I say “Trump is eroding our democracy,” most people - including you - understand what I’m driving at. Don’t be difficult just to win an internet argument.

          • t3rmit3@beehaw.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            When I say “Trump is eroding our democracy,” most people - including you - understand what I’m driving at.

            I agree with Stewart on that point:

            Come Election Day, Stewart said, “If your guy loses, bad things might happen, but the country is not over. And if your guy wins, the country is in no way saved.”

            Trump is not going to end voting if he gets reelected, and voter suppression and disenfranchisement by Republicans existed long before Trump and will continue long after Trump. There is nothing that Trump is going to fundamentally change about our government.

            It will be very bad if he gets elected, but the country is not over, and using hyperbolic language that implies otherwise, like “This is a question of whether democracy dies in America.” (which is what the commenter I initially responded to said), is just being used to deflect from very important and valid criticism of the alternatives. More importantly, it runs the danger of creating voter fatigue; not every election can be an exceptional, emergency situation, and all of Trump’s runner-ups like DeSantis and Ramaswamy, are all running the same playbook.

            If the only way for America and/or Democracy not to die is for Republicans to never again become president, it’s already lost, because we’re in a duopoly with them (which the DNC is actively working to maintain), and it is an eventuality.

              • t3rmit3@beehaw.orgOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                You inserted yourself into a conversation I was having, in which the other person (P03 Locke) was disputing Stewart’s assertion that the country would not be over, and asserting that

                This is a question of whether democracy dies in America.

                That is the context in which I felt it was necessary to define Democracy.

                You then jumped in and said

                When I say “Trump is eroding our democracy,”

                despite the fact you had not actually said that previously, and that it is a different stance from what P03 Locke said.

                P03 Locke never asserted Trump was eroding Democracy, they said he would be killing it, and they said that as a direct counter to Stewart’s assertion that the country would not be over, which indicates that in P03 Locke’s mind, the death of Democracy is equivalent to the end of America.

                In that case, it’s incredibly important to define Democracy, in order to understand exactly what changes P03 Locke believes Trump will make, so we can actually assess the likely impact of those changes, and see what precisely they think qualifies as the end of Democracy.

                • acastcandream@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  I “inserted” myself? This is a public forum. You made a public post and public comments. You know people - anyone - can comment. What are you even going on about? If you don’t want people chiming in to conversations and don’t have them on a public forum. You don’t get to use the veritable megaphone that is the Internet and then get summarily pissy and throw an entitled tantrum when people don’t agree with you.

                  If you don’t like what I have to say, then stop responding to me and/or block me. The tools are available to you.

                  • t3rmit3@beehaw.orgOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    I didn’t say you can’t participate, but you jumped into a thread in which 2 people were discussing whether the country and democracy were going to come to an end, and then immediately said, “well I never said anything about the end of democracy/ the country”. That’s cool, but it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion that P03 Locke and I were having, which was explicitly about that.

                    I also note that you have no response to any of the actual points I made, so I’ll assume you have nothing to add or dispute.

                    Lastly, I’d love to see which parts of my comment you consider “an entitled tantrum”. Was it when I pointed out that you introduced an unrelated argument, and then acted as though I’d been arguing against it?

                    If you don’t like what I have to say, then stop responding to me and/or block me.

                    Actually, I think I’ll just keep pointing out the flaws in your comments.