• jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    10 个月前

    In a functional democracy, the candidates would run on things people want. Instead, both parties cater to what the elites want.

    The difference between Republicans and Democrats is whether they pay lip service to these policies or not (then Democrats find a way to not pass whatever that policy is, whether it’s with a rotating villain, the parliamentarian, keeping the filibuster, etc).

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 个月前

      No? No. Democracy, functional or not, has no direct determining power on what candidates cater to. What democracy does is select the winning candidate, regardless of who the candidate caters to.

      We may be a flawed democracy with candidates that cater to the elites, but we’re still a democracy and we still pick the winner.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 个月前

        If democracy doesn’t work for the majority of people, and your party runs on ‘rescuing’ that same democracy while at the same time villinaising the people that do want to improve the people’s economic conditions, you’re not going to be winning elections.

        If you want to rescue democracy, you need to show that democracy can work for people, it’s the same mistake Weimar Germany made.

        • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 个月前

          It’s hard to elect one person that works for the majority of the people. The majority of the people aren’t a homogenous group. Not everybody agrees on which policies are the best.

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            10 个月前

            There’s a huge range of policies that poll in the 80-90% range that neither party wants to touch because they upset the donor class.