Hacker News Reader

>USA might be a democracy but there is no power in the hands of the people anymore.

Question: How can we (I live in the US) still be a democracy if there is no power in the hands of the people?

I think either the US has slowly become an oligarchy[1], or it has always been an oligarchy that was merely good at pretending to be a democratic republic. I would vote if I thought it would have an effect, but sadly our voting process is inscrutable. I, like many others, pray for a revolution here soon.

1. Edit: just found out Jimmy Carter apparently agrees with this: https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarc...

The patricians, in their minds, felt the Roman Republic was "democratic", where consuls (and other powerful officials) could only be other patricians, and intermarriage between plebeians and patricians was forbidden. I imagine that's how the various elites of the US feel as well. (Hint: because the system benefits them)

Obviously, the plebeians felt otherwise and either started a revolt or simply refused to participate in their corrupted system, until reforms were made.

It's the same pattern repeating itself throughout history, when a seemingly benevolent system becomes corrupted by refusing to protect its most vulnerable populace and uphold its rule of law.

Don't eschew your civic duty, though. Even if you feel your vote "does not make a difference", you empower those who will one day remove that right from you. You're not using it anyway, right?

They will remove that power regardless of whether I vote. Bernie should have won the Democratic primaries, but the Democratic establishment shut him down.

I want real power. My political views are not represented. No single candidate could ever represent me, because my opinions are minorities in many ways. The things I care about are not the issues that the media is pushing.

A government that cared about me would find some way for me to be represented. Perhaps a multiparty system like France. Perhaps the ability to directly vote on a small number of issues, instead of being forced into picking a candidate that supports 20% of my ideas over a candidate that supports 8% of them.

Or how about a media that'll at least acknowledge severe fraud allegations?: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

As I've said before: US presidential elections are a two-horse race, but both horses are pulling the same carriage.

> I don't think anybody but the people benefitting directly want those two as candidates, but there is nothing anybody can do about it.

Both Clinton and Trump were nominated as Presidential candidates by the voting public through a democratic process. Voters will choose among Trump, Clinton, Stein, Johnson, and other candidates in the Presidential election on November 8th. If voters don't want to elect Trump or Clinton, they have other candidates they can vote for. The reality is that most people want either Trump or Clinton as President.

Can you remind me how Prime Ministers are chosen in your country? What voters choose them to be PM? How important is your national government relative to the national government in the US, domestically speaking? Are state and provincial governments as powerful as they are in the US? Do you elect all your state and local offices, like we do in the US?

The US has many problems, but "insufficiently democratic" is not one of them.

> The reality is that most people want either Trump or Clinton

Is that actually the reality? My impression is that most people do not want either Trump nor Clinton but they want one a lot less than the other so they'll vote against that candidate rather than voting for one.

I couldn't have said it better.

Nobody is choosing either Trump or Clinton. They are voting for the alternative against either Trump or Clinton.

Say what you want. Your government and your election is controlled by money and corporations.

You are correct that USAs leaders have much more power than the leaders of my country. I will give you that. Your elected officials are probably better power people than mine, but I think that my elected officials are probably much better people than yours.

That is not a compliment in favor of your country. Quite the contrary.

> Your government and your election is controlled by money and corporations.

Do "money" or "corporations" get votes? Or are people persuaded to vote in ways you don't like by people with money? There's a big difference.

> You are correct that USAs leaders have much more power than the leaders of my country.

That's not what I mean. In domestic terms, the Presidency is a very weak office. In many respects, the President is a figurehead that mostly matters for foreign policy purposes.

And again: who decided your PM would be PM? Voters? Or was it an internal decision made by a party without voter input? How can you claim that the US is less democratic than that?

"And again: who decided your PM would be PM? Voters? Or was it an internal decision made by a party without voter input? How can you claim that the US is less democratic than that?"

It's not a perfect system, either, but the PM has to be among those elected to office - it's entirely possible (though rare) for a party to win the election, and their candidate for PM to lose their seat (and thus be ineligible).

It does also offer a semblance of "honesty" or vested interest. There's an accountability - if you as the PM are not capable of running a platform or country that makes other members of your party electable, they can and will remove you. So, at least in theory, there's a feeling of representative power. Most party-based removals from positions have come directly from the people, unhappy with performance, and then groups of politicians saying "Yeah, we're out of a job if we follow you/keep down this road".

It does also have Survivor-like elements, for better, and worse.

But the candidate for PM is known by the public, so in a sense it's de facto voted for.

Just like in the US, to rephrase your last: "Who decided your President would be President? Voters? Or was it an internal decision by an electoral college who in some cases is not obligated to respect the wishes of those they represent? How can you claim that to be democratic?"

As someone who has lived substantial periods in both Australia and the US, I have a decent perspective.

There is no comparison between the electoral college, which largely exists only as a formality, and the way intraparty politics work in parliamentary democracies, which in general operate in the least democratic way possible - a set of political elites choose the PM. In a parallel universe, HC is exactly the candidate we'd get in such a system - there's a reason why there were no serious contenders in the primary against Clinton.

You've also not address my points about state and local politics in the US, and the limited power of the Presidency in general that make the position not that all important to the working of the government.