An authoritarian type of government is a government that is in power by force.
Democracy and slavary existed together. Having a prison population 1 in 125 people doesn't matter because the people decided to elect someone to make that decision.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
Thou I don’t think broadly speaking experts view the states as authoritarian, 3 presidents impeached and all that !
Is it though? First rebuttal that comes to mind is that, in the US, one can legally be elected without the having the majority of the counter, valid, votes.
Another one would be that one can be elected without the approval of the majority of the people who could vote.
Yes, spend a couple of moments reading up on the EC. The rules haven't changed in a long time. Even if you don't like it, that's only how the president is elected. Federal representatives for the state are elected by getting the most votes in a district.
>Another one would be that one can be elected without the approval of the majority of the people who could vote.
Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw.
It's not even necessarily a flaw. It's good because it allows the minority a chance to not have certain views crammed on to them by the majority.
Just people a larger amount of people agree to a certain set of ideas, doesn't mean everyone does or has to. Densely populated areas have an advantage and likely different views to rural areas. What's best for one group might not be best for the other.
This is completely false, there are plenty of voting systems out there that allow for more than 2 people to run, yet still require a majority to vote for you. Here's a playlist explaining several: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnR...
Proportionally allocating state electors would solve most of the actual problems people have with the EC, like the emphasis on swing voters.
So... it makes what the gp is saying true? It means the government is indeed by the people? I don't follow.
> Every election system that allows more than two candidates or allows people to skip voting has this flaw.
Again, how is that supposed to make gp's statement true?
GP's statement:
> The government is elected by the people [...]
That's simply handled by saying that they should vote.
>one can legally be elected without the having the majority of the counter, valid, votes
How so? If you are referring to the President, did he not win the majority of the valid votes in the population allowed to vote? You could say there is an issue with only allowing a subset of the population to vote, but most people I've seen making such a claims still believe their own limits as for who can vote are valid and have not offered me a reason as to why one method is more valid than the other.
Now, I know some people have issues with that only a very select group of people are allowed to vote for such a powerful position. But my counter point to that is where is the real differences compared to rules that say you have to be 18 to vote or you have certain legal status to vote. All of these laws can have an attempted justification made under the same argument of 'that's the way we've done it', 'it is how the Constitution says it should be done' or even 'if enough people wanted to, the Constitution can be modified to change it'.
>in terms of assigning points to the contestants
Is it actually assigning points? I thought it worked by states picking the 538 voters who will vote for president. In 2016 there was some debate on if those 538 people actually had to vote the way they said they would when they were picked, but from my memory the conclusion is that they do not. That's why I think it should be counted as the actual vote for president and not an assignment of points.
I don't think that can be called a fair "actual vote".
To me, the vote seems fair because it was the conditions to form the USA, and the USA has had centuries to change it but has chosen not to. At least, it is as fair as a vote that requires 'citizenship' to count, given that lack of citizenship doesn't stop one form being directly impacted by the decisions of the President.
> The government is elected by the people [...]
And ok, yes. Phrased my answer wrong.
He was elected by the majority of the valid votes (those of the electoral college).
He also was elected by the people chosen by a minority of the total people who bothered voting in a a valid fashion.
So no, the government isn't elected by the people. It is elected by some people, and it can be indirectly elected by a minority of the people who bother to vote in a valid fashion.
Although it is more accurate, it does seem much less readable.
What do you think of requirements to vote? Like being 18. Being a citizen. Do you think everyone should get a say, or only some people?
So people should vote for somebody, anybody, even though they'd rather not vote for any of the offered options ?
Pick the ones the less indifferent to them? Pick the ones they don't believe in the least? Pick the ones they believe to be the less corrupt? Pick the ones the least likely to cause them the most harm?
I don't know the origin of most of these people's motivation not to vote, or their lack of motivation to vote, but it is quite telling that they won't take a few hours every few years to pick who they believe should have what is supposed to be the most important and impactful job in their country.
And that, in itself, is a choice. A worrying one. A disheartening one. One that says "None of this, and none of these people, are worth even a couple hours of my life".
A choice made by many, too many, that some discard saying "That's simply handled by saying that they should vote", when they already did.
The offered options are numerous. That most people who do vote only want two of the group and thus no one else even has a chance is part of democracy in action, and perhaps a view as to what is wrong with such a system. For long term gains, people who don't vote can try to push for the most popular third party candidate to shake up the system. If enough win, they may support voting reform that will change how votes are counted.
There are also other options. For example, convincing other people to not vote. I honestly do not see why this is viewed as bad. If my argument can't convince someone to vote for the one I think will do a good job but can convince them to not vote for one of the ones I think will do a bad job, why not use that argument?
>And that, in itself, is a choice. A worrying one. A disheartening one.
Is it much different than people who skip out on jury duty instead of getting to make sure the 'facts' align with their own view of reality? People are overall too complacent, which may just be an indictment that things are still going well enough.
Not everyone chooses to vote or is legally able to. The winner is choosen from the available votes that have been cast.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, the Furher was elected by the people. It's a disservice to society at large to so casually brush off judgements about whether a Government is "authoritarian," especially when the question deserves a nuanced answer.
I would say the United States can be quite authoritarian, when it's given the leeway to. The militarization of the police comes to mind. Overpolicing of certain communities, the ongoing struggle for many marginalized groups to attain the same rights and freedoms as the majority, the way the United States swings it's foreign influence and military around worldwide to get what it wants, etc.
I mean our current President was elected on a platform of building a wall on our southern border to solve a completely imaginary problem, and the Government is now trying to seize privately owned property to make that happen.
Is that authoritarianism on the level of China or North Korea? No, not even close. Is it authoritarian? I would say yes, it absolutely is, and that should be a warning to future generations so it never has the opportunity to become authoritarian like China.