The USA is governed by evil people, and the people of the nation are too stupid and expecting someone else to stop them. Plain as day light.
Not everyone, but a majority. The minority is looking for ways to stop it, but it requires getting literally everyone else to work together. Which means any disagreement among them results in a loss, and more of the same evil.
If you include all of the non-voters as tacitly consenting to it, then it's an overwhelming majority.
That's not entirely accurate; quite a few non-voters were prevented from voting in one way or another. But most non-voters chose not to vote. Quite a few were explicit about having some disagreement with the primary opponent and concluded that the two sides are equivalent.
Now, maybe this third will start to exist and vote if they either wake up, are seriously hit financially or someone annoys them enough.
Until then they decided to erase themselves from any decision making and if the world was fair they , would not have the right to any comment regarding whatever is related to their country.
The later does not preclude the former. They exist, and they don't vote. I'm not sure what nitpick you're trying to make.
The non voters are routinely used in discussions to lower the results of various parties. The message is "in reality only (a small) percentage supports them" (and then a ratio voters for that party / total population is taken).
What I am trying to say is that the people who did not vote do not exist in these statistics. Taking them into account is just a tactic to lower the results of competitors.
Additionally (but this is utopia) these people should not be allowed to comment in any form about the situation of the country (but again - this is utopia of course)
I also see examples of "he only got 1/3 of the vote", but that's not what I was trying to do. I was pointing out non-voters as effectively voting "either is fine", in which case effectively they both got 2/3 of the vote.
Interestingly enough, I noticed, at least in Europe, that a low participation is usually a sign of a country going well. People are more of less unaffected by the changes in politics so "either is fine".
And then when there are serious thigs at stake, the participation raises significantly. This was the case for instance in France in 2002 during the second round of the presidential election (Chirac vs. Le Pen) or in Poland in 1989 when the first free election was taking place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
Counties that used to need federal preclearance closing 1,688 polling places once the Supreme Court said they didn't have to ask permission anymore is "just good fiscal sense".
North Carolina's legislature pulling data on which voting methods black people disproportionately used, then writing a bill restricting exactly those methods, is "election integrity". The Fourth Circuit threw the whole law out and said it targeted "African Americans with almost surgical precision". But sure. To you it's not manipulation.
Alabama passing voter ID and then closing 31 DMV offices, including every single one in counties over 75% nonwhite, is "saving taxpayer money". The federal DOT found it violated Title VI and made them reopen. Budget cuts, though.
Ohio's redistricting commission being told seven times by its own Supreme Court that the maps were unconstitutional, then running out the clock and holding the 2022 election on them anyway, is "federalism".
And then there's the fake electors, which people gloss over because they don't know how the process works. When you vote for president you're not voting for the president. You're voting for a slate of electors. Your state certifies which slate won, sends that certificate to Congress, and on January 6 the Vice President opens the certificates and they get counted. That's the whole election. It's paperwork.
So in 2020, in seven states Biden won, Republicans got a second set of people together, had them sign certificates declaring themselves the real electors and Trump the winner, and sent those to Congress and the National Archives. 84 people signed. Ron Johnson's office tried to hand-deliver the Michigan and Wisconsin ones to Pence on the floor on January 6. The plan, written down in a memo a month beforehand, was for Pence to count those and reject the real ones. That's "pragmatism".
Louisiana's governor suspending a congressional primary that was already underway so the legislature could delete a majority black district is just... I don't know. I'm out of ridiculous fucking excuses anymore.
And the third that didn't vote "said sure, whatever"? Some of them did. Some of them got purged off the rolls, or showed up to a precinct that isn't there anymore, or needed an ID from a DMV their county no longer has. Those are not the same group of people. Keeping the second group home is the point of everything above. Republicans have spent a decade making it harder for specific people to vote, and then pointing at the resulting turnout as proof nobody cares. Well it worked on you at least.
I have dark suspicions that it would be difficult to implement in the US, because of existing divisiveness. One side or the other would likely see such a course as biased against them, and step in to prevent it (or bias it for them). Even if it studiously avoids discussing politics, it will be easy to step into something easily analogized to politics.
Being allowed to chose between two evils every few years isn't democracy.
As has been famously stated, democracy is the worst system, except for all of the others. I think people often underestimate just how bad it is.
The need for any sort of alternative system to first-past-the-post should've been plainly obvious in the '00 election. The problem is the people that could change that were elected under a first-past-the-post system and don't want to lose their current advantage.
I've seen discussions around how it can be more confusing than the current system, and can reduce confidence in the election.
The 2022 Alaska election was a great example of it failing: https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22/ FairVote called that election a success because people managed to fill in their ballots, even if they didn't get the outcome they thought they were voting for.
Definitely changed my mind over RCV vs STAR. Although I'll still support either if I had the opportunity.
American democracy. Other democracies have multiple viable parties and candidates.
Democracy is not a legal framework but a cultural outlook that requires a sense of civitas. Which is mostly lost in the west (and in most other places, too) where deference to individual power has been allowed to become fully ascendant.
We rightfully decry the state authoritarianism in places like China, but their current seemingly superior ability to accomplish broader community betterment goals seems less to do with their political structure and more to do with still having some sense and confidence and optimism that people can in fact work together.
Meanwhile official small-l liberal ideology in North America fundamentally does not believe in this at all, and the ascendant far right is openly aggressive against this concept and an explicit "might makes right" ethos is becoming more and more triumphant and embodied in Trump.
Trump will eventually die and rot but the Stephen Millers of the world will still snake around in the background looking for the next pseudo-strong man to stand up and smirk all over a compliant population that has lost its desire to work together and just wants to submit to the loudest asshole in the room.
No constitution or election or political party saves the country from this. People's power does.
If it isn't democracy now, it's never been democracy.
I can have a small amount of sympathy for that. What was happening there was indeed harrowing.
But only a small amount. It's one issue of many, and the other party was even more against Gaza. I'm hard pressed to see it as sincere to present that single issue as the only one that mattered, and overwhelmed all else.
A majority did not choose this.
The minority doesn't have a charismatic leader to rally around so we don't have a "movement" that can fight back against the corruption at scale. Democrats need to stop taking the high road and start thinking "WWRD?" and out do them.
I mean it. This both are same evil is either bullshit or completely wrapped non existent morality.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec...
Change will rely entirely on people who sat out 2024. The question is how much regret they feel. Cynically, I assume most people would rather alter their world-views to justify their choice, than admit that they had made a mistake.
Biden was so bad, people showed up in droves to vote for anything else. That's how we ended up in a war with Iran.
Trump 2 is so bad, people will show up in droves to vote for anything else. The downward spiral continues.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/americans-hate-inflation-more-...
People really did not like Trump they just didn't like incumbents more.
It's almost like if the Democrats ran a competitive primary this whole situation could've been avoided.
In 2016 Trump got 63M votes. Clinton got 66M.
In 2020 Trump got 74M votes. Biden got 81M.
In 2024 Trump got 77M votes. Harris got 75M.
Trump's popularity increased with each election. Turnout for Harris was definitely lower than the previous election, but the dip was not exceptional. Trump won because of his popularity - not despite it.
Take a look at other world wide elections that happened in 2024.
Like France (parliamentary system so no presidential election); The incumbents lost 33% of their seats [1].
Or UK; The incumbents lost 67% of their seats [2]
And yet, Trump didn't even make it to 50% of US votes. People really did not like him. People really hated incumbents. Your numbers even show this, Biden 1 has more votes than Trump 2; they just didn't support the incumbent anymore.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_French_legislative_electi...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_el...
It is really weird to me that such a thing as lobbying can be legal. Or the fact that you can donate to an election campaign so that they have more money to influence people.
And it is even more surprising that the vast majority of US people don't even question these things. I have the theory that American exceptionalism hinders their critical thinking when it comes to these kind of subjects. Ie "If we decided to do it like this, it means is the best way possible".
I can't recall any situation where the news report that someone is bound to win because people view their platform as superior, and not because they raised the most money.
I believe that such cases do exist (Mamdani would be one), but it seems that the traditional media intentionally insist on only reporting the money raised (i.e. promote the establishment-sponsored candidate) to make people give up on their vote.
The ethical US has rolled over already.
This is something that is extremely hard to accomplish in the US. It would be akin to all of Europe voting on the same day and trying to falsify an election in each country. The logistics of this means that you need a lot of participants, and someone is going to blow it (and the whole thing unravels).
That is not the same as interfering: Jackboots at the polls, screwing with the mail, ID requirements.
These two things are NOT the same.
> This is something that is extremely hard to accomplish in the US.
Yet I seem to remember Al Gore winning an election, still Bush became president. Right? EDIT: link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...
One side says bullshit, the other side says "look at all of the fucking evidence of your eyes"
I don't see myself ever being able to trust the US again. Maybe if they manage 2-3 decades without conservative idiocy, but the Epstein class would never allow that.
I think the bigger issue is a two party system. The checks and balances can clearly be gamed as this administration has proven.
Some of this has the same roots in social media and dodgy money (esp. wirecard), but not all of it.
It's not like the Trump administration is stopping off shore wind projects here... yet.
ofc smart/evil/dumb are all simplifying things way too much since its not like humans have video game like attribute sliders. Im very aware of that, this is not meant to be taken that seriously.