Voters aren’t buying it; they see democracy — a term so vague its projected disappearance is hard to imagine — as immaterial, and Trump’s threats to it implausible.

Democrats present a weak front against strongmen opponents and are surprised when they lose voters who don’t trust the Dems to protect them from autocrats

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      613·
      17 days ago

      It should have been, but it wasn’t.

      If democracy was overwhelmingly popular, then we wouldn’t have gotten the electoral college.

      Or given each state the same number if Senate seats. That used to be “balanced” by the House, but then we froze the number and it’s off too.

      We’re taught in school that democracy was a foundation of this country, but it’s bullshit revisionist history.

      • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
        81·
        17 days ago

        This is wrong and has been debunked many times.

        See for example https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936 or https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/ (archive: https://archive.is/FbuL5 )

        Granted, some specific decisions like the EC could have gone better. But overall, the US is a democracy - specifically a representative democracy.

        In fact, to say otherwise is a major GOP talking point. For example (from the Atlantic article),

        Republicans such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah have taken to reminding the public that “we’re not a democracy.”
        It is quaint that so many Republicans, embracing a president who routinely tramples constitutional norms, have suddenly found their voice in pointing out that, formally, the country is a republic.

        Of course the counter example is a theocratic republic. A living example? The Islamic Republic of Iran.

        Iran citizens living in Iran vote for their President, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Iranian_presidential_election#Opinion_polling_and_forecasts

        They also vote for their version of “member of Congress” (ok so they don’t call it Congress), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_districts_of_Iran & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Consultative_Assembly#Constituencies

        But while the President of Iran is the head of government there, he’s second to the divinely appointed supreme leader, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran (in practice the SL appoints members to a Guardians Council, who vet approve members of the Assembly of Experts, who reappoint the SL - a bunch of silly layers for the SL to basically elect himself) - so this is a republic where folks technically have their representatives but the power lies elsewhere.

      • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
        92·
        17 days ago

        I see people say this all the time. It is not revisionist history. This is the American form of democracy. It is what is in the constitution. How much more foundational do you need? Our foundational document defines how our democracy works.

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
          22·
          17 days ago

          The only universal definition of Republic is “not a monarchy”. That doesn’t mean we get to run the spectrum from anarchy to totalitarian regime.

        • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
          61·
          17 days ago

          Exactly. The most common rebuttal I’ve heard to this is that the word “democracy” doesn’t appear in the U.S. Constitution. However, other ideas like “freedom of religion” and “separation of powers” also do not appear as exact quotes in the Constitution.

          Instead, the concept embodied by these phrases do exist and are written into the very fabric of the Constitution.

          Here’s a link which explains it best: https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936

          The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”

          Also, back in the founders era, they would have understood democracy to mean what we today consider direct democracy. They thought that was too messy (to have every citizen vote on every new law etc) which is why went with a slightly different model. So they went with representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Even the Electoral College technically fits with this definition - we use the statewide popular vote (direct voting) to pick our representatives, the electors, who will represent us in the vote for the US President and VP. (Except for the two states that do it by district and split their EC votes, but in that case it’s the district wide popular vote that picks the representative.)