I don’t know how much you really value democratic values. Trump lost the popular vote, but won the election, how does that make sense? Of course you can have different flavors of democracy, in most Trump would not be considered the “winner” of the first one, in some other Trump would have one another term.
I don’t think you understand democracy, the rule of law, or fairness.
And I think you are deluding yourself
Why? Do you understand the rules of the US electoral process?
I’m not saying he didn’t win, of course he did. I’m saying that minority rule is not a desirable outcome in a democracy. It was the rule of law obviously but it was undemocratic imo.
Why would some people get a bigger say in this matter than others by the virtue of their residency location? It doesn’t make sense to me.
If you had to set up a whole new system, any system, would you have chosen to give some people a bigger say in the matter based on geography, gender or color of skin?
Are you aware of how the process was decided upon, and how it could be changed?
Why should, for example, 50,000,001 votes result in an absolute win with a great advantage in executive power over 50,000,000 votes? There aren’t really perfect answers here. Have you ever considered why the US Senate is set up the way it is and how much it favors certain groups over others?
I would have chosen to let it be decided in a democratic process. I would choose to change it in a democratic process if that was desired.
That has more to do with geography then intent.
Hey! Stop talking about Justin Trudeau!
I feel a bit downcast with the US and Taiwan’s archaic election systems and the unwillingness of those in power to adjust the voting system to one mathematically proven to be more fair to end partisanship.
Yeah- it was decided upon because the smaller states wouldn’t join a system where the larger states had more power. Just like Canada or Australia.
Largest Smallest
US: California 39,500,000 Wyoming 576,000.
Australia: New South Wales 8,100,000 Tasmania 540,000.
Canada: Ontario: 14,600,000 Prince Edward Island 157,000.
(No, it wasn’t to give power to the slave states, as you will sometimes hear ignorant lefties argue)
If you want democracies to work, stop electing guys whose platform is basically that governments are useless, and they will further slash away at what remains of public services.
The long steady nosedive of democracies in the west occasioned by this kind of neoliberal ideology has done great damage. One of the best parts of being in Taiwan is that we didn’t (yet?) drink that toxic kool-aid.
Guy
This could be a recipe for better government, but it can’t be a recipe for democracy (for better or worse).
My point is that electing anti-government ideologues to run governments typically will not building additional confidence in the capabilities of public institutions in democractic states.
Guy
How do you propose to stop people from freely electing people who you think will damage democracy, without damaging democracy?
No reality TV star rule
I don’t have an answer, other than to say: stop drinking neoliberal (and of late, neofascist) kool-aid. You might think it’s medicine but you’re drinking poison.
Hat tip to Jacques Derrida for that helpful formulation, via Plato’s Pharmacy.
Guy
Just want to say I have to giggle every time I see this heading, in the “No shit?” kind of meaning
The biggest issue is someone who is a great orator and somewhat charismatic can easily become a leader. Even if they are completely bad in every other way and have zero concern for the long term improvement of the state.
Getting ahead in politics in the west is quite simply - all about playing politics and backstabbing. You mentioned Li Keqiang, entirely possible someone like him - who you rightly describe as a genius, would never get anywhere in politics in the west simply because he may not be politically savvy.
Tbf, CCP still has a lot of backstabbing and maneuvering. Many factional battles and cold as fuck shit.
It’s a horrible system, but quite good at promoting capable people still.
But yeah, too much of our system of choosing leaders relies on charm and confidence
Indeed - somehow they seem to get capable people into those key positions where it matters.
I wonder about Deng Xiaoping? - he seems like a brainy guy but also a bit of a character?