A judge in Nevada rejected a proposed 2024 ballot initiative that sought to enshrine reproductive rights, including abortion, in the state’s constitution. Siding with a newly established PAC — the …
Well, that would leave oligarchic and authoritarian systems. If we assume that every politician is primarily looking out for itself, then the people should go with a democratic system. A dictator is after all, only beholden to itself, and will aim to extract wealth from the people it rules to secure its own position and lifestyle. If the US where to switch from a democracy to a dictatorship, most citizens would see their taxes go up, and their economic and political freedoms decline. And for the USA, this would spit in the face of conservative values.
Nobody says we must maintain some “pure” system. For an already existing example, passing a constitutional amendment is far, far more difficult than regular legislation. Is that undemocratic? By the most “pure” definition, yes. It’s far from just letting everything be decided by 50+1 popular vote. Or hell, even the fact that we have representatives we elect instead of using direct democracy for everything.
Limiting democracy doesn’t mean just installing a dictator or something. It can be as simple as placing some issues beyond the reach of majoritatian whims. I never see any of the people crying about democracy upset that their free speech isn’t under question of majoritatian will.
Well, that would leave oligarchic and authoritarian systems. If we assume that every politician is primarily looking out for itself, then the people should go with a democratic system. A dictator is after all, only beholden to itself, and will aim to extract wealth from the people it rules to secure its own position and lifestyle. If the US where to switch from a democracy to a dictatorship, most citizens would see their taxes go up, and their economic and political freedoms decline. And for the USA, this would spit in the face of conservative values.
That’s certainly what Republicans want but there are alternatives. Our current system is pretty authoritarian anyway, TBH.
Well, yeah, American democracy is rather flawed.
Nobody says we must maintain some “pure” system. For an already existing example, passing a constitutional amendment is far, far more difficult than regular legislation. Is that undemocratic? By the most “pure” definition, yes. It’s far from just letting everything be decided by 50+1 popular vote. Or hell, even the fact that we have representatives we elect instead of using direct democracy for everything.
Limiting democracy doesn’t mean just installing a dictator or something. It can be as simple as placing some issues beyond the reach of majoritatian whims. I never see any of the people crying about democracy upset that their free speech isn’t under question of majoritatian will.
Have you even read the comment I’m replying to?