|
14 Jan
4:40pm, 14 Jan 2025
18,339 posts
|
jdawayinamanger
Democracy is only meaningful if you have an informed electorate. If they don't know up from down, it's just guesswork and in fact arguably worse than random selection would be, because the system actively selects for effective dishonesty.
|
|
14 Jan
4:43pm, 14 Jan 2025
31,077 posts
|
richmac
I'm hoping that 1 in 5 will take themselves off the electoral register
|
|
14 Jan
4:44pm, 14 Jan 2025
7,212 posts
|
paulcook
I doubt they'll vote in the first place to be honest. Though, I'm going to be even more judgemental and guess who they would if they do.
|
|
14 Jan
4:51pm, 14 Jan 2025
31,078 posts
|
richmac
I wonder if they simultaneously don't think we should bother with democracy but also voted to free the uk from eu control?
|
|
14 Jan
5:06pm, 14 Jan 2025
26,411 posts
|
larkim
We've never had an informed electorate. And I doubt we ever will. Or at least, not to the level of "informed" that I think makes a useful contribution. And even those of us who think we are informed still make tribal and questionable decisions about voting.
|
|
14 Jan
5:10pm, 14 Jan 2025
28,639 posts
|
TROSaracen
Trump in all his horror was put before the American electorate - there was nothing ‘unknown’ like 2016, and the Democrats failed to field a candidate and articulate a message that was better. That is a cataclysmic failure and a level of incompetence that I just can’t get my head around.
It was coming, it wasn’t a surprise unless you were living entirely in an echo chamber. They fooled themselves and now we have Trump 2.0.
They only had to field a decent candidate and build a message and they could have given Trump what he despises more than anything: ballot box rejection.
|
|
14 Jan
5:14pm, 14 Jan 2025
7,213 posts
|
paulcook
Informed or not, a system that makes many / most people essentially voiceless. And that goes for both UK and US to what different amounts I don’t know.
|
|
14 Jan
5:16pm, 14 Jan 2025
18,340 posts
|
jdawayinamanger
The candidate was obviously decent. Maybe she wasn't your preferred option (who was?) but she was amply qualified for the job and every bit as decent as many past winners. As was Hilary Clinton before her.
The people who are responsible for Trump are him, his supporters and enablers, not those who opposed him in a manner that you deem (based on what?) to be imperfect in some way.
|
|
14 Jan
5:30pm, 14 Jan 2025
46,849 posts
|
SPR
Said it before but democracy isn't automatically going to lead to better outcomes. People can decide they want to vote for candidates that others would see as terrible.
Trump outperforms the Republicans, he is not seen as a terrible candidate by many who vote for him.
|
|
14 Jan
6:22pm, 14 Jan 2025
33,566 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
If Biden had announced his intention to step down 18 months ago they "could" have had a better candidate but I rather think they wouldn't have:
Because he would "probably" have endorsed Harris anyway
In a contested leadership election she "could" have prevailed anyway or if she'd been beaten the new person "could" have been worse.
As it is, given she was catapulted into the candidacy with (relatively) little time to prepare - by US standards - I think she did a pretty good job. The choice was clear and the electorate chose the criminal over the prosecutor: perhaps it was always destined to end thus.
|
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
