![](https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/fa11b254-ccfd-417a-b346-ffa2209a3072.webp)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
Political parties that pay more attention to their voters than to the rich? Yes, many. Parties that fulfill that and are electorally successful? None or almost
Political parties that pay more attention to their voters than to the rich? Yes, many. Parties that fulfill that and are electorally successful? None or almost
And this is the reason why the democratic party does not respond to the interests of the working class. The words of a super rich person have more influence than thousands or millions of people saying the same thing in surveys. This time those voices are aligned, but if next time they are not, the voice of the super rich will be the one they hear instead of yours.
Yes, I suppose you are right, the most basic thing has not failed but certain fundamental and important institutions seem to be in it, in any case one can have a horrible and dystopian but functional totalitarian state, without being failed, I don’t know if I explain my point correctly .
this is also for @9point6@lemmy.world, I don’t know how to answer both of you at the same time, but what I say is valid for both of us.
Yes well, I was trying to be a little sarcastic with the headline, but looking at people’s votes I think I have failed miserably.
Oh, I thought you were an American worried about how you look outside and I was trying to calm you down. I respect your perspective of course, but it seems to me that a failed state is a bit exaggerated for this, Somalia or Yemen are still a little worse than the USA in the comparison. Authoritarian, close to breaking up as a nation, things like that I think are closer to reality, that is my vision also from the outside, I could be wrong and you may be closer to reality.
No, from Europe I tell you, we see you as less democratic than you used to and with many problems that can escalate and screw you up (we are not celebrating here either), but you are still far from being a failed state, there are still police more or less functional, you can still call the fire department if your house catches fire, there is still a clear institutional hierarchy, more authoritarian but clear.
Yes, the speed at which you are flushing democracy down the toilet, when, I don’t know maybe 20 years ago, you were the example to follow in many aspects, it is surprising for everyone.
Like now? The president has always been able to assassinate you, officially, the difference is that before he would have gone to jail and now he won’t.
Yeah, I guess you could be right.
Yes, surely, but there is an underlying problem for this entire system, there is no economically viable alternative to the use of data for advertising sales, without that all those websites cease to be profitable.I don’t think this is good for anyone.
facebook and instagram? I don’t know about the rest of Europe, but in Spain right now practically all newspapers/digital media have copied that model and you either accept cookies or pay
Yes, after all the answers I think I am beginning to see the problem, it is not the electoral system but your vision of it. That is why time and time again the answers are about the position of president and not about the system as a whole. You don’t care, you don’t understand that the present is the most powerful individual person, but the presidency is not the most powerful institution, the Congress and the Senate have much more power, being powerful there is much more important than putting a person in office. Not to mention the number of laws, measures and issues that do not even reach the federal level.
In 2010 they had a coalition government made up of Torys and Liberals, in Great Britain the executive power is not just the Prime Minister, it is the entire Council of Ministers and it was not made up only of Torys. Obviously a coalition government is not possible in the American system, but a third party being influential in the cameras is and I still don’t see because it is impossible
I know and understand the difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism, but I am not talking about the election of presidents exclusively, I am talking about the political system of the country in general. If 20~30% of the chambers are in the hands of a third party, the country becomes more plural and public debates better represent opinions and I don’t understand why that is not possible.
I don’t know, I don’t deny what you say, but as I was answering to another, then the United States is not a democracy anymore, it is a plutocracy where a few elites can decide policies, but the population lacks the capacity to change the trends even if there is a broad consensus for it.
this is sad
But you have a parliament (congress and senate), right? Why isn’t there a third party in these chambers?
Well, I don’t know, like I said before I’m not American and I don’t know all the ins and outs of the American electoral system, but if this is really impossible, I’ll just stop thinking of the United States as a democracy in any way. Changing the democrats party from within has proven impossible since Hillary’s rigged election in 2016, moving her policies to the left runs into a constant wall of “this is how we will lose the center”, well, I don’t know, I just think the system is so broken that either something different is done or it’s not going to be fixed
Well, if that only applies at the presidential level, a party can be created that competes at the legislative and state level. When it is established with enough power at that level, running at the presidential level might not be such a risky game.
The British have a first past the post system and more than two parties, something else is wrong in that equation
Well, the issue of the electoral college is something that I don’t fully understand, in the end from Europe I follow American politics relatively, but the English also have the first past the post system and they have more than one party.
Perhaps it would be necessary to start setting it up from more local elections or to the Congress/Senate, where a small but more mobilized mass could be relevant. With a relevant percentage representation in the chambers and/or state positions it could stop being crazy.
I don’t know, it’s an outside opinion, maybe it’s impossible, but if it is then American democracy is not only dysfunctional, it wouldn’t be a democracy at all, It would be a plutocracy with all the letters
Is the left listening to the working class?