| ▲ | sophrosyne42 9 hours ago |
| Election denialism is unbecoming of anyone with a brain |
|
| ▲ | GPerson 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| “Sounds great, except it ignores the fact that capital interests have controlled the levers of our faux democracies for decades, with no end in sight.” This is not election denialism. This is almost just a fact except they also subjectively declare that we have a faux democracy (which also seems accurate to me). |
| |
| ▲ | sophrosyne42 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes it is. If you insist that the result of a democratic election does not reflect the will of the people, that, and nothing else, is election denialism. | | |
| ▲ | Obscurity4340 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At most the American people have a recurring dilemma. There really isnt choice in the meaningful sense of the word | |
| ▲ | GPerson 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No it’s not. Election denialism in 2026 in an American context refers to Donald Trump and his supporters denying the results of the 2020 election (and related claims). Pretending that capital does not significantly affect our elections contributes to the deterioration of democracy. If you actually don’t believe capital plays an outsized role in elections and government then take a gander at the Wikipedia page called Campaign finance in the United States. There is a chart called Percent of races won by top spending candidate… and lots of other information. Also looking into the role of lobbying in American politics. | | |
| ▲ | FeloniousHam 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | If "capital interests" (ugh, capitalism) controlled democracy, please esplain: - Michael Bloomberg
- Hillary Clinton (both in the 2008 primary and 2016 general)
- Alex Vindman
... a simple Google search reveals that while there is some threshold amount of dosh necessary to get noticed, _more money != more votes_. To believe otherwise is is willful ignorance. Sometimes your favorite candidate loses because the median actual voter (you know, the guy who actual fills out the form) prefers the status quo for their own reasons and not because they're brainwashed or whatever it is that "capital interests" do to them. | | |
| ▲ | GPerson 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m not sure how to reply to your comment since it is almost entirely addressed to some imaginary person and is full of projection. I’ll just add that both parties serve capital. |
|
| |
| ▲ | swed420 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If you insist that the result of a democratic election does not reflect the will of the people, that, and nothing else, is election denialism. No. This reflects the common understanding of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_denial_movement_in_th... > The election denial movement in the United States is a widespread false belief that elections in the United States are rigged and stolen through election fraud by the opposing political party. Adherents of the movement are referred to as election deniers. It requires that people still believe they're being given legitimate choices. My comments above do not. | |
| ▲ | madaxe_again 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It does reflect the will of the people, but the causal chain doesn’t stop there. The will of the people is the result of the corporate interests that control the democratic system. Manufacturing Consent is an excellent read - and don’t stop at Chomsky, read Bernays, who pretty much codified the system as it runs today. Propaganda is a good place to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays |
|
|
|
| ▲ | swed420 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Election denialism is unbecoming of anyone with a brain Convincing argument you have there, but the choices we're provided between shit sandwich A and shit sandwich B are the problem, not which one wins. |
| |
| ▲ | lanfeust6 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is akin to arguing "nothing ever changes or improves in Liberal democracies", when policy history doesn't reflect that. Large parties represent large coalitions, so there are more compromises and things happen slower, but they still happen. Not always for the better, as we're seeing when populists are elected. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > This is akin to arguing "nothing ever changes or improves in Liberal democracies", when policy history doesn't reflect that. Ever-growing wealth disparities, eroded rights, mass enshitification in a race to the bottom, and widespread hatred of ones neighbor over fake outrage culture war propaganda disseminated from corporate media are not a trends of improvement. They are trends of decline, unless you're of the class who has their doomsday bunker on standby. | | |
| ▲ | lanfeust6 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Ever-growing wealth disparities Higher concentration of wealth is not new, it's happened many times and dissipated many times. Real-wages are still growing, which is what we care about qua improvements in our well being (and what attracts immigrants). The key risk though is regulatory capture from consolidation of tech companies (much of this "wealth" in question is stock valuation, which tends to get reinvested in companies), but anti-trust is still a thing, and has been wielded relatively recently. > enshitification This is about consumer products, not government policy. Buy an alternative, you have those choices. > widespread hatred of ones neighbor over fake outrage culture war propaganda disseminated from corporate media Based on polling, the most salient issues seem to reflect economic anxieties. Even stances on immigration are really about that. When the established parties and institutions fail, people lash out and elect populists. The populist fervor will wane once housing affordability is appropriately tackled for instance. > not a trends of improvement Yeah, not everything improved in the short-run, that isn't remarkable. Many things did. Look at real-wages, look at the extreme poverty rate globally as defined by the UN. I could go on. | | |
| ▲ | psadauskas 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Higher concentration of wealth is not new, it's happened many times and dissipated many times. That's a very clinical way to put it. Usually when its "dissipated", its through war or economic depression or both, and a great many people who never had any wealth suffer needlessly, while the wealthy rarely do. It would be nice if we could like, _not_ do that, and try something different for once, instead of throwing up our hands and saying "well that's just how its always been!" | | |
| ▲ | lanfeust6 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're forgetting anti-trust. Standard Oil controlled 90% of the oil production in the U.S. until it was splintered into numerous companies. We're not really at the point where this needs to be done for tech. Also, dynastic wealth itself doesn't sustain itself well, and dwindles in a generation. See: the aforementioned Rockefeller, whose grandchildren are nowhere near as rich. Notwithstanding that many of the wealthy (in particular, Bill Gates) are donating the majority of their wealth when they die. |
| |
| ▲ | swed420 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This is about consumer products, not government policy. You speak as if these things are unrelated. > Buy an alternative, you have those choices. Increasingly, we don't: "Modern Capitalism Is Weirder Than You Think: It also no longer works as advertised" https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/how-asset-managers-h... (https://archive.is/wSmtd) | | |
| ▲ | lanfeust6 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You speak as if these things are unrelated. State the connection, because it seems like your next argument is going to be "the government didn't stop them", as though that's their job. > Increasingly, we don't: Think of a single enshittified product that matters to you for which there is no alternative but to use it. This also all pales in contrast to the conveniences and improvements afforded over time. You can now access and stream basically any music you want for free, for example. Television sets are now commodities, which tend to be cheaper adjusted for inflation. Etc etc. So the rhetoric about enshittification doesn't stand up to scrutiny. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > State the connection, because it seems like your next argument is going to be "the government didn't stop them", as though that's their job. It's not their job to break up monopolies and ever-shifting financial abstractions a few steps ahead of the law that enable monopolistic behavior? > Think of a single enshittified product that matters to you for which there is no alternative but to use it. * Mobile devices and their respective walled gardens if you expect to do something as simple as access your own bank account or reliably receive text messages * Social media which only really works when lots of people are on any given platform * Food that is safe, nutritious, and sustainable > Television sets are now commodities, which tend to be cheaper adjusted for inflation. Oh neat, they didn't enshitify the legacy propaganda client devices yet. How nice of them, and quite the measure of progress. |
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Based on polling, the most salient issues seem to reflect economic anxieties. Even stances on immigration are really about that. Meh, the economic anxiety voters are systematically voting for economically worst performing parties. They may say "it is economy" in polls, but it is hardly believable. The difference between men and women in voting patterns is not about economy. | | |
| ▲ | lanfeust6 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Average voters don't understand much about the economy, but that doesn't mean they aren't reacting to externalities like housing costs, prices, or other worse outcomes. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This take completely ignores the amount of money in politics and that both parties have funding from overlapping sources which in turn represent how similar the two parties are on certain key issues such as the Palestinian genocide. | | |
| ▲ | lanfeust6 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Notwithstanding that this sum is smaller than people think, seeing bipartisan stances does not in itself reflect a failure; it can just as easily be a good thing. All this reveals is that you have a pet issue that isn't being serviced well currently by the 2 parties, but tides and voter sentiment change; within a few short years most people have soured on Israel, and this will be reflected in forthcoming elections. | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't have a single "pet issue", I care about a great deal of issues that neither party actually cares about addressing, and it's well-established that both parties push conservative, right-leaning neoliberal policy. I don't see these changes occurring overnight or fast enough to be acceptable. | | |
| ▲ | lanfeust6 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | lol Trump's party has not been the least bit neoliberal, it is populist and protectionist. Brutal immigration crackdowns and tarrifs are the opposite of neoliberal. Even Biden was a departure, with tariffs and CHIPS act. None of that is neoliberal, which peaked in the Clinton era. Incidentally, among the most effective remedies for what ails us now, like zoning reform, would be derided as "neoliberal" by progressives, though the evidence speaks for itself, and YIMBYs are making in-roads. That doesn't mean that state capacity doesn't have it's place. We historically would spend more on innovation, on NASA, DARPA and the like, and that matters a great deal. But it doesn't preclude removing red tape that hinders govt and private sector efforts. > a great deal of issues Ok, name some. Realistically, there aren't many. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sophrosyne42 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a well known mathematical property of first-past-the-post election systems, as opposed to evidence of your grand conspiracy theory | | |
| ▲ | nextaccountic 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe then the US should abandon first past the post? | | |
| ▲ | sophrosyne42 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would support that, and there are states that have already switched to different systems in their local or other elections |
| |
| ▲ | randusername 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is a well known physical property of lawn rakes that one end is heavier than the other, as opposed to evidence my neighbor is abusive in hitting me with one over and over. | |
| ▲ | swed420 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It doesn't require a "grand conspiracy theory" to know that dominant capital interests have the power and desire to perpetuate themselves. But keep trying to wave the away the obvious. You only look more ridiculous the harder you try. | | |
| |
| ▲ | whoiskevin 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No your choice was between a competent leader and a con man. When people type what you type it seems obvious you are attempting to avoid responsibility for choosing the con man.
I blame everyone that has this "there was no good choice" bull. That is exactly what it is an excuse for blowing up everything and claiming no responsibility. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > No your choice was between a competent leader and a con man. No, the non-con man option was an unpopular candidate who was installed after skipping a primary process. A primary process that was shown to be a complete joke during the previous cycle. > When people type what you type it seems obvious you are attempting to avoid responsibility for choosing the con man. I never chose the con man. Nor did I choose the party who manufactured consent for him with their pied piper "strategy" that was exposed only by wikileaks. Did the party reflect on this? No. They got mad at the person who leaked it. | |
| ▲ | whalee 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "No good choice" in the 2020 election was a universal and sane opinion to have. The 2024 election was the thinnest electoral margins in recent history. You don't know something everyone else doesn't, and these inflammatory comments are out of touch with reality. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | octopoc 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Political campaigns spend enormous amounts of money on ads to influence public opinion. That makes politicians beholden to their donors. Which subverts democracy from "the will of the people" to "the will of the wealthy". All of these are uncontroversial facts and fit the narrative GP is saying. |
|
| ▲ | RunSet 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph... |
|
| ▲ | tejohnso 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Election denialism is about rejecting official election results. But anyway, on the subject of the usefulness of your vote, Trump was elected on an America first platform, touting ending foreign wars and avoiding new ones. If you elected him and his party based on that I think you're going to be pretty disappointed with the effectiveness of your vote in its ability to bring about actual outcomes that you want. |
| |
| ▲ | sophrosyne42 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Election denialism is about rejecting official election results. That would be the implication of such statements as "our democracy has been subverted by the big corporate conspiracy". |
|
|
| ▲ | buellerbueller 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The post you are responding to is not election denialism. |
| |
| ▲ | sophrosyne42 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is no functional difference between the statement "democracy is subverted by a grand corporate conspiracy" and "our elections are invalid", because the only way the former happens is if the latter happens. If the latter didn't happen, then you're just upset about the outcome of a legitimate election. Which is a fair thing to be in a democracy, but it does not mean that the whole system is corrupt. Insistence that any other outcome than your preferred outcome is illegitimate is dictator behavior | | |
| ▲ | buellerbueller 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pure sophistry! The popular conception (and platonic ideal, hence the popular conception) of our democratic republic is that of equal representation. Our system favors candidates with money; the system is corrupt and to say so is merely stating a fact. But hey, lick boots if you wanna. It seems to be the tech way these days. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | shhhutttup 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Lol if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal. |
| |
|
| ▲ | slopinthebag 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Being an apologist for the state and our current system is unbecoming of anybody with a brain |
| |
|
| ▲ | salemh 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
