politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Dude with brains beaten to mush supports fellow rapist.
Quite the Vaushite take.
I think the problems of american politics isn't because it's too democratic, rather I think it's that the US is:
In short, the problem is not too much, but too little lived democracy. Allow the uniparty to fracture and the populace would be better able to pick and choose what they support.
I think there’s an important distinction between making voting accessible and ensuring that voters understand the institutions and decisions they’re being asked to influence.
We already accept that voting eligibility can be subject to legal qualifications, although the reasons for those qualifications differ. (I.E. children, people deemed legally mentally incompetent, US Residents who aren’t US Citizens, convicted felons in many states, people still serving prison sentences in many states, etc etc.)
My question is whether civic competence should have any place in that discussion.
If someone cannot explain the basic structure of government, distinguish established historical facts from misinformation, or demonstrate a basic understanding of the economic and political systems affected by elections, what consequences does that have for democratic decision-making?
You wouldn’t give someone a gun without them knowing how they work or what happens to people when they shoot them…
So why give them the power to decide which man controls all the people with guns in the whole government when they don’t understand that power or the government?
I am aware that requiring a test raises serious concerns about discrimination, abuse, and the right to political representation. But I think those concerns deserve examination alongside the consequences of widespread civic ignorance.
Even if we disagree about restricting eligibility, can we at least agree that improving civic knowledge is essential to a functioning democracy?
And that maybe civic knowledge should be required in schools, or in adult life perhaps before accepting Jury Duty or something… or at some point in a citizen’s existence before they step into a voting booth?
I can agree that a good measure of civic knowledge in the populace is absolutely a prerequisite. Now the question is does every voter need that? There my answer would be no. But should every citizen have been taught enough about civics in school to ensure at least a minimum breadth of civics knowledge in the populace? Yes.
I also think that a society needs a metaphorical buy-in from the populace. A populace that doesn't feel they get to vote, demonizes the system that excludes them. We can see where that leads to in America, a low-trust society, where people do not trust the state, where the bureaucracy is seen as an enemy, oppressor, an occupying force. Removing the vote may guarantee a better result short term, but long term you're just alienating a not inconsequential amount of the populace, creating a two-class society where the oppressed class will do anything in their power to hurt the system. And the US is already mostly there, because the people do not feel represented. I'd argue that many of the wrongs you'd want to correct with this are directly or indirectly caused by a lack of feeling to belong.
I am very much convinced that your solution is easier to implement in the rapidly autocratizing US. But I'm also convinced that my solution of more democracy would create a better, healthier, happier society. The most democratic countries in the world, are also the best educated and the happiest. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf
The system in the US is broken and you cannot fix it, by breaking it more, it has to be overhauled completely into something that guarantees representation, civic participation and engagement. And those three things would absolutely drop even lower the higher the hurdles for the smallest measure of representation, participation and engagement are.
Hilarious, because the "majority of historians" would tell you what happens when you institute tests as a requirement to vote. (See also)
"Surely the leopards would never eat my face!" says person with juicy, delectable face.
Ah, yes, sure.
Like an Ouroboros of irony that you reference low intelligence linked to authoritarian tendencies and then use that to justify an authoritarian measure you're too unintelligent to understand the consequences of in order to gatekeep the unintelligent authoritarians.
And maybe just link a study you want to discuss instead of a screenshot of an LLM summary you asked it to vomit out for you.
Edit: Ironically, were this stupid shit ever implemented (fuck no is a competent democracy doing this), you'd probably end up with a death penalty situation, where competent historians, ethicists, etc. refuse to participate, just like competent medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies refuse to participate in the death penalty.