Why the US are not a true democracy

I like how much foreigners love informing American's what it's like in our country,

Most of you would probably be surprised to hear we never see people carrying guns everywhere and have never been in a shooting lol.

What you know about the country - is mostly informed by hysterical media reporting on what's dramatic - and what's going wrong.

That's not to say there aren't real problems - but considering its power and length of existence I'd say this iteration of the US govt has done alright (and is also in need of rejuvenation)

Also kinda ironic coming form a country whose democracy as a unified nation has existed for 30 years and only exists because of the US. I'd hope that in designing that government yours was able to learn from the shortcomings of ours over the last 220 years. (sorry but it's just satisfying to use an example of length of existence in a conversation with Europe ;p)

@salmon_rushdie is on to something. Too many depend solely upon a nearly monolithic media for its impressions of some things of which they (the relying "many") have no actual experience. And in my experience with artificial intelligence, I've been startled by the extent to which it seems sometimes to simply summarize and feed back what some prominent media declare. And remember -- prominent media are not infallible. To say the least.

What's the alternative, I suppose somebody could fairly ask? Well, I'll suggest this: reserve judgment. Don't be too sure. Listen more to a wider variety of sources before declaring.

As for "rejuvenation," I'm not sure what he means. I know what the word means, of course, but I can only hope that he doesn't mean, by "rejuvenation," some dramatic alteration of the U.S. Constitution (which is already very good) or the election of some jejune politician who tries not to reveal her or his position about important matters and instead relies upon media hype and gushing celebrity.

But he writes so well that I will assume that @salmon_rushdie has something else in mind, unless and until I read otherwise.

Perhaps a rejuvenation of optimism and a willingness to return to the sound, traditional liberalism (not to be confused with immoderate, left-wing ideology) of John F. Kennedy, who said (approximately?) "ask not what your country can do for you; rather ask what you can do for your country."

Traditional Democrats and Republicans were NOT bashful about expressing love for their noble experiment of a nation. And they didn't have to hope that celebrities or media talking heads would approve. Back then, Americans were much more of a similar mind.

@Noflaps said in #12:
> [...]

I get @salmon_rushdie 's comment, I think that we need more patriotism and less division, but these qualities seem to be so far from what we have now that it seems impossible to attain them. I'm really not sure what could be done, but for sure a "rejuvenation" of these things would sure be nice. I would like to have a cordial conversation with someone about something ethical or political and not have them yell at my face just because we disagree, but that is what the US is right now.

Again, I'm really not sure what the solution is.

I agree that "yelling" is not at all productive, @dstne . Indeed, it's best when we try to remain calm and conversational (and not at all sneering or insulting), not to mention skeptical yet willing to consider something other than the aforementioned media hype and gushing celebrity.

Celebrities are certainly entitled to their opinions, and I find some to be genuinely thoughtful and admirable. And yet, the opinions of those who struggle in response to bad policy are much more important to me.

And they too often don't have much of a platform. They have one coming up in a couple of days. I hope they use it, relying upon their own experience and not cajoled into conformity.

Being "cool" is of passing benefit. Having a genuine future and safe, prospering country is of more lasting value.

@Noflaps
I think a pivotal start in 'rejuvenation' of US democracy is to repeal citizens united.

Followed by reform of bribery laws (in specifically congress, and especially the supreme court), and corporate lobbying. Looking into changes in the system which could create room for more than 2 parties and less of a 'winner takes all' system that rewards initiative to form political alliances across the aisle.

There's a lot more than this - but if the primary effort is taken to remove the the over-influence of wealth on our govt, than further action can be taken from that point on to benefit constituents more equally.

The more parties there are, the more likely it is for a weird cult-of-a-party to rise sufficiently to prominence. There are ideologies that might, with the best of intentions but insufficient understanding, do unintended harm but command slightly more than 34 percent support.

And if we silence corporate contributions entirely, who will offset the sometimes irrational, less-knowledgeable anti-corporate or anti-technology voices?

Hard as this may be for some to admit or (sometimes) even to know, often the corporations know MUCH more about their own businesses than do earnest college kids who really want to, you know, "do what's right, fer the, like, planet."

Corporations, for all their potential flaws, keep us warm, fed and moving. And they provide decent livings to many, many millions of people.

These things present complicated questions. Calm, polite discussion might lead to SOME reforms that we could all welcome.

@Noflaps said in #16:
> The more parties there are, the more likely it is for a weird cult-of-a-party to rise sufficiently to prominence. There are ideologies that might, with the best of intentions but insufficient understanding, do unintended harm but command slightly more than 34 percent support.
>
> And if we silence corporate contributions entirely, who will offset the sometimes irrational, less-knowledgeable anti-corporate or anti-technology voices?
>
> Hard as this may be for some to admit or (sometimes) even to know, often the corporations know MUCH more about their own businesses than do earnest college kids who really want to, you know, "do what's right, fer the, like, planet."
>
> Corporations, for all their potential flaws, keep us warm, fed and moving. And they provide decent livings to many, many millions of people.
>
> These things present complicated questions. Calm, polite discussion might lead to SOME reforms that we could all welcome.
I don't think more parties = the more risk of extremism - because they won't be able to actually wield power until they make a coalition with other factions that eventually represents the majority of the government.

What it does do however, is dissect the bipartisan political spectrum - and pressure parties to have to work and make good on their word - when there is more than one opposition party, the only other choice people have isn't the opposite party to the one they normally support.

It's not bulletproof of course - but the democratic outcomes are higher than in bipartisan countries.

"And if we silence corporate contributions entirely, who will offset the sometimes irrational, less-knowledgeable anti-corporate or anti-technology voices?"
That's not really what I was proposing - but citizens united is about laws that made campaign contributions limitless.

And honestly before citizens united - would you characterize corporations in the US as 'not having enough influence?'
They had plenty before, but now a single person billionaire can wield more sway than tens of millions of American's combined.

Corporations aren't without merit - but it is the people working for them that do the work - not the billionaire financiers and CEOs. And if they weren't there - people would own more of their own businesses and provide the same services - just like it was before megastores like walmart out scaled local businesses.

it isnt a true democracy, we are run by two political machines that compete for donations. both support the same disastrous foreign policies, both support the gradual transfer of wealth upeard, both support keeping 3d parties out of the system. whoever wins, the downward spiral will continue.

And at the same time, there's nothing legally keeping people from voting for whoever they want

I would dare to say the level of public distrust in the voting system and outcomes in ths US is unparalleled among developed nations.

On the other hands, other countries like France have far better voting systems, which does not necessarily mean they are more democratic, example the infamous 2005 referendum.

As always, I would expect the nordic countries to fare better. The Swiss also have a pretty strong voting cultures and many decisions are ratified by referendum I believe.