this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
432 points (98.2% liked)

politics

30118 readers
2856 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The author could totally rehash the ancient Athenian arguments, as their flavour of democracy was Sortition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition . They (e.g. Aristotle, Plato) argued against elections - because rich and wealthy would capture them and take over the government, perverting it to further enrich themselves. The only way to have a democratic body was to select Senate (slight simplification, read the wiki for details) at random from all adult citizens.

This has been known to humanity for over 2500 years.

This concludes my democracy talk.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I've actually been in support for random selection for a long time. Treat the offices of the country like jury duty. Random selection every few years, and allow veto power via recall to remove them and do a new election if they do a poor job.

It can't possibly be worse than what we have now.

[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Something to keep in mind going forward to be sure. With the world how it is, a violent revolution is an inevitability. And what kind of governance we want afterwards needs to be thought up now.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I like the idea of replacing primaries with sortition. Select 10 candidates random from among the list of people who voted in the last election. If someone doesn't want to be on the list of candidates, they can decline and another will be added. Then you hold an election with a runoff between the randomly selected candidates.

I like this system because it still gives the people some choice. With 10 random candidates, it will be rare for an election to not have a diversity of viewpoints represented. So people will still be able to vote to support the policies they support. And you'll still have a voting layer to hopefully weed out the worst of the worst.

Yes, this would still let money have some impact on races. But it would eliminate the main way the wealthy actually influence elections - the primary phase. The wealthy have their most influence in politics before the primary even begins. Right now we're already in the middle of the 2028 shadow primary for the presidency. Potential candidates are quietly going around to potential wealthy backers, lining up support and financing in exchange for future favors. This is why "just vote in the primary!" never seems to work - the wealthy put their thumbs on the scale before the official primary even began.

It's very hard for people to get their name out there. If an average unknown person wants to run for US House or US Senate, they're going to need a ton of money just to get enough people to know their name. Candidates who aren't independently wealthy have to sell out before the primary process even begins. Replacing primaries with sortition would eliminate the greatest tool the wealthy have to influence elections, while still preserving the fundamental right of people to choose their leaders.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I really like the idea you have brought up. We need to get away from popular elections of candidates who represent parties towards a system of randomizing elected officials that places the focus on actual policies.

Politicians desperately need accountability. As it stands they can lie through their teeth and then do pretty much whatever they want once elected with zero consequences until the next election cycle.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If someone doesn’t want to be on the list of candidates, they can decline and another will be added.

We can just pay off whomever wins or threaten/disappear people until we find someone pro-billionaire.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fatalism is fatal. You're postulating a mechanism that exists regardless of type of government, so it's irrelevant to the discussion here.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Getting rid of the capitalists is a requirement before any change can take place.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's okay, soon we won't have Billionaires.

They'll all be Trillionaires.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't worry, we'll get new billionaires.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Meanwhile everyone else is grounded into the dust.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

I don't know about you, but I'm going to be a millionaire by the time I've paid off my mortgage. Because that's probably how much my house is going to be worth by that time. Not that it will be of much use to me, because I still need a house, and every other house will be just as expensive. Paper millionaire.

But life really sucks for those who are too late to have bought a house.

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

In 2020, Elon Musk was worth about $25 billion dollars.

6 years later, he’s worth a trillion.

Eat the rich.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 37 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What if we give all billionaires so much money they will become trillionaires ? Will that save democracy?

[–] pigup@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

We can raise taxes on the middle class and cut social services and education!

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 8 points 2 days ago

And don't let people enter the housing market. Just charge them higher and higher rent forever!

[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

It could be argued that the us has NEVER actually been a true democracy, or even a functioning representative republic. I'd argue all government is just theatre if I was feeling really fatalistic. I'm not though. We can build a world that's not evil.

[–] VoodooAardvark@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Funny - I think he’s misinterpreting what freedom means

In a 2009 Cato Unbound Thiel wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn't that what the billionaires are starting to say?

[–] VoodooAardvark@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Yes - that’s a quote from Peter Thiel

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago

You're can't have power distributed widely if you concentrate it narrowly. It's the simplest fucking thing.

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

Its not just Billionaires, its overly powerful business monopolies.

[–] tacoplease@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Can't have democracy with conservatism and religion.

[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Because they both actively try to destroy democracy

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago

that is a given by now. for billionaires the name of the game is "which politicians are my bitches"

[–] grumpusbumpus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Right, so you don't have a democracy. What are you going to do about it?

load more comments
view more: next ›