Honestly? Lower than I'd think.
I thought the proportion of Republicans who don't give a shit about democracy and just want their dude to win was higher.
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
248 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2072 users here now
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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's 19% that don't want him to accept the results if he loses without any other info.
If trump claims it was stolen, then that number will skyrocket.
And if he loses, he'll say it was stolen.
I'm not sure of how they worded the question, but I think you are exactly correct. There are a lot of Trump voters who don't believe he lost in 2020. So, if he really lost, they'd accept that, but virtually nothing would be accepted as a real loss short of Trump flat-out saying, "I lost, but it was the most beautiful loss in history."
Yeah, I mean just look at 2020, around 2/3s of Republicans believe it was stolen.
It wasn't, there's zero evidence it was.
But still, 2/3s agree with it.
Anyone that expects the 19% number to still be true in three weeks is woefully naive. This is the floor, but lots won't say it till the election is over, but are going to say it regardless
He did eventually admit he lost the 2020 election.
He did. But he also still claims he won and that it was stolen to this day. It's one of his biggest talking points.
Doublethink
Kinda. He later said he was being sarcastic.
I agree - but I honestly thought there was more than 19% who just didn't give a shit about Democracy at this point.
There are 19% who give so little of a shit about democracy that they won't even try to hide it, there's definitely more who feel this way but won't admit it
Actually have some good news here. If you look at the survey itself, it explains that this was part of the question,
if Trump loses the election, he should declare
In other words, that 19% is assuming that he'll declare it stolen.
That number will skyrocket if he loses.
You have to wonder how accurate a survey like this is on a question like that.
I bet there are a bunch who won’t admit it but want it.
A lot of them simply won't believe he actually lost, so he wouldn't be overturning anything, but correcting.
This just in: 1 in 5 Republicans are openly sedititious traitors.
The other 4 are hiding it.
Whereas only 1 in 8 Democrats are openly sedititious traitors.
Clearly. They are the same picture, after all.
"1 in 5 Republicans admit they just plain don't like democracy."
How many people really like democracy when they are not part of the majority?
Still better than every other option.
There are variants of democracy. With certain groups differently represented in the population, democracy based on sortition is better than democracy based on voting if you want one's chance of doing something to be proportional to their faction's number. While with voting you can have 60% in favor of A and 40% in favor of B, and A will win 10 times in row and get their way, not 60%. While with sortition it will be 60% for a member of A to be chosen, and 40% for a member of B. Just math.
That's a bit more than just math. When considering a policy, I don't tend to take into account where the different parties stand. It's better to think for yourself and not resort to tribalism. With that in mind I do think the majority should win 100% of the time. It has been insanely annoying here in the US how some policies have had popular support for years if not decades yet go nowhere because of small interest groups who use cheap tricks like the fillibuster and the electoral college to ensure the will of the minority wins out. I do acknowledge the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but I think protections against it should be provided by the rights outlined in a strong constitution.
Sortition is connected to population numbers, so it makes the weight of a vote in the majority equal to the proportion of that majority, and same with minorities. It can't be compared to electoral college and filibuster.
It also is one way to kill the degenerate dominance of two major parties.
Also majorities are slow to change, and it's simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one's vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.
I see where you are coming from in the context of the US, but our world had a democracy that took will of the majority to the absolute, it took just a couple of years for it to turn into dictatorship. Then after like 60 years that system (which never died on paper) was resurrected, with not the best results either. That'd be Soviets.
Well, and there are many countries around frankly with "good enough" (in year 1999) political systems, which don't seem good enough anymore.
"Also majorities are slow to change, and it's simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one's vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of."
It doesn't. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn't make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.
I'd say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren't due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.
Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.
Edit: and by minority votes I'm talking about policies with less than 50% support.
It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less.
If your group's percentage is 45% and the chance of its common position becoming reality is less than 45%, which it is with voting as opposed to sortition, it is.
It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.
More people disagreeing with me than agreeing doesn't mean that they should always have their way (because there's more of them) and I never. It means that proportionally to our numbers sometimes they should have their way and sometimes I mine.
This is simply closer to the real wishes of the voters. And that can be delivered by sortition.
Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.
And I'm saying that that minority-supported policies should pass proportionally to that minority. 20% percent minority included, for example.
If you are afraid of what that 20% percent will make you do if their representatives get up through sortition - well, shouldn't give any central government the ability to hurt you that much.
I think we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about individual policies, and I think you are talking about elected representatives. I do agree that percentages of representatives should match the population, but votes on individual policies should always match what the majority of the population wants.
Eh, no. What good then are the percentages of representatives?
The whole point is that policies should average to matching what the average citizen wants. Not the majority.
It's fair - sometimes the majority gets their way and the minority has to obey. Sometimes other way around. With frequency according to percentages.
That's the point. Actual power to make decisions should be balanced by representation of positions in the society. Not held by majority.
Democracy is four cannibals deciding what’s for dinner.
That'd be all human societies. Some of us are sort of like vegetarian, consciously refusing to eat humans. That would be libertarians and maybe left anarchists. But the basic system still is this.
Libertarians are the “vegetarians” of politics— they like everyone to equate them with vegans, but in reality have no issues eating fish, chicken and other meats, and in reality have a pretty loose definition of what’s “not meat.”
The real political vegans are those who go off to form their own communities and reject the ENTIRE political structure, not just the parts that don’t directly benefit them.
Not entirely correct, if you read about panarchy and contract jurisdictions and georgism and NAP, you might see that mostly they approach the same point of the river flow, just walking on the other shore, so to say.
We can agree on libertarians being the whole spectrum from "vegetarians" to "vegans" in politics, and left anarchists being only in the "vegan" area, if you will.
Still,
The real political vegans are those who go off to form their own communities and reject the ENTIRE political structure, not just the parts that don’t directly benefit them.
- such libertarians exist too, and the more radical part of them is fully of this kind.
12% of Democrats say Kamala Harris should do the same if she loses.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that no matter what happens, Donald J. Trump should not be allowed to take power and should be prevented from doing so by any means necessary. If he somehow wins this election, his sentencing for the 34 felony charges needs to immediately decided before January 6th before he has a chance to quash it.
Speaking as a German who was attentive in history class, yes, as paradoxical as it sounds, the current government should fight tooth and nail ro remain in control and don't simply relinquish power to the Republicans should Trump win. Although that in itself would be undemocratic, it would also be the last resort to save democracy ironically.
The alternative will be a fascist government that will immediately start to dismantle democracy and persecute the opposition, a.k.a. "the enemy within". I personally would rather not see the superpower with the world's largest military turn into an autocracy.
And that's not even taking into account the effect it would have on climate change, which would become even worse instead of getting at least mitigated. (Democratic societies have no choice but to act as soon as public pressure becomes too high, which it will within the next years. Autocratic societies however can just double down on propaganda and oppression and carry on burning fossil fuels.)
Surprised it’s not more than that.
This is the portion that is fine with openly admitting that they support overthrowing democracy when they know he lost, not the much larger portion that is willing to believe lies about the election was stolen.
At least the 12% of Democrats have Trump actually trying to overthrow the last election as a reason to oppose him being in office again. He should be in jail for his 34 felonies right now.
Actually, if you read the original survery, it's not even 10% of Dems who would agree with that,
Only 9% agree.
I am as well.
Especially since when polled a majority of Republicans agree that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of the country", and their support ticks up even more when the quote is attributed to Trump.
"Also two additional fifths. And then one more fifth."
1 in 5 republicans want Trump <3<3<3
To call Election-invalid if he loses
(900) MY TRUMP, $15 for the first 5 minutes, $5 for every minute after that. Hot, steamy election deniers are waiting to talk to you.
The rest knows he will and are fine with it.
It's nice to want things
That's it? The Insurrection Caucus was a higher percentage, wasn't it?
More than 1 out of 5 will not accept that he lost and will want him to call the election invalid. The 1 in the given statistic counts those that are willing to openly state that voting doesn't matter.
A few people make a lot of noise. Still, it's 20%.
Axios - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Axios:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/21/republicans-trump-declare-election-invalid?utm=axios_app