You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.

Is it really that the president is all that decides about the future of democracy itself? Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime? Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?

I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile.

  • Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world
    37·
    10 hours ago

    The mechanism is the three branches of power providing checks and balances and voting. But when the people elect them to all three branches. It kinda defeats the purpose

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      15·
      8 hours ago

      Also Benjamin Franklin said that he believed constitution should torn up and redone every 30 years. We shouldn’t even be using it 200 years later.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        4·
        8 hours ago

        I know about Jefferson and his 20 year automatic sunset phase for laws at all levels, except for Constitutions, charters, and other founding documents that can be amended. Hadn’t heard that Franklin wanted to sunset the Constitution itself as well. Not sure that we would have lasted this long if Franklin had gotten his way there. I do think that Jefferson and Madison were on the right track with the federal, state, and local laws though. Tyranny of the dead and all that.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        5 hours ago

        Trump has said that Elon “knows those computers better than anybody … And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide”.

        First of all, we know that to be false because we know Elon doesn’t know shit about computers. But, aside from that, there are multiple possible interpretations of what he meant, anything from “Elon rigged the election” to “Elon ensured the integrity of the election”.

        My policy is “Don’t believe anything Trump says about anything”. I don’t change that policy when he says something that I want to believe is true.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            7 minutes ago

            That’s not what that letter says. It says that operatives may have gained access to the software used to count votes, and if that happened they may have been able to probe that software for weaknesses.

            What it doesn’t say is that there was a subsequent, second breach of the voting machines in which doctored software was then installed.

            It’s like someone gaining access to blueprints for a bank vault. Yes, that theoretically lowers the security of the vault, but it doesn’t prove that a bank heist has taken place, just that a heist is more likely to be possible now.

            • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzEnglish
              1·
              4 minutes ago

              Okay so what do you do when the mob gets the blueprints for the bank vault, and then a few weeks later the Don brags about all the money he stole?