[throwaway984393]

I'm sure that makes the medicine go down easier, but we're not powerless at all. We choose to have no say. We choose not to run our own campaigns and get grassroots approval. Less than half of us vote. The rest accept the status quo, despite the fact that they don't have to. We give away our power.

All of the methods by which a dark horse can run and win are there. The state will not remove your votes or intimidate voters not to vote for you. You will not be poisoned by radioactive toxins to prevent you from running. You will not be kidnapped, or your family threatened, or a bomb set off in polling locations. This isn't in any way like so many other actually repressive regimes. All you have to do is go and run.

We have more power in this society than anyone in any other. So why do we claim we're powerless? Because it makes us feel better that we're so lazy. I could run for office, but that might restrict my time watching The Office. Better to just say that running is pointless, so I don't have to make the change I want to see.

And even if you don't want to run, you can vote for independents, you can complain to your representatives, you can organize your friends and neighbors to petition local government for local reforms and participate in larger state and federal efforts. Individually we may be a drop in the bucket, but collectively we are a wave. You can't say that isn't powerful.

[zrn900]

> We have more power in this society than anyone in any other. So why do we claim we're powerless? Because it makes us feel better that we're so lazy

No, because you are actually powerless:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-co...

If the ruling class cant derail all your efforts in peripheral ways, it just pulls out the good old fascism trick.

[Intermernet]

I vouched for this comment to be non-dead. I'm not a US citizen, but I can see why this comment would be contentious for US citizens. I also think it's a valid point, and doesn't cross any HN guidelines (more than other comments that exist in this thread). I'd like to give it another chance and see how it goes.

[Der_Einzige]

People who downvoted or flagged the above post are themselves examples of what’s killing HN. Bunch of snowflakes who don’t want to hear the truth: Political engagement works and matters even at the small scale - we are just lazy as hell.

Look to how unpopular CSPAN is. Everyone says they want the “truth” of politics. The truth is on CSPAN, and no one watches it.

[rjbwork]

Unfortunately what you've said is just not true.

We do have some power, but the system is absolutely intended to suppress the power of the masses. The senate as an institution, the cap on the number of reps in the house, the electoral college, representative rather than parliamentary legislature elections, dark money/super PACs/Citizen's United (and other things that look even closer to outright bribery) and first-past-the-post are ALL anti-democractic institutions intended to preserve the status quo for the already wealthy and powerful.

As for having more power than any other society? Delusional. There are far more democractic electoral systems.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> but the system is absolutely intended to suppress

This seems asinine. I am not psychic, I can't always deduce intentions, but sometimes I can see the lack of intent. Things evolve, they develop, and though there might be many factions hoping to steer things in directions they want it to go, the net effect of many factions doing this is our ship just swirling around randomly in the ocean.

When you talk about "intent", it's just rabblerousing. You hope to rile people up, so they'll do what you prefer they would do. It's unnecessary to talk about intent. Whether the system was intended to suppress the power of the masses, or whether the system randomly and quite accidentally developed to do that is moot if it suppresses the masses. The only thing reasonable people should be discussing is:

1. Does this system suppress the power of the masses?

2. Should that change? It's not all that clear that the masses should have power. We've seen what mobs and riots are like, and most of you are ill-informed, opinionated, and susceptible to the effects of rabble-rousing.

As for answers, I think yes, it does suppress power of the masses. I would be skeptical the intelligence of someone who suggested otherwise. And on the second, I'm uncertain... there are days where it seems like only a lunatic would want the masses to have power. But, if they don't have it, others do, and whoever they happen to be, I've not seen many outcomes I've liked.

> the cap on the number of reps in the house

Haha. Do you want that to change? I stumbled upon a weird political science hack a few years back, and I'm convinced that as few as a dozen people (nobodies, even) might change that by the time the next census rolls around. Low effort, you might have to allocate 15 minutes to go talk to a state rep/senator (plus a few hours to prepare... rehearsal, haircut, getting your nice clothes dry-cleaned). It'd bump the number up to something like 5800+ reps in Congress.

The other stuff's all dead in the water. But I know how to ruin the rep cap.

[nurple]

The data just doesn't bear this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_indepe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_indepe...

It's more than the ability to put your name on a ballot, between the media control the main parties have, their purposeful entrenchment and anticompetitive setup, and the necessary financial burden; your biggest problem is that simply nobody will know who you are.

[thomastjeffery]

Both are true and feed each other.

My state passed a democratic ballot measure to set up a non-partisan redistricting committee. When it came time to instate new district maps, our state Senate pretended to consider the committee's maps, and voted for their own maps; despite the vocal outage of nearly every citizen who shared a comment on the situation.

I can't coordinate with my "community", when my senators have declared it to include downtown SLC, Tooele, Beaver, Cedar City, St. George, etc. To contrast, Utah County (the most consistently Conservative area in the state) basically gets its own district.

[gmueckl]

Yes, the US gives all the rights you list to its citizens. But with representation wffectively degenerated into a two-party system by the quirks of the eletion systems, any independent candidates must gather massive support to have a chance. It is more likely that an independent candidate will end up supporting their worst opposition because winner takes all heavily punishes splinter factions by completely discarding their votes.

This is the reason why Kennedy's efforts to appear on the ballots can ultimately hand Trump the presidential election by splitting the Biden canp.P

The US has culturally accepted this flawed system. The UK has a multiparty parliament despite first past the post. This comes at the price of up to more than 60% of the votes getting effectively discarded.

I believe firmly that the US would be served better today if it transitioned to a proportional voting system. But the constitution is treated with too much deference to expect meaningful updates to get it in line with 21st century realities.

[ParetoOptimal]

> The state will not remove your votes

Tell that to Al Gore.