[TFYS]

The trouble with this is that a criminal that has enough capital to back him/her can use the media to make it seem like it's a political hunt even when it isn't. Supporters of a corrupt criminal will benefit a lot from getting them elected, whereas the opposition needs to spend a lot of money just to keep things as they are. Usually these people are friendly to capital as well, and the opposition are the "little people" who can't organize enough money to campaign against these liars and their backers. I can't see better options here other than to use the state to protect themselves.

[Boldened15]

At some point we have to trust the electorate whether we like it or not, or democracy is impossible. If the populace is easily brainwashed by the media to believe in the innocence of a corrupt and extremist candidate they could just as easily be brainwashed on any issue or candidate so what's the point of letting them vote at all?

> Usually these people are friendly to capital as well, and the opposition are the "little people"

Don't know if this is actually true, I assume capitalists generally prefer stable market-oriented politicians and not far-right kleptocrats in favor of protectionist trade wars. And plenty of wealthy people value democracy for its own sake, Kamala outraised Trump in the 2024 election for example.

Also I doubt traditional media spend plays as large a role in a nationwide contest with a lot of eyes, if I recall during Trump's 2016 primary candidacy Fox News tried to go against him but was rebuked by their own viewers (who fell in love with him on social media) and forced to bend the knee.

Cults of personalities are more dangerous than other types of brainwashing though, and the right level of protection from the state here should be other checks and balances on the office's powers.

[TFYS]

I'm starting to think that current forms of democracy have become outdated and impossible due to the effects of social media and the levels of wealth concentration. When liars can spread their own truths through social media, and there exists such concentrations of wealth that they're able to buy the platforms, manipulate the algorithms, use bots etc. to boost the lies, it's become too hard for the average person to figure out what the actual truth is and base their decisions on that. The fact checking and bias in dispersed traditional media that we used to have was not perfect, but it was better than what we have now with the combination of concentrated traditional media and social media.

If we don't want to use the state to protect democracy by limiting it, then we either need to limit the concentration of wealth so that no small group of people has the power to spread the lies, or we need new forms of democracy that are resistant to such things.

[machomaster]

The essential part of democracy is the right for people to make bad decisions (and hopefully learn from them).

If people are allowed to choose only from preselected candidates, then that is no democracy at all. "You can choose any color of the Ford you want as long as it is black".

That's the same reason I despise the "minimal amount of votes/percentage threshold to be elected" shenanigans that exist in many countries (including Europeans). That's exactly how Putin started to take over Russia's democratic election system in the beginning of his reign.

System needs controllers. But who is going to control the controllers? And who is going to control the controllers of the controllers? Turtles all the way. And the only reasonable and workable system is when people have the control. Even if they sometimes/often make mistakes. It's still the best system we have.