That said, I also think things happen way before the first term. It requires consent of the Party to get on the ballot and hundreds of millions of dollars, increasingly trending towards billions, to run a campaign with a chance of winning, because in a democracy it's quite self evident that the person who spends the most money, must be the better person. Results don't lie!
And on top of all of this, if you aren't shaping up to be who the Party wants, then the completely independent, free, and honest media will demonize you. And even if this doesn't destroy you in the eyes of your own supporters, it'll rile up your opponent's base enough as they race to vote (for somebody they also don't even particularly care for) because if they don't, then you might win! That cannot be allowed to happen as it would obviously be the literal end of the world.
This is why it's ever more important for social media to be controlled, lest somebody angle-shoot around the traditional path to success - the media. If somebody's gaining traction on social media, then he's saying things that disagree with the powers that be. Since he's disagreeing with the powers that be, he is spreading misinformation by definition, so he must be censored. For our safety.
I would like to ask you a serious question: do you not think it is extremely weird that so many people will at least sometimes[1] agree that "democracy" is essentially fake, but then at other times take quite literally the opposite stance...praising it, defending it, singing its virtues, etc? Granted, it is theoretically possible that each individual is 100% consistent at all times, and I am simply observing people who are on different sides of the argument, but now and then I'll check into someone's post history and find evidence that pretty soundly rules that out (subjectivity noted).
A standard response to this is something along the lines of "Oh, that's people just being X (dumb, etc)", but I do not believe that is an even remotely accurate description of what is really going on. But for even more irony: on one hand, most people tend to think democracy, governance, and all the things downstream of it (ie: their literal experience here on Earth) is a very big deal (the passionate debate over what exactly the events of January 6 "were" is a prime example), yet it is almost impossible to get anyone to engage in a highly serious conversation about just what the fuck is going on here on Planet Earth, 2023. It is as if there is some sort of a yet to be discovered phenomenon in play.
Do you think I might be crazy? I very often genuinely feel like I am living in The Truman Show.
[1] I feel like this is a crucially important detail that is rarely investigated or even contemplated.
That's a very interesting observation that deserves much more thought that I can give in a quick reply.
But I think one major issue is that we're living through an obvious inflection point in history. When the US was competing against the USSR, we achieved numerous objectively incredible things. For but one example, we went from having never put a single man in orbit in 1962, to putting a man on the Moon, in 7 years! In modern times, with modern tech and knowledge, we struggle to replicate what was done 60 years ago.
And so I am exceptionally critical of our systems in modern times, but also look at them with glowing fondness at what they have achieved in the past. But socially we rarely distinguish between the two - Democracy is Democracy. And so this can appear to be cognitive dissonance when one loathes 'current democracy' yet holds dear 'classical democracy.' And I think many people also feel similarly, even if they may not actually even realize it.
But back to the inflection point, for the past ~80 years, and especially the past 30, the US has reigned relatively supreme owing to a large technological edge driving a large economic edge. But now China is equalizing technologically which is also driving their economy upward. It's already the largest in the world PPP adjusted, and will soon enough also be the largest in nominal terms as well. A country of 340 million simply will never be able to compete against a country of 1.4 billion. So they are set to become the world hegemon.
What will that mean? Well historically they've always been relatively insular, even when going through periods of great power, and I don't really expect that to change. In the early 15th century they were, by far, the greatest maritime power yet one does not find Chinese colonies in the Americas, India, Africa, or pretty much anywhere. But on the other hand, I think this change does scare many people, because what if China becomes the new US and just starts trying to put its tendrils into everything and turn everywhere into little clones of the Chinese political system?
And fear is a such a strong driver of irrationality, the same reason people continually vote for people they don't like. I think this fear tends to cause a sort of rally around the flag effect, where people can see that this flag is one they scarcely recognize, let alone truly love, yet it looks far less scary than the one they don't know at all. Drive that fear of the unknown into people, which our political types thrive at, and the people will come racing back, not entirely dissimilar to a woman in an abusive relationship.
I still feel this is not even scratching the surface, but it's at least a first effort! It's such an interesting question that one could easily write several books on the topic. And in the future, people looking back, probably will do exactly that!
This is all well and good, but I sincerely believe that it does not address the question: why are humans, including the genuinely much smarter than average folks here on HN, unable to have a very serious discussion about ~~whether~~ the degree to which "democracy" in the US (or Western countries in general), is fake?
I believe it is very fair to say that it is not a question of whether it is fake(!) at all (as a binary), but a question of how fake is it, and in what specific ways?
And yes, I can certainly appreciate why people would have an aversion to this, and the various other "just so" memes that are trotted out when the topic comes up, but the question remains: why is NO ONE capable of taking this topic very seriously?
I'd expect in this exact case the answer might be easier. It's because fake has an ambiguous meaning. It includes everything from the gamut of completely absurd such as elections aren't even actually happening, to the improbable but possible such as elections being rigged, to the self evident such as the people being elected, and their subsequent actions taken, being completely unrepresentative of the people or their interests.
And while all these topics (and many more) can be encompassed by 'fake', they all are quite radically different.
The problem is that society has been exceptionally divided, again owing to fear politics. And so even if an election was rigged, the people that benefited from it would basically demand a level of evidence that would never exist, even in cases of rigging. And by contrast, those that suffered from it would take the slightest irregularity as undeniable evidence of their rightness. And so it's quite unlikely that either side could ever reach a burden of proof that the other side would be happy with.
I think an important point in general is that democracy is what people think it is. If people think elections are fair or a viable means to change their political fate, then they're going to act accordingly, and vice versa if they don't. So personally I think having as absurdly transparent and open a system is critical. Irregularities and oddities should be publicly emphasized across the aisle so (1) everybody can discuss things and be on the same page, and (2) they can be remedied and not repeated.
> I think an important point in general is that democracy is what people think it is.
I think you hit the nail on the head here - and, it doesn't apply only to democracy, it applies to everything. It's funny, because lots of people also know this, yet do nothing about it.
> If people think elections are fair or a viable means to change their political fate, then they're going to act accordingly, and vice versa if they don't.
Where "acting accordingly" is usually ~behaving on social media in the corresponding manner.
Gosh, I wonder why it seems like humanity has little control over its fate.
