this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
742 points (95.2% liked)
Political Memes
11823 readers
2402 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The more I think about democracies the more I realise they're flawed by design. Asking people for vote as now synonymous with essentially marketing. Most people are unable to understand when they're being marketed to.
A benevolent dictator would be sooo much better, but then even by miracle you get a benevelont one, chances of the next one being benevelont are shit.
So I don't know what the solution is. But we sticked to the flawed solution for now.
Athenian democracies solve a lot of our current issues. It's a bit like jury duty. You put your own name down and can be picked for roles in government.
France did that after the yellow vest protests. They randomly picked 100 citizens to lead a citizens Senate to propose solutions, and Macron promised to implement their suggestions (he lied. Only partial implementation happened)
One of the emergent properties to picking 100 random citizens is you get close to a random sample of society. Rich and poor, left and right all with different perspectives and life experiences. They all have to argue their perspective and back it up with evidence for it to function properly.
They also can't be bought out the same way as entrenched parties. The candidates are random. Nobody knows until the results are announced.
It also results in a much stronger sense of civic duty for the average citizen when you participate in the civic process regularly like this.
This video does a far better job than I can making the case for them
The idea is nice, except that if you allow the rich to participate, they will just buy their way. As was the case with every non-socialist political system in history.
Sortition?
This is the catch that the greek philosophers warned about. Democracies are vulnerable to manipulation, demagoguery, and shortsightedness. A functional democracy requires maintaining a high level of societal quality, education, ethics, stability, and aggressively restricting consolidation of wealth and power. The US failed to do any of these things, and has descended into neofeudalism, where the govern_ed_ no longer have any influence over their govern_ment_.
The US didn’t fail to do those things, it never had any intention of even trying to do those things. This is because the people in power fundamentally do not want actual democracy. They want a system where those with wealth are able to dictate the rules. And funnily enough, the system they created is perfectly designed to allow them to do so.
If the people actually want political democracy, then they need to democratize the economy first. No more private ownership of the means of production, no more rampant inequality, no more capitalism.
Democracies need a system to set long term goals and kick out any politicians violating the goals.
I think it will be a lot better if we could punish liars. If the population had access to trustworthy information and an accessible way to vote, we could have a true democracy.
The question is, who is allowed to point out that RFK is a mass murdering liar, without opening the way for someone to declare that Sanders is a liar. Would a board of doctors, however big, have the authority to demote and lock up RFK? Do they file a complaint to a higher court that the Supreme Court will throw away? You'd have to revamp a lot of shit like not having the top court in the country be nominated by the president and such.
I mean how you determine objective truth would be tricky, and then would someone count as a liar if they were misinformed themselves, or if they're talking about potential from a gamble and lose. Its never actually going to happen, I just wish we could.