this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2025
75 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23193 readers
294 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I keep hearing various media personalities I like say things along the lines of "If we even have another presidential election... "

Is this just the joke of the month or are people truly thinking it's game over? I don't live in the US so I'm not really familiar with how that would work

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SovietyWoomy@hexbear.net 63 points 2 months ago

There's way too much money in the spectacle. The only way elections ever get cancelled in this country is if an anti-capitalist third party gets popular enough to have a reasonable chance at winning.

[–] sharkfucker420@hexbear.net 56 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Not very, sham elections would be better for them than no elections. The illusion of choice is important

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago

Not at least until the boomers die off and millenials "retire" if that's such a thing around 2040.

In time for the EU to be MIC 2.0 and WW3 to kick off to excuse actually doing anything for the people.

[–] Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago

yeah more likely.

[–] PurrLure@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

They'll just do what they did last time: have democrats run an awkward, uncharismatic loser that only pushes back on leftists while swinging the door wide open for chuds. And of course treat 3rd party options like you're throwing away your vote (while not ever addressing how that means their precious democracy is actually pretty worthless).

It's not technically a sham election if the opposition cares more about the status quo than winning.

[–] sgtlion@hexbear.net 42 points 2 months ago

Does it even matter? Elections in the US have one, singular function - to make USians incorrectly think they have any say in their governance.

[–] somename@hexbear.net 37 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There’s going to be an election, unless there’s like a military coup or something. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be fair or untampered, but elections are a very useful charade for the ruling party.

It lets the ill informed still people in a vague sense of democracy, of placid stability. It lets people think they can Vote out their problems. It’s also a giant economic driver, both for politicians and the industries that support them. If elections stop, that gravy train becomes much less certain.

Basically, there are countless reasons why some form of election will almost certainly happen. Just, an election in a vacuum isn’t necessarily meaningful to a governmental change.

[–] XiaCobolt@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago

There’s going to be an election, unless there’s like a military coup or something.

There also might be a military coup to ensure an election.

[–] someone@hexbear.net 36 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There's too much money to be made by too many consultancies, advertising agencies, etc. The grift is too lucrative for too many influential people for the election industry to just vanish. I'd sooner bet on more extreme voter suppression and more outright corruption in the process than the process stopping.

[–] PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net 34 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The veneer of a public mandate is a load bearing element of the entire USAmerican national mythology. It is central to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both of which are venerated by chuds. The capital city is named after the guy who elected to step down after his second term.

They are not getting rid of elections. There is no need to. With the record-breaking consolidation of national media, they will just be run as a shambolic spectacle. Nothing new, in other words. Democrat-aligned power brokers will be cut out of the process. For people like James Carville, it will be experienced as the end of democracy as we know it, but no change at all for the proletariat.

[–] 30_to_50_Feral_PAWGs@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

Nothing Ever Happens gang vs. Trump is Juuuuuuust Narcissistic Enough to Try It gang

[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is central to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both of which are venerated by chuds

I'm not quite as confident about this. They certainly venerate the aesthetics of those documents, but I think the last ten years or so have shown that their allegiance to the content is conditional at best. We see this pretty clearly in the purely vibes based "originalism" of the conservative SCOTUS ghouls: it's important that they couch their rulings in appeals to the Constitution, but they're totally fine to just make shit up about what the framers "intended" in order to advance their agenda. I think as long as Trump could come up with a narrative in which him running for a third term (or cancelling elections) would make the "founding fathers" proud, most chuds would swallow it happily. Hell, the amendment about only two terms being allowed was only added in the 20th century--clearly not what the founders wanted!

[–] PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The only substance those documents ever had were aesthetics. The founders themselves routinely violated them (the Sedition act and the Loisiana Purchase, for instance), contrived powers out of nowhere (Marbury v. Madison), only to arbitrarily decided those powers are meaningless whenever it suits them (by refusing to enforce rulings like Worcester v. Georgia). I don't think anything the contemporary court had done is any more contrived than claiming the Sedition Act does not infringe the right to free speech in 1798. It has always been this stupid. It has always been a game of Calvinball for burger slave owners. This is the epitome of bourgeois democracy.

These documents are nothing more than totems, but they are (small r) republican flavored totems. The rough contours of republicanism still need to be observed. Things like "the first amendment" and "the second amendment" come from this thing which says we have elections every other year. Of course, the right doesn't give a shit about free speech or equal rights to own firearms, but this framing is so deeply embedded in their worldview that I don't think it is ever going away. If the powers that be decide to switch to some kind of hereditary autocracy or military junta or benevolent dictator for life or something, the right genuinely would fracture and grow a thousand-fold more incoherent. A lot of the right's rhetorical power runs on inertia. On the white-washed fanciful history of the US received by over a hundred million people when they went to grade school. A lot of the military brass (though certainly not all) are true believers as well. The Liberals aren't the only zealots of civic religion.

The two term thing specifically, they could get rid of that and easily justify it as a product of the 20th century. Running a sham election for a third term is a much smaller stretch than declaring a new republic. Micheal Bloomberg already did it in New York City.

[–] jackmaoist@hexbear.net 33 points 2 months ago

They'll have elections. Russia has been having elections since capitalists stole the 1996 election.

[–] oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Basically every country nowadays has elections, even ones that are pretty blatantly not genuine. There's no real reason not to have elections, especially if you can manage to institutionally legally rig the results (like Mussolini's parliamentary electionlaws, lol).

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Of course there will be elections. Everywhere has elections, even if they're obviously undemocratic (which the US elections always were). There's zero reason to change that, and elections are a very useful tool for influencing and controlling the public.

Also, who establishes a dictatorship in their 80's? He's gonna die soon anyway.

This is one of those things where it's less about reality and more about what it signals. Libs are signalling how important they consider elections to be, and trying to either scare people into voting or get them to appreciate being able to vote.

Pfft stop listening to libs bro

elections will happen and unfortunatly for you republicans will win anyways

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The duopoly is a form of domestic counterinsurgency that has continued to be worth its weight in gold. There will be elections and there will probably always be elections. I see a dictatorial duopoly much more likely, the duopoly taken to farcical extremes:

  1. Banning all third parties

  2. Passing a law that says every state must have a Republican senator and a Democrat senator

  3. Having various "nonpartisan" committees and departments be staffed exclusively by Democrats and Republicans with proportions split completely 50/50.

  4. Having a "nonpartisan" president as some fascist-with-burger-characteristic return to the past like Washington and a "divided" cabinet that's 50/50 Democrats and Republicans in order to "bridge the divide."

This can also dovetails nicely towards a military coup. The "nonpartisan" civil government gets replaced by a "nonpartisan" military junta.

[–] MayoPete@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

All the horrible things continue, consultants get even more rich, and the public blames itself for the endless "gridlock".

well the mainstream libs - the people whose entire identity is that they're wrong about everything - seem obsessed with the possibility of trump cancelling the elections, so i'm going to say it's not gonna happen

[–] BabyTurtles@hexbear.net 23 points 2 months ago

Elections in the US will be gone very soon, replaced by a Mr. Beast style challenge. "SURVIVE 100 days LOCKED in the Oval Office to become PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES". Combined with some UFC style wrestling, commentary by Joe Rogan. And then finished off with a McDonald's mukbang.

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

i dont think trump will be alive. i dont know how that effects the chances tbh

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

GOP voters splinter

Results of a poll asking - Who do you back?

  • 53% CORPSE TRUMP
  • 17% GHOST TRUMP
  • 10% INSTA-REINCARNATED TRUMP
  • 8% Barron Trump
  • 7% Unspecified (aka "other")
  • 2% Satan
  • 1% JD Vance

Less than 1% each

  • Eric Trump
  • Don Jr.
  • TOM HANKS AKA NOT THE ACTOR TOM HANKS
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There will definitely be an election in 2028, barring something like nuclear war. “Free and fair elections™” like we’re used to is another question.

It’s a lot harder to just not have elections than it is to run elections in a way that ensures you and your side win handily. Nazi Germany had elections.

I’m not entirely sure I understand why this is. Maybe if you fully cancel elections people become a lot more likely to start shooting at you?

[–] 30_to_50_Feral_PAWGs@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

barring something like nuclear war

Get the hell away from the lathe, please

[–] Horse@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 2 months ago

there is no reason for them to stop elections, the democrats share most of the goals of the republicans
they would be giving up the polite fiction of am*rican democracy for no benefit

[–] MaxOS@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago

0% Trump loves elections, the pageantry and the opportunity to go on TV and talk shit a-little-trolling

[–] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think we have elections, I think trump tries to find a way to angle for a third term, but when the time comes will just be too old.

I think we will get a real cabinet of curiosities for GOP contenders.

Gruesome will probably the dem nominee and lose to Holden bloodfeast

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

However much I doubt consequences I think he is certain it’s his only guarantee to stay a free man, so it’s gonna be a real shitshow until he just dies and removes himself from play sometime in late 2027

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Because FDR won so many times in a row - the constitution was changed to only allow a president a maximum of two terms. It's the 22nd Amendment. So it's 100% obviously illegal and anti-constitutional for Trump to run for a third term. There's zero gray area on this. But I think the GOP justices on the supreme court will pervert the constitution somehow (Don't ask me how) and they'll say Trump can run for a third term. If GOP SCOTUS does that - they've crossed the Rubicon. The constitution becomes a meaningless joke. GOP SCOTUS has proclaimed they can and will do whatever they want.

I believe if GOP SCOTUS decides to rule on Trump's desire to run for a third term - that's the day Trump has already won his third term. And Trump clearly wants a third term. In 2024 - GOP SCOTUS's presidential immunity ruling created a monster when Trump won the election. They effectively killed his three big criminal trials and they helped him become president because they wanted him to win. But they also made it so criminal law doesn't apply to President Trump. If GOP SCOTUS seem to waiver on Trump's third term - he could threaten them with imprisonment, torture, or death.

Liberals think that if Trump can run for a third term then Obama can do right? Obama will win! Ah, no. That's not how things will happen. Trump has already won and presidential elections will be a sham and charade.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

if trump won in 2020 this is currently his 3rd term

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 10TH_OF_SEPTEMBER_CALL@hexbear.net 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh there will be elections. Sham ones.

[–] Beaver@hexbear.net 16 points 2 months ago

Sham elections are the standard playbook, and are effective. It would be a major misstep by Republicans to do stuff like ban elections and protests, since these are important pressure release valves for political dissatisfaction.

I think it's probably a major messaging misstep by liberals to beat the drums about how "we might now have elections in 2028", because we obviously will. You can see a bit of pivoting on that message now that Republicans are showing some of their election manipulation playbook for upcoming elections.

[–] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I think whatever happens you have to remember there's an intersection of stupid and funny that must be satisfied. Divine it with me. The axioms: it has to be existentially concerning. They must say the quiet part out loud. They have to tread. So let's say they demand IDs to vote, right? The sort of thing they would do. If it's simply ICE at the polling booths to check for ID then nothing will have happened in the intervening years. It's gotta be more! Something like "ICE gets to count the votes because illegals like the Democrats and that would give them a chance to regain power". So that's the bad news. Circling back, the funny part? Trump sues ICE when a viral video shows them burning early votes because they made him look bad. Some polling places get Tesla robots to scan IDs instead in response.

That's what the US seems like from my perspective

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CommunistCuddlefish@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago

We have elections in the US? First I'm hearing of it. Big if true.

[–] marxisthayaca@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago

They'll hold elections but they'll set up out-in-open voter roll purgers like they've done in several states already, dilute democratic votes with gerrymandering, and intimidate people. It'll be a total mess.

That said, I legit think we are gonna see a total breakdown before 2028.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago

Not only are there enormous class interests of the top of the bourgeois in holding elections (due to the associated spending and the legitimising of their rule) but it is also needlessly a potential catalyst for the military and other institutions to step in as they threatened to do at the end of Trump's last term due to their own interests. It would divide the current rulers for no gain

A better question is if the election would be a total sham.

[–] Frogmanfromlake@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It’s just a fantasy from people who have never actually lived in a dictatorship. Elections are a huge business and we all know how much Americans love money. They’ll stay around as rigged as they can be.

[–] MohammedTheCommunistPalestinian@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

if you consider American elections to be "fair and fair" to the democratic and republican parties (we all know it's not free or fair for the others)

then I would say it's not happening ,elections will stay the same they have been for the last half a century and nothing will change

I have no idea why any self proclaimed communist would believe otherwise

also republicans don't need to cheat to beat democrats

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LadyCajAsca@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago

probably won't happen, not because the elections would be fair, but because trump and the GOP like parading elections as noble while taking away the things that actually make them fair, though to be fair, it's basically from a duo-party control to one party control.

[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago

The thing is we've crossed a real river here in terms of retribution against political opponents. The Democrats went after Trump using the law and actually arrested him and went after people around him. The thing is they missed, they weren't serious about it and didn't land more than a scratch but it's angered and freaked out the Republicans who are doing a little bit of the inverse against their opponents and are convinced that if they lose power they'll be subject to more of the same from Democrats so have an extra strong incentive to rig things and do everything to stay in power so that power can't be used against them.

However, elections are an almost certainty, the military would likely get involved and arrest or shoot anyone trying seriously to prevent elections taking place because they're that important as a relief valve.

But those elections are likely to be even more crooked than usual. Voter roll purges, ballot invalidation, gerrymandering, etc, etc. Taken to new levels IF NECESSARY. But it's important to understand this too isn't new. Bush 2000 only won because Florida rigged the vote by invalidating/questioning ballots and the Supreme Court stopped the count. So we're 25 years beyond election rigging being normal and USians getting mildly upset but basically going back to brunch because eh what can they do.

Liberals and chuds will both be in hysterics about election interference and whoever loses will have a large chunk of their base not accept it.

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

They will. Usual public farce illusion of choice of which the public still won't learn or look or care.

[–] HarryLime@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

The kind of "free and fair" 2-party ones we're used to? It depends on how badly Trump fucks up; whether some combination of the AI bubble popping, tariffs and sanctions collapsing the US dollar as a reserve currency, plus a failed war or wars with Venezuela, Iran, Russia, or China makes Trump and the Republicans so toxically unpopular and their position so diminished that they're forced to allow them.

[–] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

If the ruling class is sufficiently united, then they will keep elections as they have for 250 years. After all, if the ruling class remains united, an election cannot change anything and there is no reason to get rid of it.

But if there is a genuine danger of a fracture in the ruling class, then the ruling class of America will move towards a more open form of dictatorship to keep itself in line and disciplined.

Fascism, or what marx called bonapartism is basically the ruling class version of bolsheivism. It is a form of self-discipline under a reactionary vanguard. The vanguard establishes a dictatorship only when the electoral mechanism is perceived as "failed". And this requires an irreconcilable fracture.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

I expect them to deploy ICE to polling stations.

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

If Trump bites it, elections are still on

If Dems eat shit during the midterms, then the second confidence boost given to MAGA may tip this newest outburst of fascism into a feral state, which could see the election canceled or delayed because of "security concerns" and "interference"

How mask off the supreme court continues to get also determines the likelihood of national election suppression

[–] CancelledKirk@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago

90% there will be no elections.

[–] take_five_moments@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›