• Contravariant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    It’s one of those safe-guards that democracy implements that’s currently having rather unintended consequences.

    The reasoning is that taking away voting rights is far too easy to abuse, and if a majority of people agree with whomever you wanted to prevent from voting/getting elected then you’re fucked anyway.

    Which, incidentally, is looking like a very real possibility right now.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      That reasoning is missing a crucial part: even if you’re fucked anyway, why is it still okay to put a criminal in charge? Will it improve anything? Or do we think of the “fucked” condition very differently?

      • Contravariant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Democracy isn’t really meant to prevent something the majority wants.

        If the majority wants a criminal to lead the country they’ll elect them, or someone with the same policies, or someone who promises to put the criminal in power. The end result isn’t all that different, and the latter two could be worse in some ways.

        In a democracy the majority rules, and should they decide to put a lunatic in charge, well, that would be the least of your problems.