Trump’s falsehoods — and what Democrats say is the threat he poses to democracy — have even some Democrats questioning whether their party should accept a loss in the Nov. 5 election.

While 19% of Republicans say Trump should reject the election results if he loses, 12% of Democrats say Kamala Harris should do the same if she loses.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    112·
    15 days ago

    Honestly? Lower than I’d think.

    I thought the proportion of Republicans who don’t give a shit about democracy and just want their dude to win was higher.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          11·
          15 days ago

          There are variants of democracy. With certain groups differently represented in the population, democracy based on sortition is better than democracy based on voting if you want one’s chance of doing something to be proportional to their faction’s number. While with voting you can have 60% in favor of A and 40% in favor of B, and A will win 10 times in row and get their way, not 60%. While with sortition it will be 60% for a member of A to be chosen, and 40% for a member of B. Just math.

          • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
            5·
            15 days ago

            That’s a bit more than just math. When considering a policy, I don’t tend to take into account where the different parties stand. It’s better to think for yourself and not resort to tribalism. With that in mind I do think the majority should win 100% of the time. It has been insanely annoying here in the US how some policies have had popular support for years if not decades yet go nowhere because of small interest groups who use cheap tricks like the fillibuster and the electoral college to ensure the will of the minority wins out. I do acknowledge the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but I think protections against it should be provided by the rights outlined in a strong constitution.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              11·
              15 days ago

              Sortition is connected to population numbers, so it makes the weight of a vote in the majority equal to the proportion of that majority, and same with minorities. It can’t be compared to electoral college and filibuster.

              It also is one way to kill the degenerate dominance of two major parties.

              Also majorities are slow to change, and it’s simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one’s vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.

              I see where you are coming from in the context of the US, but our world had a democracy that took will of the majority to the absolute, it took just a couple of years for it to turn into dictatorship. Then after like 60 years that system (which never died on paper) was resurrected, with not the best results either. That’d be Soviets.

              Well, and there are many countries around frankly with “good enough” (in year 1999) political systems, which don’t seem good enough anymore.

              • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
                3·
                15 days ago

                “Also majorities are slow to change, and it’s simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one’s vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.”

                It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

                I’d say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren’t due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.

                Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.

                Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  15 days ago

                  It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less.

                  If your group’s percentage is 45% and the chance of its common position becoming reality is less than 45%, which it is with voting as opposed to sortition, it is.

                  It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

                  More people disagreeing with me than agreeing doesn’t mean that they should always have their way (because there’s more of them) and I never. It means that proportionally to our numbers sometimes they should have their way and sometimes I mine.

                  This is simply closer to the real wishes of the voters. And that can be delivered by sortition.

                  Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.

                  And I’m saying that that minority-supported policies should pass proportionally to that minority. 20% percent minority included, for example.

                  If you are afraid of what that 20% percent will make you do if their representatives get up through sortition - well, shouldn’t give any central government the ability to hurt you that much.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          2·
          14 days ago

          That’d be all human societies. Some of us are sort of like vegetarian, consciously refusing to eat humans. That would be libertarians and maybe left anarchists. But the basic system still is this.

          • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
            2·
            14 days ago

            Libertarians are the “vegetarians” of politics— they like everyone to equate them with vegans, but in reality have no issues eating fish, chicken and other meats, and in reality have a pretty loose definition of what’s “not meat.”

            The real political vegans are those who go off to form their own communities and reject the ENTIRE political structure, not just the parts that don’t directly benefit them.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              21·
              14 days ago

              Not entirely correct, if you read about panarchy and contract jurisdictions and georgism and NAP, you might see that mostly they approach the same point of the river flow, just walking on the other shore, so to say.

              We can agree on libertarians being the whole spectrum from “vegetarians” to “vegans” in politics, and left anarchists being only in the “vegan” area, if you will.

              Still,

              The real political vegans are those who go off to form their own communities and reject the ENTIRE political structure, not just the parts that don’t directly benefit them.

              • such libertarians exist too, and the more radical part of them is fully of this kind.
    • GiddyGap@lemm.eeOP
      110·
      15 days ago

      Looks like it’s about one third if you add Democrats to that number. Unfortunately.

      • RickyWars1@lemmy.ca
        5·
        15 days ago

        Huh? Per the quoted text in your post:

        12% of Democrats say Kamala Harris should do the same if she loses.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.eeOP
          19·
          15 days ago

          Yeah, so if you add the 12 percent to 19 percent, that’s 31 percent overall among the two parties in play for the presidency. If you count independents, it’s a little lower. Still a disturbingly high number.

          • RickyWars1@lemmy.ca
            211·
            15 days ago

            Those numbers are not additive.

            If you assume that 50% of voters are Democrat and 50% are Republican, then you’d average them to get an idea of what percentage of Americans believe in that.

  • Adderbox76@lemmy.caEnglish
    25·
    15 days ago

    12% of Democrats say Kamala Harris should do the same if she loses.

    I’m increasingly of the opinion that no matter what happens, Donald J. Trump should not be allowed to take power and should be prevented from doing so by any means necessary. If he somehow wins this election, his sentencing for the 34 felony charges needs to immediately decided before January 6th before he has a chance to quash it.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      4·
      14 days ago

      Speaking as a German who was attentive in history class, yes, as paradoxical as it sounds, the current government should fight tooth and nail ro remain in control and don’t simply relinquish power to the Republicans should Trump win. Although that in itself would be undemocratic, it would also be the last resort to save democracy ironically.

      The alternative will be a fascist government that will immediately start to dismantle democracy and persecute the opposition, a.k.a. “the enemy within”. I personally would rather not see the superpower with the world’s largest military turn into an autocracy.

      And that’s not even taking into account the effect it would have on climate change, which would become even worse instead of getting at least mitigated. (Democratic societies have no choice but to act as soon as public pressure becomes too high, which it will within the next years. Autocratic societies however can just double down on propaganda and oppression and carry on burning fossil fuels.)

  • thefartographer@lemm.ee
    101·
    15 days ago

    1 in 5 republicans want Trump <3<3<3

    To call Election-invalid if he loses

    (900) MY TRUMP, $15 for the first 5 minutes, $5 for every minute after that. Hot, steamy election deniers are waiting to talk to you.

    • III@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      14 days ago

      More than 1 out of 5 will not accept that he lost and will want him to call the election invalid. The 1 in the given statistic counts those that are willing to openly state that voting doesn’t matter.