politics

Federal elections here are on a set schedule, there's no concept of a "snap" election here. The closest thing is if a Congressional seat goes vacant, they need to schedule a special election just for that seat before it can be filled.

In theory, we prevent kings here by allocating distinct powers to distinct branches of government. The problem occurs when those branches stop using the oversight powers the Constitution gives them. The American President can rule like a king -- if Congress and the Courts let him.

But it won’t if the dems get in they’ll say some pretty words about healing and won’t change anything.

You're confusing the small neoliberal faction with the whole party...

Something billionaires put a lot of money into. Them and the media conglomerates they own would rather depress Dem turnout and lose the general, because a neoliberal can't win the fair primary we'll have next time.

I know it's probably not intentional, but please stop spreading neoliberal propaganda.

Now is the time to be pushing people to vote in the next Dem primaries, not pretending that it's hopeless. Depressed turnout is the only way billionaires get someone they want like Newsom or Pritzker, and if they go on to win the general, they'll appoint a biased neoliberal to chair the DNC again.

Please pay attention, we can't afford widespread ignorance in the face of fascism

I don't think this take is fully thought out.

Their system is monumentally slow.

For important decisions, they need a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house, and the presidency, and then they need to word it extremely carefully to not have it monkeys paw'd by the supreme Court.

They haven't had an actionable super majority for over a quarter century.

The reason they appear not to do much is because without bipartisan support or all the things I just mentioned they can basically only change how money is spent and taxes (only sorta IIRC).

Basically, your comment hurts everyone by encouraging voter apathy due to pushing ideas that aren't compatible with the reality of their slow system.

Is the DNC filled with center right people who love a lot of the bad things in place? Yes.

Are there still absolutely positive changes they would make given the opportunity? Also yes.

Is it possible to change the party through primaries and local politics? Also yes.

Anyhow, my point is, it needs to be considered the system they're working in before loose accusations are thrown at them.

Finally, we here in Canada could literally have proportional representation right now, giving everyone's vote equal weighting and giving us true choice and increased leverage over politicians, but we don't, despite having a majority liberal government and so what I am saying, is having the supposed left leaning party win (or in their case less right), still doesn't garunteed results, but it does garunteed you won't ramp up the very real discrimination and crony corruption like you see when right wing governments win.

It matters, even if choices are mid is the point.

"Look forward, not backwards...yadda yadda something about Marquess of Queensbury rules..."

Meanwhile, the conservatives are building a machine to not only punch below the belt, but to crush the testicles of their enemies to dust in violation of all the rules. The media, "centrists" and not a few "leftists", pointing at both of them: "see! both sides!"

Not passing a budget doesn't cause elections anywhere. Modern democracies have solutions to keep government running without a new budget (some sort of default minimal budget or just previous budget begin prolonged). What causes elections are non-confidence votes. Those are usually lost when coalitions collapse and ruling party can't secure 50% of votes anymore.

Variable elections are usually more of a feature of parliamentary democracy. Congressional democracies typically have scheduled elections; both Brazil and Mexico have scheduled elections similar to the USA.