You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
Sadly it is just as easy to just squash the protest and be done with it. France has major problems with riots since a while. Mostly because of racism, police violence and inescapable poverty.
So who does Macron blame for the riots? TikTok and parents who didn't teach their children how to behave correctly.
What does he do? Kart in more police with heavier anti-riot gear.
Same with Russia, Turkey or Poland. People don't like the government? No problem, just grad random people from the protests and send them to a gulag. The rest of the protesters will get scared and fall in line. Done.
Sure, at some point a tipping point might come. Then you get a revolution or a civil war, and then the dice are in the air. Could be you get a new, super democratic government that tries to fix the system. Or you could get a military dictatorship. You never know.
Sorry, I am pretty disilusioned by all this. Representative democracy just makes it too easy for populism to blind the electorate ("Don't look at me, while I shovel lots of government money into my pockets, look at the evil immigrant over there!"), and there is far too much temptation for corrupt politicians to extend their power.
And there are no real checks and balances in any system I have seen so far.
E.g. the USA: Yeah, the house, the senate, the president, the surpreme court and all, they should separate the power and they should check and balance eachother. Problem is, the writers of the constitution totally forgot that parties could be a thing. And the checks and balances just plainly don't work if all these offices are dominated by the same party.
Yeah, my last response was way too half-baked, I didn't really put as much thought into it as I thought I had, and I didn't like how close I was getting to sounding like I wanted violence (even though I don't). So I deleted it, to avoid spreading these worrisome comments (to myself, anyway) any more than I already did. I'm not sure exactly how effective "deleting" really is on a federated network like this, which I'm very new to, and I also don't want to annoy people by deleting comments after they reply to them. So I'm sorry for being annoying, if I have been, and hopefully I'll have some better takes once I get more used to being on Lemmy.
Relevant video regarding the UK, which is in a similar situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoLJ1ggJ3P0
That was an interesting video, and I either didn't realize or it just didn't "click" in my head that it was possible for FPTP to lead to wins with even less than 50% of the vote. Now that I think about it, I looked up the US situation on Wikipedia, and yes, in most states FPTP is used but it's possible to win with a "plurality" (largest number of votes in the state or district, but not necessarily 50% or more)! The point about there being no advantage to getting more than 50% (of votes, not seats) still stands, and it still can be advantageous up till that point, but confusing plurality for "majority" (strictly 50% or more) still bit me. I'll add a note to my original comment to reflect that. Thanks for the good link!
I really like TLDR news. They are good!
Yeah, while you are at at, look up Gerrymandering. That's drawing electoral districts in a way so that your own party gets ~55% in most districts, with the opposition voters bunched up in few districts, so that they ideally get >90% of the votes in these districts. In FTTP systems, every vote above 50% is lost, so that way you can make the opposition lose lots of seats.
And that's only one way to hack the system, when you are in power. Another option that is widely used is vote suppression. If e.g. the opposition voters tend to be poor, and tend to not have any photo ID (as is the case in many areas in the USA), then you can just introduce a law that makes it mandatory to have photo ID, so that many opposition voters cannot vote.
Or you can make a certain level of English knowledge mandatory, to prohibit some minority groups from voting.
And if you have a look at the US presidential election, this becomes more striking. The last time a republican actually won the popular vote was in 2004, when George W. Bush was re-elected. But even when he was elected for the first time, in 2000, he did lose the popular vote.
The last time a republican came into the office winning the popular vote was in 1988, when George H. W. Bush came into office.
If the US had a popular vote system, the democrats would have won 7 of the last 8 elections, instead of 4 out of 8.