I had raised the issue directly and indirectly, several times. Ritualistic voting does not necessarily contribute to democratic results. More important, procedural and frequently result wise, people electing their leaders is not different from slaves choosing their master.

Does anyone still believe the significance of election? If so, please explain their faith.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> I had raised the issue directly and indirectly, several times. Ritualistic voting does not necessarily contribute to democratic results. More important, procedural and frequently result wise, people electing their leaders is not different from slaves choosing their master.
>
> Does anyone still believe the significance of election? If so, please explain their faith.

The defining role of election for democracy is difficult to defend. It is more a matter of faith than rationality. Yet brave souls and/or die-hard Western democracy supporters would certainly try. The following is one such attempt:

"Describing how governments earn mandates to rule, political scientists distinguish between input legitimacy (eg, an election victory), and output or performance legitimacy (ie, successful policies). China’s rulers claim to enjoy input legitimacy based on public consultation, overseen by local and national “people’s congresses”. "

https://www.economist.com/china/2021/12/04/china-says-it-is-more-democratic-than-america

Adequate defense or lousy defense concerning the link between election and democracy?

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 2:23:47 PM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
> > I had raised the issue directly and indirectly, several times. Ritualistic voting does not necessarily contribute to democratic results. More important, procedural and frequently result wise, people electing their leaders is not different from slaves choosing their master.
> >
> > Does anyone still believe the significance of election? If so, please explain their faith.
> The defining role of election for democracy is difficult to defend. It is more a matter of faith than rationality. Yet brave souls and/or die-hard Western democracy supporters would certainly try. The following is one such attempt:
>
> "Describing how governments earn mandates to rule, political scientists distinguish between input legitimacy (eg, an election victory), and output or performance legitimacy (ie, successful policies). China’s rulers claim to enjoy input legitimacy based on public consultation, overseen by local and national “people’s congresses”. "
>
> https://www.economist.com/china/2021/12/04/china-says-it-is-more-democratic-than-america
>
> Adequate defense or lousy defense concerning the link between election and democracy?

I have asked this question on soc.culture.china several times...
How many people on the election ballot running for office do you really know?
My response: None!!!

So, how could this be "democratic"???
An election is a meaningless exercise...

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 5:21:49 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> I had raised the issue directly and indirectly, several times. Ritualistic voting does not necessarily contribute to democratic results. More important, procedural and frequently result wise, people electing their leaders is not different from slaves choosing their master.
>
> Does anyone still believe the significance of election? If so, please explain their faith.

If the US was a kind of democracy, it was not secured by election. Rather, it was secured by the Second Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson's famous words "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
and tyrants" represented widely accepted view, not extreme view.