#in support of an informed and engaged electorate | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

zvaigzdelasas · 4 months

Text

A growing body of research shows that authoritarian regimes can be responsive to ordinary citizens, but why is this the case?

Why do those in power expend any effort in dealing with citizens’ everyday complaints and demands when they face no pressure from electoral [editor's note: ruling party] competition?[...]

We tested whether responsiveness among local officials comes from bottom-up citizen engagement, from top-down oversight of government superiors, or from preferential treatment toward loyal supporters.

In our experiment, we made four types of requests asking for assistance in obtaining social welfare benefits on local government web forums and examined how differences in these requests affected government responses.

1: The baseline – a request to simply describe economic hardship.

2: Collective action request – an intention to take some undefined action with other people who face similar hardship if the government cannot help.

3: Tattling to superiors request – an intention to complain to upper levels of government if the government cannot help.

4: Party loyalist request – identification as a loyal, long-standing Party member.[...]

we find that the collective action requests and tattling to superiors requests generate higher levels of responsiveness from Chinese local governments than the simple description of economic hardship; however, the identification as a Party loyalist, does not increase responsiveness substantially. With the baseline request, we received responses from approximately one third of counties. To put this number in context, one third is higher than responsiveness of U.S. state legislators to constituents (~20%) but lower than the responsiveness among members the U.S. congress (~40%) on certain [sic] issues. Adding the intention of collective action and tattling to superiors both increase response rates by 8-10 percentage points.

The second finding is that the collective action requests, compared with other types of requests, made the local government respond in a more public manner.[...]

Third, we also find that local officials are more likely to provide pertinent and concrete information to citizens when receiving the collective action requests.[...]

these results show that top-down mechanisms of oversight as well as some forms of bottom-up pressure exerted by citizens can increase government responsiveness in this particular authoritarian context. Regardless of whether responsiveness derives from top-down mechanisms or bottom up pressures, citizen engagement seems to be consequential.

seems like an awful lot of words to explain this when "the Chinese Government is democratic" is just 5

#add this together w that harvard-sponsored study on approval of the central govt @ other chinese bots

473 notes · View notes

txttletale · 6 months

Note

do you have any response to people who treat voting like a trolley problem? because that seems to be where a lot of people here are coming at it from. like no faith in electoralism no care for the process, just a decision with a level of four bad and a level of five bad. to be clear thats not the way i come at it but i do think thats how many people think abt it

i mean the response is that, like, voting is not like the trolley problem because it happens more than once and not in a vacuum. it's more like... i don't know, one of those game theory games that unfolds across multiple play sessions. there will be a 2028 election and a 2032 election and the results of the previous elections will inform democratic party strategy, candidate selection, and policy in both of those. if you pledge to always support the democratic party as long as they're better than the republican party, then they can do 99.9% of what the republican party does without worrying about your unwavering support. if you have actual red lines (and this is you, as a bloc, as a group, individual political actions never matter) then the party will in fact think twice before crossing them about whether the hit to electoral support is worth it.

obviously, i'm a communist, i don't think you will ever get anything good out of the democratic party. bourgeois elections are ultimately choices of which representatives will repress you (that's some vintage marxist humour for ya). but if you think it's worth voting at all then you should also be aware of how your vote and the withdrawal thereof can be used to play chicken/hardball with political parties that need it. the right is well fucking aware of this--right-wing labour party members in the UK ran a huge sabotage campaign against the social democrat jeremy corbyn, losing the election and using that loss to oust all the left-wing elements of the party. the tea party have been using threats like this to push the republican party rightwards for decades now.

of course, you will never get something outside of the overton window of acceptable ruling-class politics by voting but if you believe there are meaningful gradations within that window (as, if you plan to ever vote at all, you logically must) then those concessions should still matter and should still be worth pursuing if you're already making the decisions to engage with electoral politics at all

#ask #rain-rome

183 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 9 months

Text

Forget hush money payments to porn stars hidden as business expenses. Forget showing off classified documents about Iran attack plans to visitors, and then ordering the pool guy to erase the security tapes revealing that he was still holding on to documents that he had promised to return. Forget even corrupt attempts to interfere with election results in Georgia in 2020.

The federal indictment just handed down by special counsel Jack Smith is not only the most important indictment by far of former President Donald Trump. It is perhaps the most important indictment ever handed down to safeguard American democracy and the rule of law in any U.S. court against anyone.

For those who have been closely following Trump’s attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 election, there was little new information contained in the indictment. In straightforward language with mountains of evidence, the 45-page document explains how Trump, acting with six (so far unnamed, but easily recognizable) co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to repeatedly make false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged, and to use those false claims as a predicate to try to steal the election. The means of election theft were national, not just confined to one state, as in the expected Georgia prosecution. And they were technical—submitting alternative slates of presidential electors to Congress, and arguing that state legislatures had powers under the Constitution and an old federal law, the Electoral Count Act, to ignore the will of the state’s voters.

But Trump’s corrupt intent was clear: He was repeatedly told that the election was not stolen, and he knew that no evidence supported his outrageous claims of ballot tampering. He nonetheless allegedly tried to pressure state legislators, state election officials, Department of Justice officials, and his own vice president to manipulate these arcane, complex election rules to turn himself from an election loser into an election winner. That’s the definition of election subversion.

He’s now charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to willfully deprive citizens the right to vote, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and obstructing that official proceeding. If you’re doing the math, that is four new counts on top of the dozens he faces in the classified documents case in Florida and the hush money case in New York.

So far Trump has not been accountable for these actions to try to steal an American election. Although the House impeached Trump for his efforts soon after they occurred, the Senate did not convict. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in voting against conviction in the Senate despite undeniable evidence of attempted election subversion by his fellow Republican, pointed to the criminal justice system as the appropriate place to serve up justice. But the wheels of justice have turned very slowly. Reports say that Attorney General Merrick Garland was at first too cautious about pursuing charges against Trump despite Trump’s unprecedented attack on our democracy. Once Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to handle Trump claims following the release of seemingly irrefutable evidence that Trump broke laws related to the handling of classified documents, the die was cast.

It is hard to overstate the stakes riding on this indictment and prosecution. New polling from the New York Times shows that Trump not only has a commanding lead among those Republicans seeking the party’s presidential nomination in 2024; he remains very competitive in a race against Joe Biden. After nearly a decade of Trump convincing many in the public that all charges against him are politically motivated, he’s virtually inoculated himself against political repercussions for deadly serious criminal counts. He’s miraculously seen a boost in support and fundraising after each indictment (though recent signs are that the indictments are beginning to take a small toll). One should not underestimate the chances that Donald Trump could be elected president in 2024 against Joe Biden—especially if Biden suffers any kind of health setback in the period up to the election—even if Trump is put on trial and convicted of crimes.

A trial is the best chance to educate the American public, as the Jan. 6 House committee hearings did to some extent, about the actions Trump allegedly took to undermine American democracy and the rule of law. Constant publicity from the trial would give the American people in the middle of the election season a close look at the actions Trump took for his own personal benefit while putting lives and the country at risk. It, of course, also serves the goals of justice and of deterring Trump, or any future like-minded would-be authoritarian, from attempting any similar attack on American democracy ever again.

Trump now has two legal strategies he can pursue in fighting these charges, aside from continuing to attack the prosecutions as politically motivated. The first strategy, which he will no doubt pursue, is to run out the clock. It’s going to be tough for this case to go to trial before the next election given that it is much more factually complex than the classified documents or hush money cases. There are potentially hundreds of witnesses and theories of conspiracies that will take much to untangle. Had the indictment come any later, I believe a trial before November 2024 would have been impossible. With D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan—a President Barack Obama appointee who has treated previous Jan. 6 cases before her court with expedition and seriousness—apparently in charge of this case, there is still a chance to avoid a case of justice delayed being justice denied.

If Trump can run out the clock before conviction and be reelected, though, he can get rid of Jack Smith and appoint an attorney general who will do his bidding. He could even try to pardon himself from charges if elected in 2024 (a gambit that may or may not be legal). He could then sic his attorney general on political adversaries with prosecutions not grounded in any evidence, something he has repeatedly promised on the campaign trail.

Trump’s other legal strategy is to argue that prosecutors cannot prove the charges. For example, the government will have to prove that Trump not only intended to interfere with Congress’ fair counting of the electoral college votes in 2020 but also that Trump did so “corruptly.” Trump will put his state of mind at issue, arguing that despite all the evidence, he had an honest belief the election was being stolen from him.

He also will likely assert First Amendment defenses. As the indictment itself notes near the beginning, “the Defendant has a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.” But Trump did not just state the false claims; he allegedly used the false claims to engage in a conspiracy to steal the election. There is no First Amendment right to use speech to subvert an election, any more than there is a First Amendment right to use speech to bribe, threaten, or intimidate.

Putting Trump before a jury, if the case can get that far before the 2024 elections, is not certain to yield a conviction. It carries risks. But as I wrote last year in the New York Times, the risks to our system of government of not prosecuting Donald Trump are greater than the risks of prosecuting him.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the conduct of this prosecution will greatly influence whether the U.S. remains a thriving democracy after 2024.

174 notes · View notes

panicinthestudio · 1 year

Video

youtube

How Beijing targets Chinese Canadians through foreign influence operations, March 3, 2023

Alliance Canada Hong Kong executive director Cherie Wong joined Power & Politics Friday to discuss how Beijing targets Chinese Canadians. Akshay Singh and Dennis Molinaro, two experts in foreign influence operations in Canada, also weigh in on the scale and goals of foreign interference activities in Canada.

CBC News

@allthecanadianpolitics

There is an important distinction being made here that the foreign interference from China seeks to be pervasive by co-opting individuals, institutions, and community groups. The interest and influence is party agnostic and sees us in the Chinese diaspora as an entry point: whether in support of certain electoral and policy outcomes, controlling what information gets propagated into the communities, appropriating issues like discrimination and increasing distrust in our own systems and institutions, or directly and indirectly targeting people of interest.

***

It has been strongly implied in the recent reporting about Chinese interference in Canada that it has been a failing (if not to the benefit) of the Liberal government and Trudeau, rather than systematic attempts to influence Canadian politics and economics for decades coupled with our country’s complete underestimation of China and the United Front.

In my own experience the Chinese-Canadian media and political consumption has undergone an extreme shift into partisanship with clear pro-China and anti-China camps rather than aligning into our political parties.

The faltering of Hong Kong-based press, media, political freedom, and ties with Taiwan and the greater diaspora community has seriously depleted any sort of moderate and critical voices in English or Chinese coming directly from the region, with writers and journalists re-immigrating or retreating from public view.

Cold War rhetoric and posturing over Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, as well as exposed espionage and foreign interference operations is opening new fault lines within and directed at diaspora while deepening the isolation of the domestic Chinese population.

The pop cultural center has moved with the economic affluence into the Mainland, catered to and directly influenced by a network of state-run broadcasters and private corporations ultimately answerable to the Chinese government. It can be difficult to engage with any of it as entertainment let alone to keep up with news without expending a lot of energy consuming it critically.

Tangentially but also related, many of Hong Kong’s pro-democratic political figures (the Hong Kong 47) that interacted with the outside and independent press or engaged other countries in the aftermath of the 2019-2020 protests and subsequent political organizing have been effectively silenced, charged, and/or jailed. They are only now being formally sentenced under the highly controversial Hong Kong national security law.

The political reverberations led to a postponed and then uncontested election for their legislative and executive body without any substantive opposition, the closure of multiple news organizations, civic rights groups and unions, the local polling institute, and the effective silencing of editorial independence at their public broadcaster.

Self-censorship and the chilling affect is extremely strong by those regions directly affected as well as the diaspora communities, out of fear or apathetic hopelessness it is eroding our ability to speak, associate, or engage with these issues freely no matter where we are.

38 notes · View notes

engagepro-social · 2 months

Text

Navigating Law and Politics on Social Media: A Guide to Sharing Constructive Information and Avoiding 'Fake News'

In today's digital age, social media has emerged as a formidable force in shaping public opinion and discourse, particularly in law and politics. With their unparalleled reach and influence, social media platforms have become indispensable tools for informing and engaging citizens about critical issues such as pending legislation, electoral processes, and the performance of political leaders. However, this virtual landscape has its pitfalls, chief among them being the proliferation of misinformation and the spread of 'fake news.' As such, the need for responsible engagement with social media in law and politics has never been more pressing.

Topic Area:

The topic area of this discussion revolves around the responsible use of social media in navigating law and politics. The intended audience includes individuals actively participating in online discussions on legal matters, political developments, and societal issues. This audience may comprise citizens, activists, policymakers, journalists, and others interested in staying informed and engaged in the digital public sphere.

Current State of Social Media:

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Snapchat have become integral to modern communication. These platforms offer diverse features and functionalities catering to user preferences and engagement styles. Facebook and Twitter, for instance, are popular choices for disseminating news articles, sharing opinion pieces, and fostering discussions among users with varied ideological leanings. Conversely, LinkedIn serves as a professional networking hub where individuals can exchange insights, build professional connections, and access industry-specific information.

Moreover, the emergence of visual-centric platforms like Instagram and Snapchat has transformed how information is absorbed and shared online. These platforms leverage visual storytelling through images, videos, and infographics, making complex topics more accessible and engaging to diverse audiences.

Research supports the widespread adoption of social media platforms, particularly during significant events such as elections. According to a report by the Pew Research Center (2020), smartphones have become indispensable tools for accessing information during electoral campaigns, with a substantial portion of the population relying on social media platforms for news consumption and political discourse.

Attention and Engagement:

In social media, capturing and maintaining users' attention is paramount to effectively conveying information and fostering meaningful engagement. Two fundamental principles that underpin successful engagement strategies on social media include:

Visual Storytelling: Visual content, such as images, videos, and infographics, has been shown to enhance user engagement on social media platforms significantly. Research indicates that posts containing visual elements receive higher levels of interaction, including likes, shares, and comments (Smith, 2019). Visual storytelling techniques can convey complex legal and political concepts in a more digestible and memorable format, enhancing audience engagement and comprehension.

Interactive Content: Interactive content, such as polls, quizzes, and live Q&A sessions, fosters active participation and dialogue among users. Social media users can create a sense of community and ownership around the topics discussed by soliciting their audience's feedback, opinions, and contributions. Additionally, interactive content encourages users to invest their time and attention, leading to deeper levels of engagement and interaction (Kumar, 2018).

Benefits of Social Media Use:

Despite the inherent challenges associated with social media, there are several potential benefits to its use in the context of law and politics:

Enhanced Civic Engagement: Social media platforms give citizens unprecedented opportunities to engage with political processes, express their opinions, and advocate for change. By facilitating real-time communication and information-sharing, social media empowers individuals to participate actively in democratic discourse and civic affairs (Boulianne, 2019).

Information Accessibility: Social media platforms serve as democratizing agents by democratizing access to information and breaking down traditional barriers to knowledge dissemination. Users can access a diverse array of perspectives, opinions, and sources of information, thereby fostering a more informed and nuanced understanding of legal and political issues (Groshek & Al-Rawi, 2018).

Risks of Social Media Use:

However, the pervasive nature of social media also poses significant risks and challenges, particularly in the realm of law and politics:

Disinformation and 'Fake News': The ease of content creation and dissemination on social media has led to the proliferation of disinformation, misinformation, and 'fake news.' False or misleading information, deliberately spread to deceive or manipulate users, can undermine public trust in institutions, sow discord, and distort political discourse (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017).

Echo Chambers and Polarization: Social media algorithms often prioritize content based on user preferences and engagement patterns, leading to echo chambers—virtual spaces where individuals are exposed only to information that aligns with their beliefs and viewpoints. This phenomenon exacerbates ideological polarization, stifles constructive dialogue, and reinforces confirmation bias (Sunstein, 2018).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, social media has emerged as a double-edged sword in law and politics, offering opportunities and challenges for informed citizenship and democratic engagement. By leveraging the power of social media responsibly—through fact-checking, critical thinking, and constructive dialogue—individuals can contribute to a more informed, inclusive, and resilient public sphere. Navigating the complexities of social media requires vigilance, discernment, and a commitment to upholding democratic values and principles in the digital age.

References:

Boulianne, S. (2019). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 873-900.

Buffer. (2019). State of Social 2019. Retrieved from https://lp.buffer.com/state-of-social-2019.

Groshek, J., & Al-Rawi, A. (2018). Social media and political participation: Crowdsourcing civic engagement in online political communities. Social Science Computer Review, 36(6), 707–725.

Kumar, S. (2018). Interactive content marketing: Using interactive content to engage your audience. Berkeley, CA: Apress.

Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., ... & Schudson, M. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096.

Smith, A. (2020). Social Media Use in 2021. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/.

Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.

Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe Report.

#social media #psychology #politics #law

3 notes · View notes

carolyn-magazine · 8 months

Text

This is a letter I wrote to my Secretary of State in regard to the disqualification of Donald J. Trump, and any others, from holding public office, per the United States Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 3.

[Disclaimer: this letter has been altered by me to remove the name of this state's Secretary of State in case anyone else would like to copy and send it to their Secretary of State or Lieutenant Governor. [Note: In Some States the Lieutenant Governor also serves as the Secretary of State and/or Chief Election Officer]

Dear Secretary of State [insert name] ,

In addition to serving as Secretary of State of [insert state], you also serve as Chief Election Officer. As a proud resident of [insert state], I am aware that you stand by the wisdom of The United States Constitution, as we all should. I implore you to please read, and take into serious consideration, the below information.

I am writing to your offices urging a formal review of whether Donald J. Trump, and any others, are barred from the ballot in this state by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That Amendment disqualifies from the ballot any person who “shall have engaged” in an “insurrection.”

For such a disqualification, there is no requirement that Trump or any person be first convicted of any crime - as the Congressional Research Service notes.

Additionally, last year after a trial in New Mexico, a judge ruled that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and that Otero County Commissioner Cuoy Griffin was removed from office and disqualified from the ballot for “engaging” in that attack. Mr. Griffin is also prohibited from ever holding an elected position in the state of New Mexico.

Donald Trump’s actions - as detailed in the final report of the “Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack” - far exceed the actions of Griffin in terms of “engaging” in the Jan. 6 insurrection. While that New Mexico ruling is not binding in this or any other state, it is persuasive in its reasoning, and I urge your offices to read it.

Recently, conservative legal scholars (former Federal Judge on the Court of Appeals 4th circuit, J. Michael Luttig, and Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School, who taught Constitutional Law at Harvard for nearly five decades, Laurence Tribe) have recently penned articles reaching the conclusion that given Trump’s conduct, the US Constitution does in fact bar Trump from the ballot.

Article VI of The United States Constitution reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Amendment 14, Section 3 of The United States Constitution reads, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

As Americans, we should always take the Constitution seriously, and most people do, including Donald Trump, as we've witnessed him repeatedly standing by the 1st and 5th amendments.

We can't pick and choose which amendments are legally binding because each one is considered part of the supreme law of the land, as stated above in Article VI of The Constitution.

The time is now to review if Trump, or anyone for that matter, has done just that, and is barred from the ballot - well before the 2024 election.

George Santayana once famously wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

We must learn from History and there is a reason why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written into The Constitution - as a way to prevent our democracy from being destroyed.

Thank you for considering this issue that is vitally important to protecting our Republic.

Sincerely,

[insert your name here]

References

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:d5f3903a-9ef1-413d-8b62-d42d1e8f44a5

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2022/09/06/nm-judge-orders-couy-griffin-to-be-removed-from-otero-county-commission-bars-him-from-holding-any-office-in-the-future/

https://www.c-span.org/video/?507774-1/president-trump-video-statement-capitol-protesters

https://iep.utm.edu/santayan/

https://youtu.be/5Aaqz4qiQYM?si=ls1xrwNcKcFZrVMd

#United States Constitution #Amendment 14 section 3 #disqualification #insurrection #letter to secretary of state #barred from ballot #threat to democracy #stop the madness #inciting an insurrection #george santayana #history #remember the past #don't let history be repeated #secretary of state #facts #MSNBC

10 notes · View notes

allthebrazilianpolitics · 1 year

Text

A bad year for the bad guys

In key countries around the world, 2022 was the year democracy proved it could fight back.

On the night of February 23, the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I attended a reading group with a number of prominent Washington foreign policy experts and journalists. We had convened to discuss the work of Carl Schmitt, an interwar German political theorist who believed — among other things — that politics is, at base, about violence. The fundamental political distinction, in Schmitt’s view, is between “friend and enemy”; the fundamental political act is killing one’s enemies. A peaceful democratic world is, in his mind, a fantasy; ultimately, politics would always return to brutality.

As we were wrapping up, Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared on television to announce a “special military operation” in Ukraine. The mood in the room was dark, full of foreboding; one of the world’s largest and most fearsome military powers appeared on the verge of gobbling up a smaller and weaker neighbor. A world some of us believed was governed by rules and democratic politics felt like it was giving way to Schmittian barbarism.

At the time, the Ukraine war seemed likely to be the first of several catastrophes for the democratic world in 2022. In Brazil, the world’s fourth-largest democracy, a looming presidential election was expected to lead to a democratic crisis — its own January 6 moment. The US midterm elections seemed almost certain to elevate supporters of Trump’s election liesto key electoral administration positions, raising the likelihood of another meltdown. This all came amid a decade-long decline in the number of democratic governments around the world, a global transformation that seemed to herald a new world order with China as its leading power.

But as the year winds to a close, the story has turned out to be quite different. Instead of showing weakness, democratic systems displayed resilience. Instead of showing strength, authoritarian systems displayed vulnerability. It was, all in all, a surprisingly good year for democracy.

In Ukraine, the initial Russian lightning strike was decisively repulsed. It has devolved into a grinding conflict in which Ukraine, despite brutal losses, managed to repulse the Russian attack and even retake significant amounts of territory — with major support from the democracies of Europe and North America.

In Brazil, right-wing populist President Jair Bolsonaro lost his reelection bid and left office quietly. His most aggressive effort to overturn the results, a lawsuit alleging fraud, ended in a hefty fine for his party for engaging in what the chief justice of the Supreme Electoral Court termed “bad faith litigation.”

In the United States, election deniers lost every swing state race for governor or secretary of state — crushing defeats that may have even undermined the former president’s standing in the GOP.

And in China and another influential authoritarian state, Iran, major protest movements emerged, each calling for democracy and free elections. While the Chinese protests appear to have slowed, they were the greatest popular challenge to the government since Tiananmen Square. And the Iranian protests are still going strong, posing a formidable threat to the Islamic Republic.

These events pointed to an old truth, hard-won knowledge from the struggles of the 20th century: Democracy enjoys some fundamental advantages over its autocratic rivals.

Authoritarian systems have a tendency toward groupthink and ideological rigidity, frequently proving unwilling or unable to properly assess information and change course when existing policies prove disastrous. Democracy, meanwhile, tends to be widely supported by people who live under it, creating problems for authoritarian forces who are too blatant in their aims to subvert the system.

This does not mean that democracy will inevitably triumph in any specific country, let alone across the globe. Democracies have weaknesses, ones that authoritarian-inclined forces inside democratic states have repeatedly proven capable of exploiting. In 2022, elections in Hungary, Israel, and the Philippines all showed that the authoritarian challenge remains enduring and potent.

But when we look at the year’s events in the world’s largest and most influential countries, the story is on balance a positive one. The authoritarian governments that were supposed to outcompete democracy floundered, while some of the biggest democracies staved off major internal challenges.

In 2022, we lived through a relative rarity in recent memory: a decent year for democracy.

39 notes · View notes

fandomfluffandfuck · 3 months

Note

Hi S,

I was scrolling through Tiktok and I saw a video of Chris Evans and president Joe Biden. And Chris was smiling and laughing. When I tell you I was shooketh! I know Chris was into politics, but damn! How did this even happen?

Also now my hate for USA politics will show, cuz why are the presidents almost always grandpas? I know it’s the system, but why? We’ll at least he isn’t shaking hands with Trump.

Do you know what happened. I think you are from the USA (I’m not sure), so maybe you got some information.

Thank you!! <3

(I also loved the post with Seb on the Syrian)

ah, yes, this video for ASP

Lmao, it's all good, you're welcome to hate on US politics here 💀💀 I may unfortunately be from the USA, but I, too, hate them.

(Putting this under the cut because I get rambly, and I understand that most people aren't here for politics)

I absolutely feel you, though. I was shocked to see Chris and Biden shaking hands. Of course, Chris was at the White House, so it's not impossible, that is where the POTUS is most of the time, and I believe Chris has been to the White House before. I could be wrong there, but, if nothing else, he's certainly been in and around Washington D.C. before with A Starting Point.

(A Starting Point being, according to Wikipedia, "A Starting Point is a website, launched in 2020, devoted to presenting videos by elected officials (current or former), presenting various points of view on issues that are of interest to the United States electorate. It was started by Chris Evans, Mark Kassen, and Joe Kiani.")

So, ASP is how, even if I didn't realize that many people used ASP, lol. I am very involved in politics outside of the fandom space--generally reading and watching and educating myself, as well as attending political events on my campus and speaking to my friends about it--but my involvement doesn't come from ASP.

But, still, the president and Chris meeting, shaking hands, smiling, and laughing feels different. It's a cross-over in a way I would, honestly, rather have not happened.

Don't get me wrong, the purpose Chris was there for, with ASP, trying to get more young people engaged in voting is immensely important. Young people in the US are more likely than any other demographic to vote blue (democratic), and that is something that, with another Trump presidency (GOP/republican) on the possible horizon, is especially important. However, I wish he could've done it without shaking hands with the president. Yes, Biden is a figure head, he doesn't do much (generally and specifically at his age, sitting in the presidency). But, also, with the genocide of Palestinians going on and Biden's active, ongoing support to Israel... I don't enjoy seeing them together.

As far as age... yeah. It's the system. 🙃 If you ask me, the minimum age for being able to run for public office should be lowered (it's 35 at least for president, though, the youngest president was 42, the average age is around mid 50s at inauguration), and there should be a cap on how old you can be and still run as modern medicine continues to prolong life and technology and education provide young people with more resources.

I will admit, growing up in the US, I have absolutely been indoctrinated to see the president and feel something. When I first saw that video my reaction was just, what the fuck!? in a lighthearted, laughing manner. A cross-over, like I said previously, they don't feel like they exist in the same world, y'know? But once I thought about it for half a second longer... it felt different.

Chris can do what he likes. Obviously. I do wonder how it happened, though. Maybe it was something he was approached with by the team for ASP, like, hey, wanna meet the president? Maybe it was something that activated the same indoctrinated kid in him--they teach you young to idolize presidents, past and present--so he said yes, thoughtless. Maybe it was something he thought about and weighed the options of, thinking it would help the cause of getting young people to vote even if it would also, inevitably make people on the Internet mad (maybe rightfully so, too, shaking hands with someone with blood on their hands. As presidents do. Biden's blood is fresh enough it's dripping, though). You can't deny that it made news--Captain America and President Biden shake hands!!! That might give a spark to some younger Marvel fan, tuning in to see what's going on with politics when they otherwise wouldn't. Maybe it was something White House staff and the team for ASP worked on together and surprised Chris.

I don't know.

It's odd. You are correct, though--at least it wasn't Trump (1:26).

If anything, though, it reminds me of the 2016 USO tour Chris and Scarlett went on for Marvel. Like, I appreciate what they did for the individual active service members as people. I think we need to do more to support veterans alongside people who are directly impacted by war--their lives destroyed or altered. However, I am very anti-military, anti-war. So, I don't like that he agreed to do that (granted, it may have been required from Marvel, not something that he could get out of, that's unclear). And I sure as hell hate some of the things he did on that USO tour. Still. My differing opinions on Chris can coexist. I can like what I know of Chris, what he shares of himself, and dislike other parts of him or actions he does. Humans are flawed. I may run a fan blog, and may seem like a stan, but I can also disagree with things people that I am a fan of agree with.

Lmao, thanks! The out-out-place reference to Sebastian on a sybian is related to this, lightening the mood

#asks #chris evans #us politics #asp

3 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

This week the UK government has made an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act to veto the gender recognition reforms passed by the Scottish parliament. Tuesday’s announcement by the Scottish secretary, Alister Jack, is harmful to trans people, who have waited long enough for improvements to the gender recognition process as – contrary to some claims being made – this legislation has been long proposed, consulted on and debated.

Indeed, it has been a manifesto commitment in the past two Holyrood elections, and has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate on both those occasions. Being forced to consider the prospect of legal action before those changes can be enacted raises further uncertainty.

At every stage of the bill’s progress and development, the Scottish government kept the UK government informed through normal routes of engagement. At no point did Westminster ask to amend the provisions in the bill – neither during the extensive periods of public consultation nor during the drafting and parliamentary stages. The Scottish parliament equally did not hear from the UK government during the passage of the bill.

Put bluntly, this was a one-way conversation up until the final moments when the bill should have gone for royal assent and become law. So for the Scottish secretary to announce that he was unilaterally vetoing the bill is fundamentally disrespectful to Scotland’s parliament and the MSPs who have been part of its scrutiny, consideration and passing.

Jack says he wants to find a constructive way forward. If he really wants to work together in a partnership of equals, then he should acknowledge that his announcement is completely incompatible with such a partnership – and he should immediately revoke the section 35 order. That would show the UK government is serious about improving the lives of trans people and respecting Scottish democracy.

The UK government’s approach should worry anyone who supports Scotland’s right to make decisions on devolved matters, regardless of their opinions about these reforms. This veto, with its flimsy reasoning, puts us on a slippery slope. Devolution was secured nearly a quarter of a century ago with the overwhelming support of the people of Scotland. It made the Scottish parliament, elected by and responsible to the people of Scotland, responsible for making laws on a range of matters.

The devolution arrangements put in place to protect reserved matters were not intended to enable the UK government to intervene at will in devolved matters, overturning the Scottish parliament’s decisions. But that is what is happening here and, as the first minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, has said, it sets a very dangerous precedent.

The sad thing is that in many ways, the gender recognition reform bill saw the Scottish parliament at its best – MSPs extensively scrutinising a sensitive and important issue, listening carefully to and interrogating a wide variety of views, and working across party lines to amend and improve the bill. Contrast this to the Commons this week, where the Scottish secretary delivered a statement several hours before anyone else had the opportunity to view the underlying statement of reasons, and was unable to answer basic questions about his reasons or about gender recognition certificates themselves.

The bill was passed by a significant majority of the Scottish parliament. I’m confident that MSPs across parties will work together to stand up to the threat of unnecessary Westminster intervention. We’ve heard from trans people from across the UK who are incredibly upset by this decision – and worried about the threat to rights in other areas of life.

The bill passed by the Scottish parliament improves and simplifies the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate (GRC) for trans people. It doesn’t change the effect of having a certificate. GRCs matter to trans people because they allow them to change their birth certificate and be properly recognised in their gender if they get married and when they die. They are helpful but not necessary when applying for a driving licence or passport. That’s what a GRC is for, and nothing in our legislation changes the Equality Act or the rules on access to single-sex spaces and services.

This legislation is designed to make trans people’s lives better by removing an administrative burden. Instead, trans people have been dragged into an attack on devolution that puts them in the middle of a continuing culture war. The UK government must rethink this damaging course of action, revoke its section 35 order and give the Scottish parliament its right and proper place.

3 notes · View notes

the-cimmerians · 5 months

Text

Today, ProPublica reports on yet another big change that stands to solve a decades-long problem we first learned about back in 2016, closing a huge loophole that allowed states to divert federal antipoverty funds to governors’ pet projects, like promoting abstinence, holding “heathy marriage” classes that did nothing to prevent out-of-wedlock births, funding anti-abortion “clinics” to lie about abortion “risks,” sending middle-class kids to private colleges, and other schemes only tangentially related to helping poor kids. It’s the same loophole that Mississippi officials tried to drive a truck through to divert welfare funds to former sportsball man Brett Favre’s alma mater, for a volleyball palace. [ ]

The agency has proposed new rules — open for public comment until December 1 — aimed at nudging states to actually use TANF funds to give cash to needy parents, not fill budget holes or punish poor people.

One change will put an end to the scheme Utah used to substitute LDS church funds for welfare, by prohibiting states

from counting charitable giving by private organizations, such as churches and food banks, as “state” spending on welfare, a practice that has allowed legislatures to budget less for programs for low-income families while still claiming to meet federal minimums.

Another new rule will put the kibosh on using TANF to fund child protective services or foster care programs, which are not what TANF is supposed to be for, damn it.

And then there’s the simple matter of making sure that funds for needy families go to needy families, not to pet projects that have little to do with poverty:

The reforms would also redefine the term “needy” to refer only to families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty line. Currently, some states spend TANF money on programs like college scholarships — or volleyball stadiums — that benefit more affluent people.

#us politics #in support of an informed and engaged electorate #TANF #cash assistance

4K notes · View notes

yourreddancer · 2 years

Photo

Because of the 8/8 execution of a legal search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, in response to Trump deceitfully failing to turn over all materials, some people may have already forgotten about the 1/6 insurrection and the other parts of the coup plan. Here’s a reminder (based on a summary of the 1/6 Committee findings):

Trump oversaw a seven-part plan to overturn the 2020 election and prevent the transition of presidential power. It was far more than a spontaneous riot. 1/6 was the last effort of an ongoing attempted coup.

1. Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information to the American public claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him.

2. Trump corruptly planned to replace the Acting Attorney General, so that the Department of Justice would support his fake election claims.

3. Trump corruptly pressured Vice President Pence to refuse to count certified electoral votes in violation of the US Constitution and the law.

4. Trump corruptly pressured state election officials, and state legislators, to change election results.

5. Trump's legal team and other Trump associates instructed Republicans in multiple states to create false slates of electors and transmit those slates to Congress and the National Archives.

6. Trump summoned and assembled a violent mob in Washington to coincide with the day of the certification of electoral votes by Congress, and directed the mob to march on the US Capitol. He was informed that some of the mob was armed, and he directed the metal detectors to be removed.

7. As the violence was underway, President Trump ignored multiple pleas for assistance and failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol.Edit: chart added as a timeline summary of the various plots.

Not mentioned above was 8. Trump’s ideas to have the military seize voting machines.

4 notes · View notes

chujingblog2022 · 2 years

Text

Digital Citizenship 1: Political Engagement

Overview Of Political Engagement

Political engagement is the act of citizens choosing and endorsing the rulers who control the government, including when they run for office themselves. A citizen's participation in politics can take the form of voting, running for office or expressing interest in doing so, or joining organizations that put pressure on elected officials and other public servants through civil society activism and demonstrations (World Bank Group 2016, p.55).

People Who Are Most Likely To Become Involved In Politics Or Community Service

Young people are typically more prone to get involved in politics. Younger Americans tend to vote more liberally and less religiously than older Americans, who tend to vote more conservatively and religiously. Additionally, there is less income inequality among young Americans than among older Americans. Compared to their elders, the wealth and poverty divide is substantially narrower among young adults. This makes logical given that wealth can be accumulated across many generations as people age through investments or inheritances. The majority of political volunteers are in their 20s and 30s, with around a third of all volunteers being under the age of 30. About half of political campaign volunteers have a college degree. High school graduates and those without a high school diploma are the two groups with the most common educational backgrounds. Some college or technical education is the next highest degree of education.

Malaysians' Use Of Social Media For Political Engagement

Social media is quite active in Malaysia. They use these forums to express their ideas and viewpoints on political matters, governmental regulations, and other topics that concern them. Many of them also share photos of themselves with political figures or the political groups they identify with. This demonstrates how invested they are in Malaysian politics. Allowing the public to speak with their leaders face-to-face, also fosters a closer bond between the people and their leaders. In Malaysia, using social media for political activism is nothing new. Bersih began integrating Facebook and YouTube into its communication and mobilization strategy in 2008. After Google, Facebook has the second-highest traffic in Malaysia. Only 17 days before the rally date, on June 22, 2011, the first Bersih 2.0 Facebook page, dubbed "Bersih 2.0 [Official]," was established. Within two weeks, it had amassed more than 190,000 fans (Lim 2016).

Memes' Proclivity To Aid People In Understanding Politics

Considering that memes are a pretty straightforward method of disseminating information, in my opinion, they aid in people's understanding of politics. You can easily communicate your ideas with others, and it doesn't take much work. When someone talks about politics, you don't need to read the article's content or watch a video to comprehend what they mean. When it comes to memes, all you need to do is a glance at the image, and if you find it amusing, you'll probably agree with what the individual is saying. This enables us to comprehend political matters more clearly and form our judgments about them.

Summary

Citizens elect and support those in power who control government through political engagement, including running for office. Young people are more likely to get involved in politics. Most political volunteers are in their 20s and 30s, and about a third of all volunteers are under 30. Malaysians are very active on social media. They use these forums to express their ideas and views on political issues, government regulations, and other important issues. Since memes are a relatively easy way to spread information, I think they help people understand politics.

Reference List

World Bank Group 2016, Making Politics Work for Development: Harnessing Transparency And Citizen Engagement, The World Bank, Washington.

Lim, M 2016, Sweeping the Unclean: Social Media and the Bersih Electoral Reform Movement in Malaysia, Global Media Journal, viewed 9 October 2022, <https://www.globalmediajournal.com/open-access/sweeping-the-unclean-social-media-and-the-bersih-electoral-reformmovement-in-malaysia.php?aid=83245>.

#mda20009 #week5 #politicalengagement

3 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

A confidential witness for the FBI told federal agents that members of the far-right group the Proud Boys “would have killed” then-Vice President Mike Pence during the Capitol riot “if given a chance,” according to a House investigator probing the events of Jan. 6, 2021. “Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president’s life was in danger,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) said at Thursday’s public hearing. The congressman explained that Proud Boy members had gotten within 40 feet of Pence after breaching the Capitol as the Vice President was whisked away to a more secure location. The New York Times reported that the informant is not believed to be a member of the Proud Boys, but traveled to Washington, D.C., with Dominic Pezzola, a Proud Boy and insurrectionist charged with conspiracy after smashing the first window at the Capitol. Greg Jacob, Pence’s former-Chief Counsel, testified on Thursday that Donald Trump never called to check on his Vice President’s safety during or after the insurrection. Trump did, however, call Pence the morning of Jan. 6 to berate him using “the p-word,” according to The Washington Post.

One of the most stunning moments of Thursday’s hearing of the January 6 Committee came as members presented a 3D model of areas of the Senate basement where Mike Pence was evacuated to after leaving the Senate floor with Secret Service.

According to security footage of the day, rioters came dangerously close to the Vice President while members of the crowd inside and outside of the Capitol chanted, “hang Mike Pence”.

And according to committee member Pete Aguilar, a confidential witness has testified to the FBI that members of the Proud Boys, who were present in the riot, “would have killed Mike Pence if given the chance”.

"Make no mistake about the fact that the Vice President's life was in danger,” said the congressman.

“Approximately 40 feet,” he continued. “That’s all there was between the Vice President and the mob.”

The extent to which Mr. Pence was personally in danger during the riot has never been known before now. It was publicly reported as it happened that Mr. Pence was removed from the Senate chamber as rioters breached the building, but his whereabouts up until now were unknown.

The Vice President found himself a target for the attackers’ ire after it became clear that he would not interfere to overturn the election result and attempt to give Donald Trump a second term, in spite of what Mr. Trump had promised the legions of his supporters who descended upon the Capitol that day. Mr. Pence’s role overseeing the count of the Electoral College’s votes made convincing him to interfere in the process a prime goal of Trump’s lawyers like John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani.

But Mr. Pence repeatedly refused to do so and found himself the target of violent threats alongside Democrats including Nancy Pelosi during the riot.

Thursday’s hearing largely centred on the effort to convince Mr. Pence to interfere in the election, despite testimony from members of Mr. Trump and Pence’s legal teams indicating that many of those engaged in the effort knew it had no legal standing.

16 notes · View notes

thepoliticalday · 5 days

Text

"An educated, enlightened, and informed population is one of the surest ways of promoting the health of a democracy." - nelson mandela

Introduction

Throughout the years, the Philippine elections have contributed greatly to the country’s legacy of democracy, ensuring that people of all social backgrounds, without discrimination, have the equal opportunity to voice their political views and opinions and exercise their right to freedom of choice in hopes to create unity and solidarity between alike Filipinos. Elections ensure that all legal citizens of the country are involved in governmental processes, a testament to patriotism and love for the country as people coalesce with one another to vote for government leaders whom they wholeheartedly believe will grant the next generation of Filipinos honor and prosperity, bringing glory to both God and the country while involving the element of democracy in its electoral processes. Democracy has always proven itself relevant in our society by creating a strong and established government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Chapter One - The Fate of the Nation

Although I, myself have never participated in voting during an election before as I was still underage during the last 2022 elections, I remember the campaign and propaganda during national election periods to be tremendously intense and unabatedly heated. It was as if the country was separated into half and half, fighting over the fate of our beloved nation. The battle between then-presidential candidates Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., the son of late president Ferdinand Marcos, and Leni Robredo was consistently the exceeding headlines everywhere from social media platforms to magazines and newspapers from December 2021 until the elections in June 2022.

Differences in party, the stress on gender roles and women empowerment, as well as historical matters all took account in these fervid debates brewing up every day on almost every social media platform, placing me in an intellectual dilemma as people point fingers at who is right or wrong, not to mention the rampant rise of “cancel culture” and “elitism” along the way further clouding my judgment and creating more apprehensions about each candidate.

However, amidst all the arguments and online discourse, I concluded that the fighting and the arguments are not at the heart of what elections truly serve to a country; because elections are the very lifeline of democracy and the freedom of expression as it is the very factor that makes us all Filipinos equal and a chance for all to uphold consensus and for the majority voice of the people be heard.

Both sides of my family are very strong and loyal supporters of now president Bongbong Marcos and his late father Ferdinand Marcos, united by the belief that the Philippines will become a wealthy state once again like it had been during his father’s reign, finding the same intellect and vitality he once had in his son whom they believe will lift the Filipinos off their burdens from the pitiless shackles of corruption and poverty, creating a life that we had never imagined possible for us.

However, despite their strong position, many of my family members remain kind to non-supporters, accepting the fact that other people may have their own unique perspectives and opinions regarding the candidates instead of blatantly engaging in social media banter that will only bring harm to the community. This is truly what democracy and patriotism are all about, accepting one another regardless of their political views and differences without engaging in acts that bring harm to the community and recognizing that each and every Filipino has a voice—a voice meant to inspire others and bring honor to the nation.

Chapter Two - Fame Over Facts

In Philippine elections, I’ve observed several factors that significantly influence the outcomes. These include popular politics, where candidates may gain fame based on their charisma or ability to resonate with the masses rather than their policies. Familial connections also play a crucial role, as candidates with powerful family ties or those who belong to well-known political dynasties often garner support from their relatives and extended networks to gain more appeal to the masses regardless of their credibility or qualifications. Additionally, religious matters hold much importance among Filipinos, with candidates aligning themselves with certain religious groups to secure votes. Utang-loob, or the debt of gratitude, further complicates the electoral landscape, as voters may feel obligated to support candidates who have previously helped them or their communities. However, these factors can have troubling implications for democracy. They can lead to the dominance of popular influence over informed decision-making, clouding voters' judgments and prioritizing emotions over facts. Pity for candidates and feelings of obligation also tend to sway voters away from objectively assessing candidates' qualifications and platforms, potentially undermining the democratic principle of rational electoral choices.

Sometime in the summer when I was about eight years old, I used to visit my father’s old neighborhood called San Miguel Village in barangay Lapasan, where especially at the time plenty of marginalized families used to reside. I used to always visit one of my father’s older sisters and she would make me and my cousins some mango ice candy all of the time which was perfect for beating the heat, but I noticed that she often had visitors come to offer her money. When I was younger, I couldn’t grasp the idea of politics and all other things related to it as my mind was too young and naive to even take a slight interest in any of those concepts. But now that I am older, I’ve come to realize the antics behind these strange visitors who extend thousands of pesos to my aunties and uncles living in the village during election periods. There was a certain councilor who was running for congressman during the upcoming local election period and he’d been offering my family large amounts of money in exchange for votes and support. This is what I’ve learned about vote-buying, which is a politician’s act of distributing goods and resources to the masses to bargain for votes and a position in the functioning government. It is extremely unfair and overall shatters the facets of democracy, embedding a sense of debt into the minds of voters that in exchange for their blessings, they too must give back to the politician and grant them their votes even if the politician is not necessarily qualified.

Chapter Three - Strive for Change

My vision for the future of Philippine elections is deeply rooted in empowering citizens to play an active role in the democratic process. I believe that citizens must engage in fact-checking and thoroughly assess candidates based on their proposed projects, skills, academic background, values, and morals. On the journey of striving for change, we as citizens must also act for the good of our country and come together united under the big goal of making our dreams for the Philippines come true. Upon reading different propaganda of different candidates and party lists, we must first remember that we must check our facts before forming an opinion about the candidates, thoroughly reading through each one to assess their qualifications and credibility. Moreover, by moving away from practices like popular politics, political dynasties, and the exploitation of the pity factor, we can cultivate a political environment that prioritizes competence and integrity over superficial attributes. This approach not only fosters a more competent political atmosphere but also ensures that elected officials are truly representative of the people's interests and capable of effective governance. Embracing these principles holds immense implications for democracy and governance in the Philippines, as it promotes transparency and accountability, ultimately strengthening democratic institutions and fostering a more equitable society.

A profound experience that I can recall that led me to the heart of Philippine politics would be my work immersion at the City of the Vice Mayor. It was a transformative journey, revealing the intricate dynamics of local governance and the profound impact of collaboration. Immersed in the daily operations, I witnessed firsthand the power of teamwork as dedicated public servants worked tirelessly to address community needs. Yet, it was the interaction between officials and constituents that left the deepest impression, highlighting the essence of democracy and the need for the interests of the masses to be involved in every process. Through this experience, I learned that success in governance is not solely achieved within the confines of the workplace but through the collective effort of individuals working together and that every citizen has a vital role and voice in shaping the political processes of our country. This experience has fueled my hopes and aspirations for Philippine democracy, as I believe that fostering a culture of collaboration and inclusivity is essential for building a stronger and more vibrant democratic society where the voices of all citizens are heard and valued.

Author's Op-ed

Seeing the political situation in the Philippines as of the present, I firmly believe that electoral reform is critically needed in the nation to address systemic issues and strengthen democratic processes. The current electoral system is tarnished by numerous problems such as vote-buying, political dynasties, and lack of transparency, which overall undermine the integrity of elections and erode public trust in the democratic process. Electoral reform is essential to enhance accountability and ensure that elections truly reflect the will of the people. Implementing measures such as campaign finance reform, enhancing voter education, and promoting transparency in electoral processes can help mitigate these issues and foster a more inclusive and participatory democracy. By advocating for electoral reform, we can uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability, ultimately strengthening democratic institutions and promoting good governance in the Philippines.

To end, I encourage readers to join the conversation on electoral reform and democratic renewal by actively participating in political blogs and online forums dedicated to these topics. Following reputable political blogs provides valuable knowledge and insights into various aspects of electoral reform, democratic principles, and current governance issues. Synthesizing ideas from different sources and engaging in discussions with fellow readers allows you to contribute to a broader understanding of the challenges and opportunities in promoting electoral reform and strengthening democratic processes. Additionally, sharing perspectives and experiences fosters a diverse and inclusive dialogue that encourages critical thinking and constructive engagement with these important issues.

1 note · View note

bmarketking · 11 days

Text

The Digital Tools Behind BJP & political parties 25% success

The Bharatiya Janata Party is one of the major political parties in India known for its Hindu nationalist ideology and conservative stance on various social and economic issues. Founded in 1980, the Bharatiya Janata Party has become dominant in Indian politics, winning several national and state elections. The party’s key policies include promoting economic development, national security, and cultural nationalism. Under the leadership of figures like Narendra Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party has implemented various initiatives focusing on infrastructure development, digital governance, and social welfare programs. In Indian politics, The party’s electoral success has been attributed to its strong organizational structure, effective communication strategies, and ability to connect with a diverse voter base across the country.

The Bharatiya Janata Party is a prominent political party in India known for its nationalist and conservative ideology. The party has utilized advertising strategies effectively to reach a wide audience and engage with voters. Through digital marketing channels such as social media campaigns, targeted advertisements, and online outreach programs, the Bharatiya Janata Party has successfully connected with the tech-savvy Indian population, especially the youth. By leveraging digital platforms & using online marketing techniques effectively, the party has disseminated its message, mobilized supporters, and influenced public opinion, contributing to its electoral success in recent years.

In recent years, the landscape of political campaigning in India has witnessed a significant transformation with the advent of advertising. Political parties like Bharatiya Janata Party, Shivsena, Indian National Congress, etc.. across the spectrum are increasingly turning to digital platforms to reach out to voters, convey their messages, and mobilize support. In this blog post, we will explore how internet marketing is reshaping campaigns in India and the various ways in which it benefits political parties.

Targeted Outreach: One of the key advantages of advertising for political parties is the ability to target specific demographics and segments of the Indian population. Through tools like social media advertising and email marketing, parties can tailor their messages to resonate with different voter groups based on age, location, interests, and more. This targeted approach helps parties reach the right audience with the right message, increasing the effectiveness of their advertising campaign efforts.

Real-Time Engagement: advertising enables political parties to engage with voters in real-time, fostering two-way communication and dialogue. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram provide a direct channel for parties to interact with constituents, address their concerns, and respond to feedback promptly. This level of engagement helps build trust and credibility among voters, ultimately strengthening the party’s relationship with its supporters.

Data Analytics: internet marketing tools offer powerful analytics capabilities that allow political parties to track and measure the performance of their campaigns in real-time. By analyzing data on engagement rates, click-through rates, conversion rates, and more, parties can gain valuable insights into the effectiveness of their messaging and strategies. This data-driven approach enables parties to make informed decisions, optimize their campaigns, and allocate resources efficiently for maximum impact.

Cost-Effective Campaigning: Compared to traditional forms of advertising such as TV ads or print media, advertising offers a more cost-effective way for political parties to reach a wider audience. With targeted advertising options and flexible budgeting, parties can run campaigns that suit their financial constraints while still achieving significant reach and impact. This cost-efficiency makes advertising an attractive option for parties looking to maximize their campaign resources.

Grassroots Mobilisation: digital marketing empowers political parties to mobilize grassroots support and organize volunteers more effectively. Platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram enable parties to create community groups, share updates, coordinate events, and rally supporters for various campaign activities. By leveraging online marketing tools for grassroots mobilization, parties can amplify their reach and influence at the local level, driving greater engagement and participation among voters.

In conclusion, Indian politics is diverse & dynamic, digital marketing has emerged as a game-changer for political parties such as Bharatiya Janata Party, Shivsena, and Indian National Congress, etc. in India, offering a plethora of benefits that enhance their campaign efforts and outreach strategies. By leveraging the power of digital platforms and using online marketing techniques, political parties, for example, Bharatiya Janata Party, can engage with voters more effectively, target specific demographics, analyze campaign performance, optimize resources, and mobilize grassroots support with greater efficiency. As technology continues to evolve, the role of digital marketing in shaping political campaigns is only set to grow, revolutionizing the way parties connect with voters and drive electoral success. Digital marketing can also be a better career option for the future for those who want a skilled and better job.

#politics #political #digital marketing #marketing #bjp government #modi #political parties #indian politics #loksabha #illustration #voting #election

0 notes