So you are just going to ignore the gerrymandering part of their comment then?

Yeah, that's true, gerrymandering is problematic and does stifle people's ability to express their political voice. Does gerrymandering make the US less of a democracy, then? I don't have an answer to that question, so curious your thoughts.

You were definitely right to call me out on that.

I don't think it makes it less of a democracy, per se. after all, officials are still elected through a public vote, and the gerrymandering is carried out by democratically elected leaders. tbh I'm not even sure how you would get rid of it. political boundaries have to be drawn somewhere to begin with, and sometimes they may need to move if the population shifts over time. I dunno how you could make the current party in power redraw the lines in a way in a way that's fair to the opposition.

I do think your claim about citizens in a democracy ultimately being responsible for the actions of their government is a bit much though, or at least not very useful. individual voters may have opposed the victor in the election, or they may have grudgingly voted them in to avoid an even worse candidate.

The criteria is simple. Does gerrymandering spread power to the people or does it concentrate it in the hands of the few? If the latter, then it makes for less of a democracy.

It does. Anything that removes power from the demos makes it less of a democracy.

I think it does, yes. Voting in a gerrymandered region is pretty much just maliciously cargo-culted democracy. It might look like people engaging in a democratic action on the surface, but it doesn't have any effect.

It reminds me of the 'literacy tests' given to black voters, back in the Jim Crow era. We're doing this to help them participate in our democracy, the racists would say. But the reality was in fact the complete opposite.

The structure of the political system itself matters too - for example, this concentration of so much power into a single person, that the US and other countries have with the presidential model, gives them some very autocratic attributes as well.

All this comment shows me is that some people will defend any horrible manner of things as long as it's done by 'their side'.

Just to be clear here, are you saying that you're more disgusted by the idea of violent, direct action against those committing human rights atrocities?

Rather than by those committing the human rights atrocities?

One implies the other. Any kind of revolution means that there will be innocent lives lost.