![balajis's tweet photo. CALIFORNIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
California is not a democracy. It’s a one-party state.
Because California Democrats do not hold competitive multiparty elections. No matter how the people vote, a Democrat always wins.
The real election is thus actually a selection, where candidates are chosen[1] before the primary in a smoke-filled room by the Party. And around the time one-party control was consolidated in the early 2010s, governance started to dramatically worsen, and California's growth rate suddenly leveled off:
Now more than one million citizens have fled[2] the once-Golden state for other locales, voting with their feet because they’ve been stripped of the ability to substantively vote with their ballot.
ONE PARTY "DEMOCRACY"
California illustrates the gap between deed and word. Consider that Democrats managed to (a) build a one-party state that (b) a million people fled while (c) holding faux “elections” that a Party member always won whilst also (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic!
This unmistakably resembles China. They've also (a) built a one-party state which (b) millions of people fled that (c) holds faux “elections" where a Communist Party member always wins while (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic[3,4].
There are other similarities, too.
Democrats ruthlessly censor internet speech, just like Communists. Democrats use the state as a battering ram against tech companies, just like Communists. Democrats tax citizens and hand the resulting funds to Party affiliates, just like Communists. Democrats encourage loyalists to move to contested territories to strengthen political control, just like Communists. Democrats funded gain-of function research, just like Communists. And most ominously, Democrats are now persecuting their political opponents on trumped up charges — just like Communists[5-16].
This is no small thing. When Communists talk about "communism", what they mean is rule by the Communist Party. And when Democrats talk about “democracy”, what they mean is rule by the Democrat Party. California is their desired end state — where blues never lose.
Now, let’s handle the objections.
FOR CHOICE...BUT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC CHOICE
The first objection is that Republicans do it too. Look at all the red trifectas, as per the quoted tweet[17]! But this argument fails on three counts.
1) First, when Republicans overturned Roe, Democrats affirmed reproductive choice at the state level[18]. They didn’t just copy Republicans — they did something different. So if Democrats actually believed in democratic choice, they would affirm competitive multiparty elections in their states even if Republicans pursued the opposite policy. They aren’t doing that. Which means Democrats genuinely believe in reproductive choice, but not democratic choice.
2) Second, Democrat control of blue states is much stronger than Republican control of red states. For example, even within a “Republican stronghold” like Texas, Austin is a deep blue city. There is no equivalent of red cities within blue states[19]. This alone means blues have significant political power within red territory, but not vice versa.
3) Third, Democrat control of national institutions — both elected and unelected — is overwhelming. As the graphs show, Democrats control academia[20], media[21], US government agencies[22], and even 70%+ of GDP[23]. In the language of diversity, Republicans are vastly underrepresented. They’re not even close to 50/50.
So: Democrats have more control at the national level, more control within red states, and total control within their own blue states — yet have not used that control to restore democratic choice.
Actions speak louder than words.
NO COMPETITION = FAUX ELECTION
The second objection is that no really — Republicans do it too! They have one-party states, so Democrats are justified in having the same thing. You can’t expect Democrats to enable other parties to not just run, but win. That’s not in their political interest. And it’ll weaken the Democrat Party!
And now we get to the nub of the issue. Communists also have one-party states. Does it then follow that Democrats should have them too?
Because the whole theory of why democracy is supposed to be superior to communism is that it provides real alternatives, real feedback. Just like capitalism provides choice in the market, democracy provides choice in the electorate[24]. So if you actually believed in democracy, you’d believe alternation of power strengthens society in a way one-party control never would. And you’d hold competitive one-party elections even if the other guy didn’t, because it makes your society stronger.
This gives the game away. We know Democrats do not believe in democracy, because they’ve ended competitive multiparty elections in the states they control. Unless other parties are routinely taking political power, it is not a democracy.
VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO
The last objection is around motive: ok, but why would Democrats destroy democracy?
It’s simple: once blues gain total control, they begin funneling tax dollars to Democrat affiliates. This is how you get a $100B train in California where no train is built but Democrat unions get paid[25]. And this is how the homeless industrial complex makes money[26], by getting people addicted to drugs and then getting paid by the size of the problem:
This is also how BLM burned down black businesses while lining blue pockets[27], and why student loan relief goes to Democrat voters[28], and in general why so much public money produces so little today in the way of public goods[29].
This, in short, is the blue business model. The purpose of the blue political machine is to fleece Americans while enriching Democrat loyalists.
However, they can only pull off this scam with total one-party control. Outside eyes would stop the gravy train. And that's how you get “vote blue, no matter who[30].”
"Vote blue no matter who" came out of the mouths of Democratic presidential candidates[31]. It's a straightforward rejection of democracy as ideology in favor of Democrat tribalism. All that matters is that blue tribe gains power, so blues can get paid.
Of course, not all blues get paid! Only the connected ones do, political consultants and union bosses and key interest groups and the like. Many blues pull the lever without getting the cheddar. They fall for the marketing.
After all, remember how much blue people pretended to care about black people in 2020, and how little they spoke about them afterwards? “Democracy” serves a similar role for the Party in 2024. It's just a marketing slogan, and can be discarded like BLM once it’s no longer useful.
Look how they pumped and dumped Ibram Kendi[31]. After the election, the Party can easily flip from declaiming for democracy to decrying populism, as it has before.
THE FUTURE
In short, if Democrats actually believed in competitive multiparty elections, they'd pursue them regardless of what others did. All their rhetoric revolves around democracy as stated principle, but in blue states where they have total power they've ended it in practice. The obvious reason for this is graft and tribalism: vote blue, no matter who.
It is only a matter of time before Democrats scale what they've done in blue cities and states to the federal level. That's certainly the goal. And it returns us to the original question.
Given that blues now unapologetically reject competitive multiparty elections at the state level in favor of faux contests that their Party always wins...given that they've created electorally unaccountable governments that steal billions from their citizens...given that California and China have both built one-party states...what might the future of blue governance look like?
It sure ain't multiparty democracy.
What it looks like is an exercise for the reader.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPpJ4staIAE5MNW.png)
![balajis's tweet photo. CALIFORNIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
California is not a democracy. It’s a one-party state.
Because California Democrats do not hold competitive multiparty elections. No matter how the people vote, a Democrat always wins.
The real election is thus actually a selection, where candidates are chosen[1] before the primary in a smoke-filled room by the Party. And around the time one-party control was consolidated in the early 2010s, governance started to dramatically worsen, and California's growth rate suddenly leveled off:
Now more than one million citizens have fled[2] the once-Golden state for other locales, voting with their feet because they’ve been stripped of the ability to substantively vote with their ballot.
ONE PARTY "DEMOCRACY"
California illustrates the gap between deed and word. Consider that Democrats managed to (a) build a one-party state that (b) a million people fled while (c) holding faux “elections” that a Party member always won whilst also (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic!
This unmistakably resembles China. They've also (a) built a one-party state which (b) millions of people fled that (c) holds faux “elections" where a Communist Party member always wins while (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic[3,4].
There are other similarities, too.
Democrats ruthlessly censor internet speech, just like Communists. Democrats use the state as a battering ram against tech companies, just like Communists. Democrats tax citizens and hand the resulting funds to Party affiliates, just like Communists. Democrats encourage loyalists to move to contested territories to strengthen political control, just like Communists. Democrats funded gain-of function research, just like Communists. And most ominously, Democrats are now persecuting their political opponents on trumped up charges — just like Communists[5-16].
This is no small thing. When Communists talk about "communism", what they mean is rule by the Communist Party. And when Democrats talk about “democracy”, what they mean is rule by the Democrat Party. California is their desired end state — where blues never lose.
Now, let’s handle the objections.
FOR CHOICE...BUT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC CHOICE
The first objection is that Republicans do it too. Look at all the red trifectas, as per the quoted tweet[17]! But this argument fails on three counts.
1) First, when Republicans overturned Roe, Democrats affirmed reproductive choice at the state level[18]. They didn’t just copy Republicans — they did something different. So if Democrats actually believed in democratic choice, they would affirm competitive multiparty elections in their states even if Republicans pursued the opposite policy. They aren’t doing that. Which means Democrats genuinely believe in reproductive choice, but not democratic choice.
2) Second, Democrat control of blue states is much stronger than Republican control of red states. For example, even within a “Republican stronghold” like Texas, Austin is a deep blue city. There is no equivalent of red cities within blue states[19]. This alone means blues have significant political power within red territory, but not vice versa.
3) Third, Democrat control of national institutions — both elected and unelected — is overwhelming. As the graphs show, Democrats control academia[20], media[21], US government agencies[22], and even 70%+ of GDP[23]. In the language of diversity, Republicans are vastly underrepresented. They’re not even close to 50/50.
So: Democrats have more control at the national level, more control within red states, and total control within their own blue states — yet have not used that control to restore democratic choice.
Actions speak louder than words.
NO COMPETITION = FAUX ELECTION
The second objection is that no really — Republicans do it too! They have one-party states, so Democrats are justified in having the same thing. You can’t expect Democrats to enable other parties to not just run, but win. That’s not in their political interest. And it’ll weaken the Democrat Party!
And now we get to the nub of the issue. Communists also have one-party states. Does it then follow that Democrats should have them too?
Because the whole theory of why democracy is supposed to be superior to communism is that it provides real alternatives, real feedback. Just like capitalism provides choice in the market, democracy provides choice in the electorate[24]. So if you actually believed in democracy, you’d believe alternation of power strengthens society in a way one-party control never would. And you’d hold competitive one-party elections even if the other guy didn’t, because it makes your society stronger.
This gives the game away. We know Democrats do not believe in democracy, because they’ve ended competitive multiparty elections in the states they control. Unless other parties are routinely taking political power, it is not a democracy.
VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO
The last objection is around motive: ok, but why would Democrats destroy democracy?
It’s simple: once blues gain total control, they begin funneling tax dollars to Democrat affiliates. This is how you get a $100B train in California where no train is built but Democrat unions get paid[25]. And this is how the homeless industrial complex makes money[26], by getting people addicted to drugs and then getting paid by the size of the problem:
This is also how BLM burned down black businesses while lining blue pockets[27], and why student loan relief goes to Democrat voters[28], and in general why so much public money produces so little today in the way of public goods[29].
This, in short, is the blue business model. The purpose of the blue political machine is to fleece Americans while enriching Democrat loyalists.
However, they can only pull off this scam with total one-party control. Outside eyes would stop the gravy train. And that's how you get “vote blue, no matter who[30].”
"Vote blue no matter who" came out of the mouths of Democratic presidential candidates[31]. It's a straightforward rejection of democracy as ideology in favor of Democrat tribalism. All that matters is that blue tribe gains power, so blues can get paid.
Of course, not all blues get paid! Only the connected ones do, political consultants and union bosses and key interest groups and the like. Many blues pull the lever without getting the cheddar. They fall for the marketing.
After all, remember how much blue people pretended to care about black people in 2020, and how little they spoke about them afterwards? “Democracy” serves a similar role for the Party in 2024. It's just a marketing slogan, and can be discarded like BLM once it’s no longer useful.
Look how they pumped and dumped Ibram Kendi[31]. After the election, the Party can easily flip from declaiming for democracy to decrying populism, as it has before.
THE FUTURE
In short, if Democrats actually believed in competitive multiparty elections, they'd pursue them regardless of what others did. All their rhetoric revolves around democracy as stated principle, but in blue states where they have total power they've ended it in practice. The obvious reason for this is graft and tribalism: vote blue, no matter who.
It is only a matter of time before Democrats scale what they've done in blue cities and states to the federal level. That's certainly the goal. And it returns us to the original question.
Given that blues now unapologetically reject competitive multiparty elections at the state level in favor of faux contests that their Party always wins...given that they've created electorally unaccountable governments that steal billions from their citizens...given that California and China have both built one-party states...what might the future of blue governance look like?
It sure ain't multiparty democracy.
What it looks like is an exercise for the reader.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPpJu53bIAE9j8_.jpg)
![balajis's tweet photo. CALIFORNIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
California is not a democracy. It’s a one-party state.
Because California Democrats do not hold competitive multiparty elections. No matter how the people vote, a Democrat always wins.
The real election is thus actually a selection, where candidates are chosen[1] before the primary in a smoke-filled room by the Party. And around the time one-party control was consolidated in the early 2010s, governance started to dramatically worsen, and California's growth rate suddenly leveled off:
Now more than one million citizens have fled[2] the once-Golden state for other locales, voting with their feet because they’ve been stripped of the ability to substantively vote with their ballot.
ONE PARTY "DEMOCRACY"
California illustrates the gap between deed and word. Consider that Democrats managed to (a) build a one-party state that (b) a million people fled while (c) holding faux “elections” that a Party member always won whilst also (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic!
This unmistakably resembles China. They've also (a) built a one-party state which (b) millions of people fled that (c) holds faux “elections" where a Communist Party member always wins while (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic[3,4].
There are other similarities, too.
Democrats ruthlessly censor internet speech, just like Communists. Democrats use the state as a battering ram against tech companies, just like Communists. Democrats tax citizens and hand the resulting funds to Party affiliates, just like Communists. Democrats encourage loyalists to move to contested territories to strengthen political control, just like Communists. Democrats funded gain-of function research, just like Communists. And most ominously, Democrats are now persecuting their political opponents on trumped up charges — just like Communists[5-16].
This is no small thing. When Communists talk about "communism", what they mean is rule by the Communist Party. And when Democrats talk about “democracy”, what they mean is rule by the Democrat Party. California is their desired end state — where blues never lose.
Now, let’s handle the objections.
FOR CHOICE...BUT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC CHOICE
The first objection is that Republicans do it too. Look at all the red trifectas, as per the quoted tweet[17]! But this argument fails on three counts.
1) First, when Republicans overturned Roe, Democrats affirmed reproductive choice at the state level[18]. They didn’t just copy Republicans — they did something different. So if Democrats actually believed in democratic choice, they would affirm competitive multiparty elections in their states even if Republicans pursued the opposite policy. They aren’t doing that. Which means Democrats genuinely believe in reproductive choice, but not democratic choice.
2) Second, Democrat control of blue states is much stronger than Republican control of red states. For example, even within a “Republican stronghold” like Texas, Austin is a deep blue city. There is no equivalent of red cities within blue states[19]. This alone means blues have significant political power within red territory, but not vice versa.
3) Third, Democrat control of national institutions — both elected and unelected — is overwhelming. As the graphs show, Democrats control academia[20], media[21], US government agencies[22], and even 70%+ of GDP[23]. In the language of diversity, Republicans are vastly underrepresented. They’re not even close to 50/50.
So: Democrats have more control at the national level, more control within red states, and total control within their own blue states — yet have not used that control to restore democratic choice.
Actions speak louder than words.
NO COMPETITION = FAUX ELECTION
The second objection is that no really — Republicans do it too! They have one-party states, so Democrats are justified in having the same thing. You can’t expect Democrats to enable other parties to not just run, but win. That’s not in their political interest. And it’ll weaken the Democrat Party!
And now we get to the nub of the issue. Communists also have one-party states. Does it then follow that Democrats should have them too?
Because the whole theory of why democracy is supposed to be superior to communism is that it provides real alternatives, real feedback. Just like capitalism provides choice in the market, democracy provides choice in the electorate[24]. So if you actually believed in democracy, you’d believe alternation of power strengthens society in a way one-party control never would. And you’d hold competitive one-party elections even if the other guy didn’t, because it makes your society stronger.
This gives the game away. We know Democrats do not believe in democracy, because they’ve ended competitive multiparty elections in the states they control. Unless other parties are routinely taking political power, it is not a democracy.
VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO
The last objection is around motive: ok, but why would Democrats destroy democracy?
It’s simple: once blues gain total control, they begin funneling tax dollars to Democrat affiliates. This is how you get a $100B train in California where no train is built but Democrat unions get paid[25]. And this is how the homeless industrial complex makes money[26], by getting people addicted to drugs and then getting paid by the size of the problem:
This is also how BLM burned down black businesses while lining blue pockets[27], and why student loan relief goes to Democrat voters[28], and in general why so much public money produces so little today in the way of public goods[29].
This, in short, is the blue business model. The purpose of the blue political machine is to fleece Americans while enriching Democrat loyalists.
However, they can only pull off this scam with total one-party control. Outside eyes would stop the gravy train. And that's how you get “vote blue, no matter who[30].”
"Vote blue no matter who" came out of the mouths of Democratic presidential candidates[31]. It's a straightforward rejection of democracy as ideology in favor of Democrat tribalism. All that matters is that blue tribe gains power, so blues can get paid.
Of course, not all blues get paid! Only the connected ones do, political consultants and union bosses and key interest groups and the like. Many blues pull the lever without getting the cheddar. They fall for the marketing.
After all, remember how much blue people pretended to care about black people in 2020, and how little they spoke about them afterwards? “Democracy” serves a similar role for the Party in 2024. It's just a marketing slogan, and can be discarded like BLM once it’s no longer useful.
Look how they pumped and dumped Ibram Kendi[31]. After the election, the Party can easily flip from declaiming for democracy to decrying populism, as it has before.
THE FUTURE
In short, if Democrats actually believed in competitive multiparty elections, they'd pursue them regardless of what others did. All their rhetoric revolves around democracy as stated principle, but in blue states where they have total power they've ended it in practice. The obvious reason for this is graft and tribalism: vote blue, no matter who.
It is only a matter of time before Democrats scale what they've done in blue cities and states to the federal level. That's certainly the goal. And it returns us to the original question.
Given that blues now unapologetically reject competitive multiparty elections at the state level in favor of faux contests that their Party always wins...given that they've created electorally unaccountable governments that steal billions from their citizens...given that California and China have both built one-party states...what might the future of blue governance look like?
It sure ain't multiparty democracy.
What it looks like is an exercise for the reader.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPpJgAIbQAAwGYC.png)
Olivia
Online
AGAlts
@ag_alts
Joined March 2021
196 Following
5 Followers
10 Posts
CALIFORNIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
California is not a democracy. It’s a one-party state.
Because California Democrats do not hold competitive multiparty elections. No matter how the people vote, a Democrat always wins.
The real election is thus actually a selection, where candidates are chosen[1] before the primary in a smoke-filled room by the Party. And around the time one-party control was consolidated in the early 2010s, governance started to dramatically worsen, and California's growth rate suddenly leveled off:
Now more than one million citizens have fled[2] the once-Golden state for other locales, voting with their feet because they’ve been stripped of the ability to substantively vote with their ballot.
ONE PARTY "DEMOCRACY"
California illustrates the gap between deed and word. Consider that Democrats managed to (a) build a one-party state that (b) a million people fled while (c) holding faux “elections” that a Party member always won whilst also (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic!
This unmistakably resembles China. They've also (a) built a one-party state which (b) millions of people fled that (c) holds faux “elections" where a Communist Party member always wins while (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic[3,4].
There are other similarities, too.
Democrats ruthlessly censor internet speech, just like Communists. Democrats use the state as a battering ram against tech companies, just like Communists. Democrats tax citizens and hand the resulting funds to Party affiliates, just like Communists. Democrats encourage loyalists to move to contested territories to strengthen political control, just like Communists. Democrats funded gain-of function research, just like Communists. And most ominously, Democrats are now persecuting their political opponents on trumped up charges — just like Communists[5-16].
This is no small thing. When Communists talk about "communism", what they mean is rule by the Communist Party. And when Democrats talk about “democracy”, what they mean is rule by the Democrat Party. California is their desired end state — where blues never lose.
Now, let’s handle the objections.
FOR CHOICE...BUT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC CHOICE
The first objection is that Republicans do it too. Look at all the red trifectas, as per the quoted tweet[17]! But this argument fails on three counts.
1) First, when Republicans overturned Roe, Democrats affirmed reproductive choice at the state level[18]. They didn’t just copy Republicans — they did something different. So if Democrats actually believed in democratic choice, they would affirm competitive multiparty elections in their states even if Republicans pursued the opposite policy. They aren’t doing that. Which means Democrats genuinely believe in reproductive choice, but not democratic choice.
2) Second, Democrat control of blue states is much stronger than Republican control of red states. For example, even within a “Republican stronghold” like Texas, Austin is a deep blue city. There is no equivalent of red cities within blue states[19]. This alone means blues have significant political power within red territory, but not vice versa.
3) Third, Democrat control of national institutions — both elected and unelected — is overwhelming. As the graphs show, Democrats control academia[20], media[21], US government agencies[22], and even 70%+ of GDP[23]. In the language of diversity, Republicans are vastly underrepresented. They’re not even close to 50/50.
So: Democrats have more control at the national level, more control within red states, and total control within their own blue states — yet have not used that control to restore democratic choice.
Actions speak louder than words.
NO COMPETITION = FAUX ELECTION
The second objection is that no really — Republicans do it too! They have one-party states, so Democrats are justified in having the same thing. You can’t expect Democrats to enable other parties to not just run, but win. That’s not in their political interest. And it’ll weaken the Democrat Party!
And now we get to the nub of the issue. Communists also have one-party states. Does it then follow that Democrats should have them too?
Because the whole theory of why democracy is supposed to be superior to communism is that it provides real alternatives, real feedback. Just like capitalism provides choice in the market, democracy provides choice in the electorate[24]. So if you actually believed in democracy, you’d believe alternation of power strengthens society in a way one-party control never would. And you’d hold competitive one-party elections even if the other guy didn’t, because it makes your society stronger.
This gives the game away. We know Democrats do not believe in democracy, because they’ve ended competitive multiparty elections in the states they control. Unless other parties are routinely taking political power, it is not a democracy.
VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO
The last objection is around motive: ok, but why would Democrats destroy democracy?
It’s simple: once blues gain total control, they begin funneling tax dollars to Democrat affiliates. This is how you get a $100B train in California where no train is built but Democrat unions get paid[25]. And this is how the homeless industrial complex makes money[26], by getting people addicted to drugs and then getting paid by the size of the problem:
This is also how BLM burned down black businesses while lining blue pockets[27], and why student loan relief goes to Democrat voters[28], and in general why so much public money produces so little today in the way of public goods[29].
This, in short, is the blue business model. The purpose of the blue political machine is to fleece Americans while enriching Democrat loyalists.
However, they can only pull off this scam with total one-party control. Outside eyes would stop the gravy train. And that's how you get “vote blue, no matter who[30].”
"Vote blue no matter who" came out of the mouths of Democratic presidential candidates[31]. It's a straightforward rejection of democracy as ideology in favor of Democrat tribalism. All that matters is that blue tribe gains power, so blues can get paid.
Of course, not all blues get paid! Only the connected ones do, political consultants and union bosses and key interest groups and the like. Many blues pull the lever without getting the cheddar. They fall for the marketing.
After all, remember how much blue people pretended to care about black people in 2020, and how little they spoke about them afterwards? “Democracy” serves a similar role for the Party in 2024. It's just a marketing slogan, and can be discarded like BLM once it’s no longer useful.
Look how they pumped and dumped Ibram Kendi[31]. After the election, the Party can easily flip from declaiming for democracy to decrying populism, as it has before.
THE FUTURE
In short, if Democrats actually believed in competitive multiparty elections, they'd pursue them regardless of what others did. All their rhetoric revolves around democracy as stated principle, but in blue states where they have total power they've ended it in practice. The obvious reason for this is graft and tribalism: vote blue, no matter who.
It is only a matter of time before Democrats scale what they've done in blue cities and states to the federal level. That's certainly the goal. And it returns us to the original question.
Given that blues now unapologetically reject competitive multiparty elections at the state level in favor of faux contests that their Party always wins...given that they've created electorally unaccountable governments that steal billions from their citizens...given that California and China have both built one-party states...what might the future of blue governance look like?
It sure ain't multiparty democracy.
What it looks like is an exercise for the reader.
![balajis's tweet photo. CALIFORNIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
California is not a democracy. It’s a one-party state.
Because California Democrats do not hold competitive multiparty elections. No matter how the people vote, a Democrat always wins.
The real election is thus actually a selection, where candidates are chosen[1] before the primary in a smoke-filled room by the Party. And around the time one-party control was consolidated in the early 2010s, governance started to dramatically worsen, and California's growth rate suddenly leveled off:
Now more than one million citizens have fled[2] the once-Golden state for other locales, voting with their feet because they’ve been stripped of the ability to substantively vote with their ballot.
ONE PARTY "DEMOCRACY"
California illustrates the gap between deed and word. Consider that Democrats managed to (a) build a one-party state that (b) a million people fled while (c) holding faux “elections” that a Party member always won whilst also (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic!
This unmistakably resembles China. They've also (a) built a one-party state which (b) millions of people fled that (c) holds faux “elections" where a Communist Party member always wins while (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic[3,4].
There are other similarities, too.
Democrats ruthlessly censor internet speech, just like Communists. Democrats use the state as a battering ram against tech companies, just like Communists. Democrats tax citizens and hand the resulting funds to Party affiliates, just like Communists. Democrats encourage loyalists to move to contested territories to strengthen political control, just like Communists. Democrats funded gain-of function research, just like Communists. And most ominously, Democrats are now persecuting their political opponents on trumped up charges — just like Communists[5-16].
This is no small thing. When Communists talk about "communism", what they mean is rule by the Communist Party. And when Democrats talk about “democracy”, what they mean is rule by the Democrat Party. California is their desired end state — where blues never lose.
Now, let’s handle the objections.
FOR CHOICE...BUT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC CHOICE
The first objection is that Republicans do it too. Look at all the red trifectas, as per the quoted tweet[17]! But this argument fails on three counts.
1) First, when Republicans overturned Roe, Democrats affirmed reproductive choice at the state level[18]. They didn’t just copy Republicans — they did something different. So if Democrats actually believed in democratic choice, they would affirm competitive multiparty elections in their states even if Republicans pursued the opposite policy. They aren’t doing that. Which means Democrats genuinely believe in reproductive choice, but not democratic choice.
2) Second, Democrat control of blue states is much stronger than Republican control of red states. For example, even within a “Republican stronghold” like Texas, Austin is a deep blue city. There is no equivalent of red cities within blue states[19]. This alone means blues have significant political power within red territory, but not vice versa.
3) Third, Democrat control of national institutions — both elected and unelected — is overwhelming. As the graphs show, Democrats control academia[20], media[21], US government agencies[22], and even 70%+ of GDP[23]. In the language of diversity, Republicans are vastly underrepresented. They’re not even close to 50/50.
So: Democrats have more control at the national level, more control within red states, and total control within their own blue states — yet have not used that control to restore democratic choice.
Actions speak louder than words.
NO COMPETITION = FAUX ELECTION
The second objection is that no really — Republicans do it too! They have one-party states, so Democrats are justified in having the same thing. You can’t expect Democrats to enable other parties to not just run, but win. That’s not in their political interest. And it’ll weaken the Democrat Party!
And now we get to the nub of the issue. Communists also have one-party states. Does it then follow that Democrats should have them too?
Because the whole theory of why democracy is supposed to be superior to communism is that it provides real alternatives, real feedback. Just like capitalism provides choice in the market, democracy provides choice in the electorate[24]. So if you actually believed in democracy, you’d believe alternation of power strengthens society in a way one-party control never would. And you’d hold competitive one-party elections even if the other guy didn’t, because it makes your society stronger.
This gives the game away. We know Democrats do not believe in democracy, because they’ve ended competitive multiparty elections in the states they control. Unless other parties are routinely taking political power, it is not a democracy.
VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO
The last objection is around motive: ok, but why would Democrats destroy democracy?
It’s simple: once blues gain total control, they begin funneling tax dollars to Democrat affiliates. This is how you get a $100B train in California where no train is built but Democrat unions get paid[25]. And this is how the homeless industrial complex makes money[26], by getting people addicted to drugs and then getting paid by the size of the problem:
This is also how BLM burned down black businesses while lining blue pockets[27], and why student loan relief goes to Democrat voters[28], and in general why so much public money produces so little today in the way of public goods[29].
This, in short, is the blue business model. The purpose of the blue political machine is to fleece Americans while enriching Democrat loyalists.
However, they can only pull off this scam with total one-party control. Outside eyes would stop the gravy train. And that's how you get “vote blue, no matter who[30].”
"Vote blue no matter who" came out of the mouths of Democratic presidential candidates[31]. It's a straightforward rejection of democracy as ideology in favor of Democrat tribalism. All that matters is that blue tribe gains power, so blues can get paid.
Of course, not all blues get paid! Only the connected ones do, political consultants and union bosses and key interest groups and the like. Many blues pull the lever without getting the cheddar. They fall for the marketing.
After all, remember how much blue people pretended to care about black people in 2020, and how little they spoke about them afterwards? “Democracy” serves a similar role for the Party in 2024. It's just a marketing slogan, and can be discarded like BLM once it’s no longer useful.
Look how they pumped and dumped Ibram Kendi[31]. After the election, the Party can easily flip from declaiming for democracy to decrying populism, as it has before.
THE FUTURE
In short, if Democrats actually believed in competitive multiparty elections, they'd pursue them regardless of what others did. All their rhetoric revolves around democracy as stated principle, but in blue states where they have total power they've ended it in practice. The obvious reason for this is graft and tribalism: vote blue, no matter who.
It is only a matter of time before Democrats scale what they've done in blue cities and states to the federal level. That's certainly the goal. And it returns us to the original question.
Given that blues now unapologetically reject competitive multiparty elections at the state level in favor of faux contests that their Party always wins...given that they've created electorally unaccountable governments that steal billions from their citizens...given that California and China have both built one-party states...what might the future of blue governance look like?
It sure ain't multiparty democracy.
What it looks like is an exercise for the reader.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPp1y88bsAA7Ayq.jpg)
@CryptoKaleo At this point it might even be depression
@Fattiesmalls Such a dope song! 🔥🔥I came across your tweet by typing in those lyrics. No where can tell me the name of the song or who it’s by! Do you know?
@CryptoKaleo Didn’t Kevin O’Leary say he would give him a second chance? Because I’m really struggling to understand that
Who to follow
@PiCoreTeam Hi please enable referral/username updates. I want to onboard people from my crypto communities without doxxing myself. Also wouldn’t want to lose all the pi I’ve earned on current wallet. So please let us change our names
@PiCoreTeam Please can you enable username/ referral name change? I’ve found a way to onboard a good few crypto users but my username can just about be linked to my identity so I really need to change before referring pioneers. Plus I don’t want to get another account and lose my balance
1/ On How Short Life Is
A few years ago, I was walking around in a blizzard in SoHo (New York). It was late, midnight, and it was beautiful.
Some friends, about 15 blocks away, called: "come over?"
It was late, it was cold, was tired, thought "maybe not worth it" but then...
@grillbearZ @cryptotea @stablekwon That’s not the real Do Kwon. Look at the tag and amount of followers
@jakeprior88 Done ✔️
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.9M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
111.7M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.9M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.1M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
88.3M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.1M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.7M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.9M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.1M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.2M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63.7M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61.3M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers