It can absolutely change if those who are elected are physically removed from their rule-setting positions by the disenfranchised.
Historically, you can’t cure fascism by voting, even in situations where the elections haven’t been compromised.
Historically, you can’t cure fascism by voting, even in situations where the elections haven’t been compromised.
Could you show/explain what kind of data do we have on this? How sure are we of this result?
They try to suppress it because a lot of people do it. The fewer people who vote and their vote doesn’t match the person or group who remains in power, the less crowd control that needs to be carried out with troops and violence after the election, the fewer inconvenient facts about post-election violence that need to be explained away to the supportive base with narratives and lies. Even authoritarians don’t like spending money they don’t have to.
They also try to suppress protest groups of any kind directed at any branch of the state, economic privacy, obtaining arms, private communications systems, and any and all things that might pose any kind of threat, even if only one to their image of legitimacy (such as pepper spraying peaceful protesters if protests get too large).
The election outcome, if favorable to the violent dictatorship, will be publicized widely and attempts to dispute it shut down. If unfavorable, discredited and disregarded, and any protests against it swiftly and violently quashed.
To say American elections are "compromised" is both a gross exaggeration and a Dunning-Krugeresque oversimplification. Gerrymandering is absolutely a problem and needs to be dealt with. It's the primary (no pun intended) reason for the polarization of our elected officials. Having a non-partisan commission determine districts would help, but how to appoint those officials is not a solved problem.
At their outset, revolutions and [domestic] terrorism are usually indistinguishable. The American Revolution was certainly viewed as terrorism by the Crown, whether they had that word for it or not. History is written by the victors, and to a certain extent the worthiness of your cause is determined decades or centuries later by whether or not you were successful.
> you can’t cure fascism by voting
Perhaps advocating was the wrong word but I only see one way to interpret those two statements side-by-side.
https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication/
If and when the time comes to take up violence against the state, you may rest assured that I will not be subtly implying it, I will be shouting it loudly.
Malice is in the eye of the beholder.
Is there any other way to take the comment in question?