I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. When he failed to become the nominee, I voted for Hillary Clinton. Alas, via the Electoral College, Donald Trump was elected as our President despite a majority of American voters selecting Hillary Clinton. Had Sanders won both and was our President instead of Trump, would he have actually brought about Medicare For All? Well as I said to many friends at the time, by design our President is not a dictator. Medicare For All will become a reality when it is proposed in the House and Senate and passes both, then is signed by the President. Then it must withstand any legal challenges put forth. So... Sanders would not be forcing Medicare For All upon us -- if it happened -- it would be the reflect the will of the people as represented by those we elect. And as early as 2 years of being law it could be repealed. Indeed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would have been repealed during the Trump administration had it not been for late Senator McCain (R-AZ) voting no.

In the 2016 election we learned there was just enough folks who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 who did not cast a similar vote for Hillary Clinton. Had Clinton won we almost certainly would still have Roe v. Wade as law and the MAGA movement would likely have moved on or at least morphed into something else. I'd argue that folks who are sitting on the fence about whether or not to vote for Kamala and Walz because a particular progressive item is not embraced to the extent desired would need to consider where that item will be in a Trump administration.

Growing up JW in Canada I had some awareness of how Canadian elections worked but I never voted. JWs take a neutral stance to politics. As per the JW view this world is under the control of Satan (see Revelation 12:9) and will soon be replaced by a new system after the great tribulation and Armageddon result death of all humans not on Jehovah's side. I.e. JW imagine a new world that begins with just a few million faithful JWs that survive Armageddon.

I left the JW faith in 2007, but still do not vote, because... only in 2010 did we become US citizens. Once I did it was natural for me to compare the two systems and try and decide what my political views were. In Arizona we were given the opportunity to designate a political party upon becoming citizens. This would then allow us to vote in the primary and put us on the voter roles. I selected Democrat.

I don't think one system is superior to the other. I can also see why the electoral college may be needed. If the President won by popular vote alone it would tend to disadvantage voters in rural areas. Of course their advantage now (that includes me now in Vermont, pop 650,000) is the disadvantage of high population states such as California. Power imbalance of the EC pales in comparison to the Senate where us 650,000 get 2 senate votes right along side CA where 60 million also only have 2 votes.

The US can at times enact cross-country mandates but it is much more difficult than Canada. Thus we don't have metric. Same-sex marriage lagged behind Canada for decade. Legal use of marijuana is on a state by state basis. And most recently abortion rights federally was wiped out by a supreme court that does not represent majority of our population (i.e. EC-elected president appoints, Senate approves, both not reflecting popular will). Difficult questions (at the time) such as do states have the right to pass laws making slave own legal or does the constitution forbid it? Was so difficult to resolve that it resulted in civil war.

I have come to believe leaving the British monarchy actually creates an odd ultimate power problem. Both the Canadian and British PMs are viewed as ordinary men and women. They are just ministers of parliament and hold the "prime" status only because they head the party with the most seats. The ultimate unquestioned power in monarchy is the king or queen. Thus King Charles III does not require a driver's license. But... his power is almost entirely symbolic. The prestige of the US Presidency attracts ultimate power seekers. And the power of the US President is unique, different than ordinary members of the house or senate.

I know many admire our senator Bernie Sanders. I do myself. But I'm reminded of the fact our unique system allows him to be outspoken in the way that frankly Mark Kelly of Arizona cannot. Kelly could of course, but if he wants to be elected he has to win the majority of votes in a state of 7.5 million, whereas Sanders only faces 650,000 here in VT.

US free market capitalism has been an incredible driver. I am near positive my salary and retirement savings here in the US have exceeded anything I could have achieved in Canada. And I did find that my ability to do the work is all that mattered. Not having a degree in m field (software engineering) did not ultimately become a barrier. The 401K saving plans here did make me think and act for myself to a great extent than I would have in Canada. I do appreciate the Intel i5 cpu in this little System76 box is a product of American innovation and capitalism at work. I get it. Growth in my 401K too. I get it.

But... the dog-eat-dog meanness is an undertow. The idea of "anyone can make it if they just work hard enough" has a nasty side. There is anger here and it runs deep. And for good reason. The system can and does enslave and sometimes mistreats. The MAGA movement captures the f*ck-you politics along with conspiracy and religious delusions. All products I believe of run-away unregulated market capitalism. Us Democrats asking, once again, to believe in the system, will ring hollow to many. But... what is the alternative? OH MY GOODNESS!!! Not good! So not good. And that is where we are.

Republican, Independent, Democrat, I'd encourage you to register and vote Democrat.

Cheers, -Randy

@Richard let's grant the claim. That is "US federal government is a fully realized fascist entity exclusively serving the needs and whims of the wealthy."

So taking that for granted how would we map it to abortion rights? I ask because it doesn't seem that whimsical. The overturning of Roe v. Wade was a long pursued battle by, it seems to me, the not so wealthy -- Evangelical Christians. Would we say then their passion gets co-opted by a group of wealthy elites? Maybe. But we've also witness a strong push back and several states moving to protect abortion rights. Again, it doesn't seem whimsical.

It does feel like individuals, via democratic voting, can push the system in a direction and no amount of wealthy can stop it. Indeed I see all the political spending as an indication that power actually is with the people.

I've suggested here that given Elon Musk's comments about NPR folks should not use Twitter (now X). Isn't my ability to publicly suggest that an indication that Elon's wealth-power has limits? Is post here a personal choice and display of personal power? I believe it is. And if enough folks agreed with my Twitter/X would cease to exist and now amount of money would change that. Indeed, unless Elon changes direction I believe that is exactly what will happen. Wealth isn't just dollars. It is time and choices and that means we have more power that we might appreciate, although it doesn't always feel that way.

Cheers, -Randy