• KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 day ago

    Pretty sure America is the most obvious place this would be referencing.

    It has to be a FPTP country, and it has to be a country with so few possible parties that the choices are bad or worse. Not to mention it has to be a country with free and fair elections.

    How many countries fit that bill?

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      Elections in the US are far removed from free and fair, especially now we’re past Louisiana v. Callais and SCOTUS can and will veto any efforts by Congress to reform them.

      • Triasha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        SCoTUS has neither a military nor a law enforcement arm. With enough political will there is nothing they can do to stop court reform.

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Ellie Mystal pointed out that was a risk of civil war: If congress were to strip SCOTUS of jurisdiction (no longer decides what is Constitutional or not) and the court then responds by saying that law is unconstitutional, the blue states side with Congress while the red states side with the Court, and we have a crisis that cannot be resolved by institutional procedure.

          Personally, I’d like to see more of They’ve made their ruling, now let them enforce it. But as we recently saw with the Virginia redistricting referendum, their governor obeyed in advance.

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            That’s possible, but the US doesn’t have the institutional capacity for civil war. I think that while the possibility of violence is high, actual civil conflict is low.

            • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Civil war will certainly not look like the first one with battle lines, though if we see an interstate conflict, we might see fights over strategic points. The experts I’ve read suggest there would be flash strikes coordinated the way that flash mobs are, only armed.

              We certainly have enough firearms to make for a bloody mess.

              • Triasha@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                Sure, but only paralysis or a split of the US military would leave the result in doubt. There just isn’t any group or organization with the capacity to rival the military, or even law enforcement really.

                • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 hours ago

                  You’re assuming that the military would willingly be deployed in the US against civilians. While that has happened with various state National Guard reserves, it is not legal when it comes to the other branches.

                  This is not to say they won’t given that plenty of flag officers have been replaced with MAGA loyalists, but doing so would destroy unit cohesion and would risk mutiny. More likely, so long as the US military remains professional (and not conscripts), they’re likely to respond via malicious compliance, much the way parade discipline was lacking during Trump’s birthday parade in 2025.

                  I’m not in the service, but I’ve heard from many veterans that an attempt to deploy the armed services against US civilians, or to engage in law enforcement action would cause far more problems than it would solve. This is why, when Trump has deployed the Marines on US soil, their duties have been limited to protecting federal buildings and not engaging with civilians, assisting ICE or controlling crowds.

                  • Triasha@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 hours ago

                    I don’t think the organizational capacity exists to be a threat to law enforcement or local or state government.

                    If there were, I suspect attitudes of the military toward domestic deployment would change.

                    If, for example, militias succeeded at kidnapping plots against several state governors like the michigan plot against slotkin. Anything that could cridibly be labeled civil war would invite intervention by the military.

                    Basically there is a huge hill to climb to get to something that could be called a civil war that seems deeply implausible.