What "agency"? Participation in US elections is junk level, politicians openly and routinely 'redistrict' and suppress voting, and the median US citizen is revulsed by the prospect of egalitarian organising.
The current US president is an Idi Amin style autocrat, and the "electorate" is responding by lulling around in the streets with one hand occupied by a live streaming spy device and then getting beaten by cops or cop adjacents.
Are you aware that the current US president won the popular vote? What redistricting and voter suppression came into play in that case?
I'm supposed to conclude from this election that the electorate didn't support the current president?
Your post is really unimpressive. You care about these things yet you need me to provide you the name of progressive politicians? You want to take agency away because of redistricting and voter suppression yet immediately claim that the "median US citizen is revulsed by the prospect of egalitarian organising"? So do they have agency or not? Did the politicians program their revulsion too? Or was that the corporations? Maybe they need to hang out with you for a few weeks to be sufficiently deprogrammed.
I'm sure it will look like many other such ventures in that domain. I can see the people desperately trying to crawl over the walls now as you go into another second paragraph non sequitur.
I think what is clear is you don't believe in democracy. How can you given the obvious contempt you show for the American electorate.
Unlike you I know the difference between someone who doesn't have agency and someone who isn't worth my time. Have a good day.
At best, just a little more than half the electorate voted in that election so I'm not sure what you mean by "popular vote".
For an electorate to have agency it has to be informed, egalitarian and politically organised. None of this holds for the notable usian elections. There are local exceptions of course, but on average usians do not organise politically and loathe those that try. This is why "activist" is an insult in the US and union busting widely tolerated. It is also why the US does not have political parties in the sense other countries have them, i.e. groups of people self organising and making collective decisions.
In the US, elections are commonly bought. Variations on this practice is also exported, and has been an issue for decades, including in Europe where the US has used a little of everything from mafia mediated terrorism to high tech psyops to get their way.
As for the parliamentary practices of the US, issues brought up in those contexts are often treated in a way that is absolutely inscrutable to most voters and in a way more reminiscent of televised game shows than actual democratic deliberation. Recently there was a proposal made but the initial sponsors did a miscount so it actually had a chance to pass, so they suddenly turned around and voted against it. Deceptions like that seem to be everywhere in usian politics.
What "agency"? Participation in US elections is junk level, politicians openly and routinely 'redistrict' and suppress voting, and the median US citizen is revulsed by the prospect of egalitarian organising.
The current US president is an Idi Amin style autocrat, and the "electorate" is responding by lulling around in the streets with one hand occupied by a live streaming spy device and then getting beaten by cops or cop adjacents.