The only difference between the Russian and US system is that instead of having one big party whose interests are entirely separated from the public and which completely crushes any opposition parties, we have two big parties whose interests are entirely separated from the public and which completely crush all opposition parties.
A sham democracy if there ever was one, but that’s because the purpose of indirect democracy is less to decide on policy and more to select a strongman leader that’s most appealing.
The Russian election was “rigged” in that there was only controlled opposition… But this is also not an inherently unique feature. When was the last time a US President was neither Democrat nor Republican?
The US needs ranked choice voting badly, but to say the only difference between the US and Russia is the two party system is just straight up incorrect. Opposition leaders and dissidents do not get regularly assassinated by the government in the US for starters.
Opposition leaders and dissidents do not get regularly assassinated by the government in the US for starters.
Currently yes. But Trump’s lawyers have argued in court that the President can’t be found guilty of any crimes, including assassination of political rivals.
The US president can still be held accountable though. Russia doesn’t habe such checks and balances. The russian president can veto over the court and can dismiss the legislature or the government. It can even annull rulings by the court. The court and government on the other hand, don’t have such powers over the president. The US court and government do have powers over the president. They can even dismiss the president.
The USs system is problematic in it’s own right, but it’s far from Russia-problematic.
That’s because none of the opposition leaders are actually threats. They killed plenty of opposition leaders while your parents were alive, though. Martin and Malcom are the two most obvious ones.
But before that, when there was a labor movement, lots of people got killed for being on the wrong side of power.
And finally, the USA doesn’t have a USA out there funding and inculcating opposition leaders, connecting them with spies and mercenaries, and building movements to create a coup.
What opposition leaders? What dissidents?
Two of the top university presidents in the country were taken down after daring to question the common narrative on the conflict in Gaza.
A whistleblower for a government defence contractor was just assassinated in the middle of legal proceedings against that defence contractor.
Whistleblowers are hunted after: Assange is struggling to avoid extradition and Snowden is stuck in Russia after being pressured to leave everywhere else.
Meanwhile, even legitimate presidential candidates like Sanders are given every disadvantage, most notably in terms of (a lack of) funding and superdelegate votes in primaries.
What opposition leaders? What dissidents?
I can’t take you seriously at this point, we have protests here regularly and people speak out against the government like it’s a hobby. To imply otherwise is farcical to say the least.
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Breaks Community Rules
It seems there’s an unspoken community rule against Un-American Activities
Opposition leaders and dissidents do not get regularly assassinated by the government in the US for starters.
Because there’s no need to do it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
The US has done some fucked up shit, no doubt, but that is about messing with foreign countries and has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here: The US internally disappearing and/or killing anyone who speaks out against it.
Personally I’d say score voting would make the most sense. Essentially it works like this, you get a list of parties and you vote them 1-5 on how much you agree with them. This changes the whole dynamics as you now aren’t choosing who will rule, but how much you agree with each party ideologically and forcing you to research on their proposed mandate plans. It also serves as sort of an evaluation of how do you think each party has been addressing the country’s issues before the election.
Mathematically, this may not ensure always the most happiness, but it ensures the least unhappiness compared to all current known voting methods (you can easily find research on how this was calculated in many papers on mathematics).
Personally i would also propose returning to the old Roman and the first proposed French republic system of having 2-3 consuls of the most voted for parties and they take turns proposing legislation to a senate that’s a direct seated representation of the voting results.
As an interesting tidbit, the reason we have a president/prime Minister with all the power in most western democracies, is because Napoleon altered the original proposed 3 consul system into a prime consul with all the power then minor ministers because he was aiming to become Emperor and wanted to centralize the power. Our democratic systems are strongly influenced by the first French republic post the French revolution.
the most voted for parties
Simple ‘first past the post’ systems like they have in the US are flawed. The biggest problem is that clones (candidates or parties with similar positions) split the vote. For example, suppose 10% of the population wants Evil Dictator, but the other other 90% each want one of 18 different candidates as their first preference, evenly divided on first preferences (so 5% on first preferences), but rank any of the other 17 higher than Evil Dictator. So Evil Dictator has 10% of first preferences, but is the last preference for 90% of the population. The other candidates have 5% each.
First Past the Post would elect Evil Dictator in this circumstance. Better electoral systems (e.g. the Schulze method) would elect one of the other candidates.
This applies still if you elect a plurality of people - e.g. there could be two Evil Dictators, who 90% of the public oppose, but who have the highest vote because there are fewer of them to split the vote. Better systems like the better STV variants ensure proportionality (it avoids a landslide where the same voters determine all the representatives in a winner takes all approach). A larger parliament means more representation of the perspective of smaller minorities - so they are at least heard.
A “score” based voting system, if it is just a ranking of parties, could work like this. But if you are suggesting adding up the votes (so, for example, a 5 is worth 5x as much as a 1), the problem is tactical voting. People will, in practice, vote to make their vote count them most.
Let’s say, for example, there are three candidates, Racist Evil Dictator, Racist, and Progressive. Let’s say we know for granted almost everyone is going to score Racist Evil Dictator as 1. If a progressive was voting honestly, they might vote Progressive as a 5, and apart from the racism Racist might have been doing well, so they’d get a 3. The racist supporters, however, if they were being honest, would give Racist a 5 and Progressives a 3. Let’s say there are 1000 progressive voters, and 600 racist voters. If voting honestly, the scores would be Progressive = 5 * 1000 + 3 * 600 = 6800, Racist = 5 * 600 + 3 * 1000 = 6000, Racist Dictator = 1 * 1600 = 1600. Now the problem is, you can’t really get people to vote honestly. So let’s say Racist riles up their followers to instead vote Progressive as a 1 to, even if they don’t really think that. Now the scores are Progressive = 5 * 1000 + 1 * 600 = 5600, Racist = 5 * 600 + 3 * 1000 = 6000. Racist wins.
In practice, when a system allows people to vote tactically and have an advantage, it becomes a race to the bottom. That’s how you end up with dynamics like the two-party system. A good voting system works by removing incentives to vote tactically - if you put your true preferences down, you will not be disadvantaged in your influence on the election, even if other people attempt to vote tactically. That means that genuine third parties have a chance if the people like them, even in the absence of coordination.
The Russian election was “rigged” in that there was only controlled opposition
No, it was rigged in that there was election fraud.
In the same way every election in the US was due to “election fraud”?
If election fraud is so easy, maybe democracy isn’t that great a deal…
The results of the US elections at the presidential level are not due to election fraud though so you do not really have a point.
US politics is absolutely retarded but at least you aren’t going to fall out of a window for criticizing the president.
No, but if you blow the whistle on a US company you might end up suicided.
Oh yea, true but that less about politics and more about capitalist creed. The US also has a police system that seemingly runs on the ritual sacrifice of innumerable black folk and pets but that is also not relevant.
“election”
I love how all the western polling in Russia before the election shows that Putin has over 80% approval, and now all the western media acts like it’s shocking that he got around that in the election. For example, here’s an example from CNN just a few days ago
But Putin undoubtedly has reaped the rewards of a political landscape tilted dramatically in his favor. The Levada Center, a non-governmental polling organization, consistently reports Putin’s approval rating at over 80% – an eye-popping figure virtually unknown among Western politicians, and a substantial increase on the three-year period before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/europe/putin-russia-election-explainer-update-intl/index.html
Absolute clown shit.
I don’t think anyone is acting like it’s shocking. On the contrary, it’s exactly what everyone expected so it’s not a surprise. After all, he’s been Russia’s President for 21 of the past 25 years.
The whole context for this thread is a BBC article throwing shade on the Russian elections.
It’s not hard to get the majority of votes when the real opposition is in jail or dead
I couldn’t get 88% of people to agree on which day of the week it was, much less who should be president.
Lol, I think that nobody outside of Russia has any belief that this was a free and fair election. I mean, even if you don’t count that Putin imprisoned his political ally and killed him.
GOP is just jealous because they have a hard time trying to pull off the same stunt in the US
