They didn’t vote for parties. Elections happened at a local level where people knew candidates personally. Elected local councils (‘soviets’) would then elect members to higher councils in a ‘tiered’ system, all the way up to the supreme soviet.
A good-faith criticism of this model might be that it has a high degree of inertia, in that it may respond slowly to sudden changes in popular opinion.
So the Bolsheviks weren’t the dominant party that eliminated all the others after they won the Civil War?
And remind me what happened to public figures who spoke against the premier in any way? I’m sure nobody complained because they loved the government so much that they’d never say a bad word about it…
Yes, that’s right. The point I’m making is that elections worked very differently to the party politics people are used to, with an emphasis on people personally knowing their representatives. To the average voter, the bolshevik party wasn’t very relevant when they were choosing between two guys who lived on their street.
I think, there were some more events, and maybe they involved elections, too. And after that all the other parties were eliminated, because it turned out that it’s easier to rule when there’s no other options
I’ve never seen anyone arguing more for their own oppression than you. Multiple parties is completely undemocratic, which is the authoritarian government you claim single party countries have.
There are NO parties if you have a representative government. Instead of arguing you could just say you have no clue how any of this works but you are open to learning.
The purpose of a system is its outcome. If the elections only ever produced comically landslide victories for the ruling party, then that is a guarantee of a sham election.
Even if you assume every Soviet voter was a full-on true believer Communist, you would still never have such outcomes in fair elections. You would end up with multiple communist parties, each practicing a slightly different flavor of communism, vying for the vote.
Any voting system where the ruling party endlessly wins overwhelming victories is guaranteed corrupt and a sham.
The working class was able to vote in election once the Tsars were removed, and the ballot extended to the bourgeoisie and land owners in 1937
Remind me how many parties they could vote for?
They didn’t vote for parties. Elections happened at a local level where people knew candidates personally. Elected local councils (‘soviets’) would then elect members to higher councils in a ‘tiered’ system, all the way up to the supreme soviet.
A good-faith criticism of this model might be that it has a high degree of inertia, in that it may respond slowly to sudden changes in popular opinion.
So the Bolsheviks weren’t the dominant party that eliminated all the others after they won the Civil War?
And remind me what happened to public figures who spoke against the premier in any way? I’m sure nobody complained because they loved the government so much that they’d never say a bad word about it…
Yes, that’s right. The point I’m making is that elections worked very differently to the party politics people are used to, with an emphasis on people personally knowing their representatives. To the average voter, the bolshevik party wasn’t very relevant when they were choosing between two guys who lived on their street.
And what happened when those representatives disagreed with the inner circle?
They in turn elected candidates to put forth their disagreement
Again, what happened to high-ranking politicians who openly expressed disagreement with the premier and his cabinet?
Could you cite some specific examples of what you lre talking about?
I think, there were some more events, and maybe they involved elections, too. And after that all the other parties were eliminated, because it turned out that it’s easier to rule when there’s no other options
Because eliminating representatives who might disagree with you is much more democratic than allowing a multiple party system.
I’ve never seen anyone arguing more for their own oppression than you. Multiple parties is completely undemocratic, which is the authoritarian government you claim single party countries have.
So why is having one party better?
There are NO parties if you have a representative government. Instead of arguing you could just say you have no clue how any of this works but you are open to learning.
So why did the USSR have one?
They had central organizing committees. They did not have parties. You seem to keep doubling down on your ignorance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state?wprov=sfla1
The purpose of a system is its outcome. If the elections only ever produced comically landslide victories for the ruling party, then that is a guarantee of a sham election.
Even if you assume every Soviet voter was a full-on true believer Communist, you would still never have such outcomes in fair elections. You would end up with multiple communist parties, each practicing a slightly different flavor of communism, vying for the vote.
Any voting system where the ruling party endlessly wins overwhelming victories is guaranteed corrupt and a sham.