Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

There's a considerable lack of alternative political force in Russia that doesn't suck major donkey balls.

There's a reason for that...

It's sad how people talk about change but dont even consider that it might come from the ballot box.

[Comrade P.]

You know, that is the thing that bugs me about democracy.

IF we assume the following:
1) There is no Ultimate Problem Solving Party;
2) Each party has a set of problems it can deal with, list of problems it doesn't care about and a list of problems it creates while in power;

The democracy only allows to change the set of current problems, giving an illusion of power to people while actually keeping it to those who people delegated it.

Point 2 isn't valid, as parties are made up of individuals with different skills and focuses, and "problem solving" as a set isn't well defined. Further, the statement can be made more readily about autocracy, as the permanence of a singular political order means that specific problems that are not seen as problems by the regime or outside context issues will both go either unaddressed or be addressed badly.

Well, the set of problems that can be solved by a group of individuals is quite defined by the skills possessed by said individuals, isn't it?
What you say about autocracy is quite right. Given that the set of problems that are not considered as problems by regime is strictly defined, people can form a common front while confronting governmental position rather than having a dispute among themselves about interests of different parties, which keeps them from doing so. And autocracy, if it wants to stay in power after confronting the people, has to perform reforms.

There's a considerable lack of alternative political force in Russia that doesn't suck major donkey balls.

There's a reason for that...

It's sad how people talk about change but dont even consider that it might come from the ballot box.

Congrats, you made a loop. Do you really believe that a pile of paper changes a thing up there?

[Descan]

Democracy, to me, works best when what is democratic is who decides who oversees which part of governing. I.E. You want someone with your outlook to decide who gets to manage the economics, yes? But it's not really good when you directly elect the Economics Minister.

The GOAL, of course, is so that you have a surrogate in the decision process who shares (enough) of your viewpoint, without needing to rely on everyone voting knowing what makes a good economics minister. Your surrogate vets the various contenders according to that viewpoint that you elected them for, and HOPEFULLY THEY know what makes a good economic minister and can choose accordingly.

Of course, that assumes honest politicians who know anything, so. Uhm. It works in theory?

[Sergarr]

It also requires that people would vote honest politicians into power, which is so not happening even in theory.

The real problem with most politic systems I know of is that politicians dedicated to power grabbing will always outplay and force out the politicians that try to do something in the reality.

It's always more efficient to remove the physical facts out of the scene of politics, as they're the hardest one to change, contrary to social constructs like "popularity". Of course, that defeats the entire purpose of politics, but who cares? Not the politicians themselves, that's for sure.

I'm not even sure if that's fixable...

[mainiac]

Well what the hell do you expect?  If you applaud the people who destroy any democratic institutions there will be no democratic institutions.  You say you dont want it but then you go an support it at the ballot box.

Dictorship in the modern world doesn't work by forcing the majority to do what it hates.  It convinces the majority that the ruling party is the only choice.

[Sergarr]

Well what the hell do you expect?  If you applaud the people who destroy any democratic institutions there will be no democratic institutions.  You say you dont want it but then you go an support it at the ballot box.

Dictorship in the modern world doesn't work by forcing the majority to do what it hates.  It convinces the majority that the ruling party is the only choice.

>_<

People already voted as they wanted in 90s! Guess what that did.

JACK SQUAT IT DID!

There were multiple parties, people voted for them, at one point Yeltzin party had support in the single digits, yet it won the elections anyway!

What the fuck?

[mainiac]

Oh yeah because that's how elections work, you always get exactly what you want and everyone is happy.

[Sergarr]

If that's democracy, then I don't want to live in it.

[mainiac]

Yeah you'd much rather have that without democracy.

[redwallzyl]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

― Winston S. Churchill

[Sheb]

Well, if Yeltsin had approval in the single digit and still won elections, that's not a democracy...

It should be noted that there is a reason there are currently no real alternative in Russia. The opposition has been systematically sabotaged.

[Sergarr]

The most fun part was where the first elections have revealed the KPSS party as the winner, at which point the government annulled the results of the vote and issued a law removing the KPSS party from the list.

[Sheb]

You guys should try democracy once, instead of just slapping the democracy label on something entirely unrelated and deciding you don't like it.

[Darvi]

Tropico best democracy y/y?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Tropico best democracy y/y?

Ha ha ha! Oh no, I'm only joking, you don't really get the illusion of choice, shoot him.