• AbsentBird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It seems to me like the two versions aren’t mutually exclusive. A better voting system that allows for more parties would undoubtedly lead to more parties winning votes, but such a reform would also run against the interests of the ruling class.

    I mean, there’s many nations with more than two parties, including progressive parties, but I don’t see a reason why that’s more in line with the ruling class there than here.

    It’s not so much about blame to my mind than it is about the way systems feed into each other.

    However you slice it, whatever prior conditions you see as most important, replacing the republican party with one left of democrats would be a huge improvement.

    • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I understand why you see things that way because you’re a liberal and not a Marxist. Reform makes sense if you come at these problems from the perspective of liberalism. The problem is that the it really isn’t an issue of systems feeding into each other - it is the system- liberal democracy and who controls and why it exists in the first place that’s the issue.

      You bring up good questions about why liberal democracy looks different in Europe than the US. There are a lot of reasons for that, but what matters is that liberal democracy performs exactly the same function in Europe as it does in the US. It doesn’t matter if theres one party or twelve, ranked choice or first past the post. I’m not argueing that one or the other isn’t better, i just don’t think it matters whether the system of bourgeois rule is slightly better or not.