but just because there’s one party doesn’t mean there isn’t debate or democracy within that party. Does anyone here seriously think the electoral discourse would be any worse off in say, the USA, if people had to actually weigh up individual candidates positions and policies, rather than writing “blue = good, red = bad” (or vice versa) on their hand in permanent marker and letting that decide for them for their entire political life?
Multiple parties just devolves into this team sport horse race bullshit
They will, however, jerk themselves off about how Geroge Washington was right about not having political parties, which is somehow different from a single party state.
In the next breath, they will long for the dissolution of the Republican Party. Then in the next breath they will chide the left over one party states, as if the American left were in any position to assume such power.
The US is a one party state. That party is the capitalist part of america. All candidates on both sides are chosen by the capitalist. The american has no more freedom to choose than a child whose parent gives them the choice between peas and broccoli.
The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.
- Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
To be fair, each party represents a different faction of the American ruling class, and those factions are fighting over a shrinking pie. The richest will be fine either way and maintain a good relationship with both parties, but extractive businesses hate the Democrats for good reason and "eco" businesses hate the Republicans. Climate change is causing a schism in the capitalist class we need to take advantage of
i would take a one party state, over the trash multiparty elections in my country, plus in the US the diferences between democrats and republicans are so minimal it might as well be a one party state with competing factions inside it
"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them" - Julius Nyerere
It's never actually about single parties or if it is then the liberals complaints are blindly dogmatic. The US had a one party state for the first half of the 19th century. Mexico was a single party state for the first half of the 20th century (concurrent with the "authoritarian" Bolsheviks). It should be abundantly clear in today's political climate that parties allow room for ideological debate and party politics. It was never about political parties or democracy though, it's about Marxism. Liberals don't want to argue with Marxism on its face because they can't so they take these sorts of workarounds which seem nuanced but are hollow.
As a sidetrack, any time libs cry whataboutism, point out comparative politics is a massive and legitimate field of study that could not exist if whataboutism was actually a fallacy
We have a two party state and it led to total gridlock. There is zero incentive to work with the other party. We live in a failed state.
Would someone familiar with Soviet politics explain -- what was the process like for choosing the party's candidates for any given local or regional position? Did ballots have multiple Communist Party candidates on them, or were they chosen earlier with the election itself just a formality?
it's not as detailed as you seem to want but I do have this infographic
https://i.redd.it/yr81c4n73oa51.png
have you seen the Huang's World episode on Mongolia? That was the first exposure I got to the country as a westerner. It's a hipster cooking show on youtube.
funded
Biden got paid $200k to support that Republican, which is in some ways worse (unless you're talking about another incident where Biden donated money)
One Party + competitive primaries will inevitably devolve into the same condition as Many Parties, as factions within the party become pseudo-parties. That said, both of those sound better than a two-party system.
a 2 party state is better than a 1 party state because 2 is 1 larger than 1.
But a 2 party state is better than a 3 party state because 2's company but 3's a crowd.
