Comparing voting systems

[lazzadesilva]

<Split from "Biden presidency and 2024 election campaign" thread>

Would you prefer a fascist dictatorship (Trump) or to be obliterated in a nuclear holocaust (biden)?
That is the choice that American voters are being offered.

No, they are offered other choices but realistically, they want only two.

[Magpietothemax]

No, they are offered other choices but realistically, they want only two.

That is not true. The two major parties have a stranglehold over capitalist politics in the US, similar to here in Australia with Labor and Liberal. This is the way that the ruling elite enforces its policies to defend its wealth: the vast majority of the population are given a choice of two evils, and nothing else. Danger arises for the ruling elite when the working class understands this, and becomes conscious that it must abolish the entire corrupt set up.

[lazzadesilva]

^^^^

Confused

[David]

America doesn’t have a preferential voting system, so any vote for a third party is little more than a protest vote. Anyone who is unhappy with Biden but thinks Trump is worse (for example) has no option but to vote for Biden, because if they vote for a third party like the US Greens, they’re helping Trump by giving one less vote to his opponent.

Thankfully our system is different and we can (and should) vote for minor parties without fear of helping the other side.

[Magpietothemax]

^It is actually the same here because once in Parliament the Greens simply seek out an alliance with another major party, usually Labor. They posture as opponents on a few issues, and then amidst various degrees of horsetrading extract minor concessions on small issues from (usually) Labor, and proclaim such concessions as "proof" that they (the Greens) represent an "alternative". They then endorse the policies of the major party, and everything proceeds as usual. Their opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza is a case in point. They posture as opponents and make various critical speeches inside and outside Parliament, but what objectively has happened? Precisely, nothing.
The Gaza genocide continues unabated, the massive opposition that exists in broader society finds no practical expression, and the Greens continue to collaborate with genocide endorser Albanese on every other issue, because endorsing genocide afterall should not get in the way of everyday politics (!!)

[stui magpie]

America doesn’t have a preferential voting system, so any vote for a third party is little more than a protest vote. Anyone who is unhappy with Biden but thinks Trump is worse (for example) has no option but to vote for Biden, because if they vote for a third party like the US Greens, they’re helping Trump by giving one less vote to his opponent.

Thankfully our system is different and we can (and should) vote for minor parties without fear of helping the other side.

The US has another choice, just don't vote if you don't like either of the candidates.

[David]

^It is actually the same here because once in Parliament the Greens simply seek out an alliance with another major party, usually Labor. They posture as opponents on a few issues, and then amidst various degrees of horsetrading extract minor concessions on small issues from (usually) Labor, and proclaim such concessions as "proof" that they (the Greens) represent an "alternative". They then endorse the policies of the major party, and everything proceeds as usual. Their opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza is a case in point. They posture as opponents and make various critical speeches inside and outside Parliament, but what objectively has happened? Precisely, nothing.
The Gaza genocide continues unabated, the massive opposition that exists in broader society finds no practical expression, and the Greens continue to collaborate with genocide endorser Albanese on every other issue, because endorsing genocide afterall should not get in the way of everyday politics (!!)

What do you expect them to do, though? Ultimately they are a minor party, and if the major parties team up together on an issue then they have little leverage, and there's little they can do but make speeches.

I'm not sure what more you think (for instance) Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle could have done in 2003 other than heckling George W Bush while he was addressing parliament, which at least took courage and signalled that there were people in this country willing to dissent from elite opinion on the invasion of Iraq. Likewise, Greens MPs and senators are holding the current government accountable in the limited form of political debate on the floor of parliament, which in turn (we hope) bleeds progressive support from Labor and reminds voters that there is another option.

If you have a better tactical suggestion that would actually aid opposition to the war rather than merely self-marginalising (as, say, Sinn Fein have historically done by refusing to take their seats in parliament), I'd like to hear it.

[stui magpie]

^

If he actually believes the rubbish he posts, he expects that the "workers" will eventually rise up, strike down the current system and install his untried version of socialism.

[Magpietothemax]

What do you expect them to do, though? Ultimately they are a minor party, and if the major parties team up together on an issue then they have little leverage, and there's little they can do but make speeches.

I'm not sure what more you think (for instance) Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle could have done in 2003 other than heckling George W Bush while he was addressing parliament, which at least took courage and signalled that there were people in this country willing to dissent from elite opinion on the invasion of Iraq. Likewise, Greens MPs and senators are holding the current government accountable in the limited form of political debate on the floor of parliament, which in turn (we hope) bleeds progressive support from Labor and reminds voters that there is another option.

If you have a better tactical suggestion that would actually aid opposition to the war rather than merely self-marginalising (as, say, Sinn Fein have historically done by refusing to take their seats in parliament), I'd like to hear it.

I don't expect them to do anything other than what they are doing, because they are capitalist politicians and they defend the status quo. I am simply pointing out the futility of achieving any kind of meaningful social justice, let alone stopping genocide, through parliamentary politics.

[Magpietothemax]

^

If he actually believes the rubbish he posts, he expects that the "workers" will eventually rise up, strike down the current system and install his untried version of socialism.

Well at least you've understood something.

[David]

What do you expect them to do, though? Ultimately they are a minor party, and if the major parties team up together on an issue then they have little leverage, and there's little they can do but make speeches.

I'm not sure what more you think (for instance) Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle could have done in 2003 other than heckling George W Bush while he was addressing parliament, which at least took courage and signalled that there were people in this country willing to dissent from elite opinion on the invasion of Iraq. Likewise, Greens MPs and senators are holding the current government accountable in the limited form of political debate on the floor of parliament, which in turn (we hope) bleeds progressive support from Labor and reminds voters that there is another option.

If you have a better tactical suggestion that would actually aid opposition to the war rather than merely self-marginalising (as, say, Sinn Fein have historically done by refusing to take their seats in parliament), I'd like to hear it.

I don't expect them to do anything other than what they are doing, because they are capitalist politicians and they defend the status quo. I am simply pointing out the futility of achieving any kind of meaningful social justice, let alone stopping genocide, through parliamentary politics.

It's more effective than the alternative, isn't it? We've had telephone-box-sized socialist groups (including the SEP and its predecessors) in Australia for at least fifty years. Can you remind me of the societal changes they've wrought? At least the Greens have been able to exercise some leverage from time to time and provide a voice for those who oppose the capitalist status quo.

At my most pessimistic I could concede that both approaches have been equally futile. But at least parliamentary politics has some kind of road map. Western revolutionary leftism is sitting idly at the bus stop, and if I lived long enough I wouldn't be surprised to still find it there in 500 years.

[pietillidie]

^Like any good religion, its primary function is to make its adherents feel superior and efficacious, even as they have zero or a negative real-world impact. It's effectively a kind of self-esteem freeloading.

I understand how it attracts people, but getting counselling would be a far more responsible and self-aware response to deficits of self, surely.

[Magpietothemax]

It's more effective than the alternative, isn't it? We've had telephone-box-sized socialist groups (including the SEP and its predecessors) in Australia for at least fifty years. Can you remind me of the societal changes they've wrought? At least the Greens have been able to exercise some leverage from time to time and provide a voice for those who oppose the capitalist status quo.

At my most pessimistic I could concede that both approaches have been equally futile. But at least parliamentary politics has some kind of road map. Western revolutionary leftism is sitting idly at the bus stop, and if I lived long enough I wouldn't be surprised to still find it there in 500 years.

"Telephone box socialist parties" ? In 1915 the revolutionary internationalists found themselves in a tiny minority. Lenin wroteat the time, that all the socialist internationalists in the world could have fitted into 4 stagecoaches, ie the equivalent of a "telephone box socialist party". Yet 2 years later, the Bolshevik Party had tens of thousands of members and led a mass movement in the working class which overthrew capitalism in Russia, sweeping away the pro-imperialist Provisional government and establishing a proletarian government.
I can already here StuiM interjecting: "..yeah, and look what happened to that first workers state, socialism has failed etc, etc". That is another issue which demands serious historical study. However, the point that I am making here is that those who believe "telephone box socialist parties" are condemned to remain telephone box size forever are proven wrong by history itself.

[Skids]

America doesn’t have a preferential voting system, so any vote for a third party is little more than a protest vote. Anyone who is unhappy with Biden but thinks Trump is worse (for example) has no option but to vote for Biden, because if they vote for a third party like the US Greens, they’re helping Trump by giving one less vote to his opponent.

Thankfully our system is different and we can (and should) vote for minor parties without fear of helping the other side.

Yet our ALP was voted in with just 32.5% of the primary vote, more than 3% behind the coalition vote (35.7%).

7 out of 10 voters didn't vote for the eventual government. 4.7 million voted for them, 10.3 million didn't.

[stui magpie]

It's more effective than the alternative, isn't it? We've had telephone-box-sized socialist groups (including the SEP and its predecessors) in Australia for at least fifty years. Can you remind me of the societal changes they've wrought? At least the Greens have been able to exercise some leverage from time to time and provide a voice for those who oppose the capitalist status quo.

At my most pessimistic I could concede that both approaches have been equally futile. But at least parliamentary politics has some kind of road map. Western revolutionary leftism is sitting idly at the bus stop, and if I lived long enough I wouldn't be surprised to still find it there in 500 years.

"Telephone box socialist parties" ? In 1915 the revolutionary internationalists found themselves in a tiny minority. Lenin wroteat the time, that all the socialist internationalists in the world could have fitted into 4 stagecoaches, ie the equivalent of a "telephone box socialist party". Yet 2 years later, the Bolshevik Party had tens of thousands of members and led a mass movement in the working class which overthrew capitalism in Russia, sweeping away the pro-imperialist Provisional government and establishing a proletarian government.
I can already here StuiM interjecting: "..yeah, and look what happened to that first workers state, socialism has failed etc, etc". That is another issue which demands serious historical study. However, the point that I am making here is that those who believe "telephone box socialist parties" are condemned to remain telephone box size forever are proven wrong by history itself.

Since you called, keep dreaming darl.

What happened in Russia was over 100 years ago and the masses were conned. They overthrew the monarchy only to go into something worse. How France and England handled their monarchies are clearly different but each had better results for the people.

If you genuinely think that there's going to be some anti-capitalsim socialst revolution in Australia then I humbly suggest that psychiatric help and medication may be required cos it just aint happening. For the population to rise up and take down the rulers requires conditions that just don't exist here