Putin claims landslide in Russian election and scorns US democracy
Putin claims landslide in Russian election and scorns US democracy
Officials give Vladimir Putin 87% of the vote, in an election where no credible opponent could stand.
"election"
I couldn't get 88% of people to agree on which day of the week it was, much less who should be president.
GOP is just jealous because they have a hard time trying to pull off the same stunt in the US
That's literally all this is. He can fix an election and they can't even really pick their own fuckin candidate.
(Don't ask why they won last time despite getting less votes)
As stupid and fucked up the US elections are, that doesn’t give you the right to do something objectively worse. Shit up.
Edit: I decided to not correct that typo.
upward shit fireworks
Hell yeah, embrace the typoo
Insert Tubgirl.flv
If you don't know, I don't know if I'd suggest looking it up.
There is no Democracy in the Untited states... there is a Facade of a Democracy while at BEST it is an Oligarchy.
Democratically elected Republic. But it's more a corporatocracy than an Oligarchy.
The only difference between the Russian and US system is that instead of having one big party whose interests are entirely separated from the public and which completely crushes any opposition parties, we have two big parties whose interests are entirely separated from the public and which completely crush all opposition parties.
A sham democracy if there ever was one, but that's because the purpose of indirect democracy is less to decide on policy and more to select a strongman leader that's most appealing.
The Russian election was "rigged" in that there was only controlled opposition... But this is also not an inherently unique feature. When was the last time a US President was neither Democrat nor Republican?
The US needs ranked choice voting badly, but to say the only difference between the US and Russia is the two party system is just straight up incorrect. Opposition leaders and dissidents do not get regularly assassinated by the government in the US for starters.
Opposition leaders and dissidents do not get regularly assassinated by the government in the US for starters.
Currently yes. But Trump's lawyers have argued in court that the President can't be found guilty of any crimes, including assassination of political rivals.
Opposition leaders and dissidents do not get regularly assassinated by the government in the US for starters.
Because there's no need to do it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
Personally I'd say score voting would make the most sense. Essentially it works like this, you get a list of parties and you vote them 1-5 on how much you agree with them. This changes the whole dynamics as you now aren't choosing who will rule, but how much you agree with each party ideologically and forcing you to research on their proposed mandate plans. It also serves as sort of an evaluation of how do you think each party has been addressing the country's issues before the election.
Mathematically, this may not ensure always the most happiness, but it ensures the least unhappiness compared to all current known voting methods (you can easily find research on how this was calculated in many papers on mathematics).
Personally i would also propose returning to the old Roman and the first proposed French republic system of having 2-3 consuls of the most voted for parties and they take turns proposing legislation to a senate that's a direct seated representation of the voting results.
As an interesting tidbit, the reason we have a president/prime Minister with all the power in most western democracies, is because Napoleon altered the original proposed 3 consul system into a prime consul with all the power then minor ministers because he was aiming to become Emperor and wanted to centralize the power. Our democratic systems are strongly influenced by the first French republic post the French revolution.
What opposition leaders? What dissidents?
Two of the top university presidents in the country were taken down after daring to question the common narrative on the conflict in Gaza.
A whistleblower for a government defence contractor was just assassinated in the middle of legal proceedings against that defence contractor.
Whistleblowers are hunted after: Assange is struggling to avoid extradition and Snowden is stuck in Russia after being pressured to leave everywhere else.
Meanwhile, even legitimate presidential candidates like Sanders are given every disadvantage, most notably in terms of (a lack of) funding and superdelegate votes in primaries.
That is quite incorrect. First the parties have quite different platforms but they overall stay fairly centered. That is if you compare them to most other more extreme governments. Secondly even if you had one hundred parties to choose from, there will be no individual party that will represent your views 100 percent. The point of democracy is not to cater to any single individual but to try and find a middle ground. Yes a bit more variety might be better but at the end of the day you likely would have similar laws and rights.
Western nations are not intimidating or assassinating people with incompatible opinions. Yes there could be improvements to voter suppression but it is extremely limited in effectiveness. The US employees regional representation that does create some popular vote issues but it also fixes some regional issues where people in part can be under represented. So I can understand some argument for the current system.
Perfect no. Anywhere near the problems in Russia and most of the rest of the world, not at all. Get a grip.
The Russian election was "rigged" in that there was only controlled opposition
Incorrect. They were rigged pretty much completely, as some data shows. Something about 30 million fake votes.
tell that to Daphne Caruana Galizia