- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,101
- 3,920
- 315
My Soviet raised wife told me the while there was only one candidate run in Soviet elections (One the ticket called something like 'The Union of Communist and Independants')
The Soviet people did actually have an interesting choice: They could vote "No".
While a one party system is atrocius, the fact is a two party system really isn't much different.
Now, when you think about it:
We have about 200 million people who are eligible to vote, yet only about 100 million vote on Presidential election years. 50% roughly - less on off years.
Now I'm sure that a lot of people that don't vote are just apathetic, but I'm also sure that an awful lot of them are disenfrancised.
The logic of our political system is that if only 3 people voted and everyone else didn't, the candidate that got 2 or more of the votes would claim a huge victory and a mandate.
It's kind of rediculous. If a candidate gets 56% of the vote, he's really only getting 27% of the eligible voters.
We ought to consider putting "No" as an option on all elections.
The Soviet people did actually have an interesting choice: They could vote "No".
While a one party system is atrocius, the fact is a two party system really isn't much different.
Now, when you think about it:
We have about 200 million people who are eligible to vote, yet only about 100 million vote on Presidential election years. 50% roughly - less on off years.
Now I'm sure that a lot of people that don't vote are just apathetic, but I'm also sure that an awful lot of them are disenfrancised.
The logic of our political system is that if only 3 people voted and everyone else didn't, the candidate that got 2 or more of the votes would claim a huge victory and a mandate.
It's kind of rediculous. If a candidate gets 56% of the vote, he's really only getting 27% of the eligible voters.
We ought to consider putting "No" as an option on all elections.