3 ms·

> The people who voted for Allende didn't think so, and they won that election somehow. Yes. 36.6% of the population voted for him, while a combined 63.4% vote

> The people who voted for Allende didn't think so, and they won that election somehow. Yes. 36.6% of the population voted for him, while a combined 63.4% voted for candidates from the conservative parties. As President, Allende flat out ignored thousands of court rulings and congressional actions. The Chilean Congress itself passed a resolution calling for his ouster, by military or other means. If it didn't have international consequences, I'd agree with you that people should be allowed to elect politicians that will run their country into the ground. But preventing any further Soviet expansion into the Western hemisphere was imperative for the US at the time.

saint_fiasco 11y ago
>36.6% of the population voted for him, while a combined 63.4% voted for candidates from the conservative parties The choices weren't just between Allende or Not Allende. Every candidate had their fair chance, and if winning with 36.6% of the votes sounds odd to you, it's probably because you are accustomed to the two-party system, which has its own advantages and disadvantages. >If it didn't have international consequences, I'd agree with you that people should be allowed to elect politicians that will run their country into the ground So people are free to choose their own politicians only as long as they live somewhere that is literally inconsequential in the international stage? As soon as their country gets relevant, their choices will have "international consequences" after all and they will have to ally themselves with the biggest super power one way or another. And god forbid they choose the wrong super power.