3 ms·

>If you speak to the people who keep voting for the regime, it's "I hate the ANC, but we must vote for them." In terms of destroying education to stay in power,

>If you speak to the people who keep voting for the regime, it's "I hate the ANC, but we must vote for them." In terms of destroying education to stay in power, that's a slam dunk. Even an educated populace won't fight back against exploitative government if it's all they know. I live in a highly educated US state, one of the most educated, at least on paper. People say the same damn thing but with bigger words and then vote for the ruling party. The stuff the government routinely gets away with here would have the involved parties quickly out of power in some of the adjacent states. But when the .gov is caught misbehaving people just grumble and act as though the way things are here is the only way things could ever be and no other status quo could exist let alone be stable. I wish I never lived elsewhere. Ignorance is bliss.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I do not think you can come this conclusion in a two party government with first past the post elections. Your choice is always the lesser of two evils. Ranked choice (or star) voting would provide more insight, but I do not know of a large government that has a long history of using it, but it would be interesting to see that data if it existed.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  I don't think the voting system matters that much except as a final refinement on top of an already working system. Some competition is worlds better than no competition. My state is effectively a one party state. Voting for the lesser of the evils is also voting for the better of the evils. At least with a viable 2nd party there is pressure on the first party to suck less. When people blindly vote for one party they are free to misbehave. Let them get away with that for a generation or and it becomes the new normal.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > Voting for the lesser of the evils is also voting for the better of the evils. What is the significance of this distinction? > At least with a viable 2nd party there is pressure on the first party to suck less. Hence the problem of first past the post voting. With ranked choice or star, you have viable 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, whatever party. I can more accurately relay my priorities via my votes as opposed to solely using my vote to prevent the worst party from winning.
- wott 5y ago
  It's only a two-party system because voters vote almost only for those two parties. Other parties exist but get very few votes. Other countries also have majority voting systems which immensely favour the first arrived, and yet there are more major parties there: 3, 4, 5...
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I do not know enough about other countries voting systems to be able to know why they do or do not have more parties. But I do know the situation in the US, and I have concluded it is not going to change unless we change from first past the post. I also do not know why anyone unhappy with 2 party situation would be unwelcoming to ranked choice. It can only help.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

I do not think you can come this conclusion in a two party government with first past the post elections. Your choice is always the lesser of two evils. Ranked choice (or star) voting would provide more insight, but I do not know of a large government that has a long history of using it, but it would be interesting to see that data if it existed.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I don't think the voting system matters that much except as a final refinement on top of an already working system. Some competition is worlds better than no competition. My state is effectively a one party state. Voting for the lesser of the evils is also voting for the better of the evils. At least with a viable 2nd party there is pressure on the first party to suck less. When people blindly vote for one party they are free to misbehave. Let them get away with that for a generation or and it becomes the new normal.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > Voting for the lesser of the evils is also voting for the better of the evils. What is the significance of this distinction? > At least with a viable 2nd party there is pressure on the first party to suck less. Hence the problem of first past the post voting. With ranked choice or star, you have viable 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, whatever party. I can more accurately relay my priorities via my votes as opposed to solely using my vote to prevent the worst party from winning.
wott 5y ago
It's only a two-party system because voters vote almost only for those two parties. Other parties exist but get very few votes. Other countries also have majority voting systems which immensely favour the first arrived, and yet there are more major parties there: 3, 4, 5...
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I do not know enough about other countries voting systems to be able to know why they do or do not have more parties. But I do know the situation in the US, and I have concluded it is not going to change unless we change from first past the post. I also do not know why anyone unhappy with 2 party situation would be unwelcoming to ranked choice. It can only help.