• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        And how many parties were they allowed to make selections from? Were there any candidates that weren’t pre-approved by the leading party?

        • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          One party where a basic platform is defined and differences are expressed vibrantly on top of that is better than two parties that brand themselves as different but only offer a couple of aesthetic differences and concessions to keep people mad at the opposing party and not the underlying structure

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            …You’re really saying that one party where you have no functional choice is better than a multi-party system, just because you think that Republicans and Dems are too alike, while ignoriing the plethora of other parties that not only actually exist in the US, but hold office at local and state level?

            Shouldn’t expect any more from a tankie though.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              One party with multiple functional approaches that get whittled down through democratic consensus is more democratic than being told to pick between two relatively similar options. There is more of a gap between liberals and Maoists in the CPC, both of which hold power in office, than there are between the democrats and republicans.