Quote:
Originally posted by papermachesatan
It has every thing to do with rule by aristocracy. The richer you are, the more votes you have. Thus you can easily outvote the majority and put someone in power who favors you and helps cement your power(through favorable economic government policies) through screwing the majority.
|
I agree with you, but what I meant was that was not the reason
I was against it. The simple fact of power would bring some sort of group to the forefront. I disagree with proportioned voting becasuse it is
one leg of balancing power and ensuring that it stays in the hands of the general populous.
Quote:
Originally posted by papermachesatan
No. The elite(the communist party) were in power and controlled the means of gaining power. The average worker had no say and if he dared to open his mouth to complain, he was silenced. Remember that our constitutional protections can be eliminated by new amendments. When you've got control of the government, passing those new amendments won't be nearly as hard.
|
The Soviets were still allowed to vote for their leaders, at least some. They used to brag about 98% voter turnout (I assume the other 2% weren't voting in the next election, either). The Communist party chose the candidates, but the people of the Soviet Union chose the winner. The point is this, even if you have one person-one vote that doesn't gaurantee democray, nor does it assure you that your country cannot be controlled by an "elite" ruling class.