Anonymous #1 9w

You said “ban all other parties,” not just the GOP

6

Anonymous OP 9w

I am not OOP

4

Anonymous #1 9w

Point still stands

5

Anonymous #2 9w

What’s the point in having elections if there’s only one party

11

Anonymous OP 9w

Single parties often have multiple factions and caucuses, making competitive elections under a one-party system very much a possibility

1

Anonymous #1 9w

Which is what we have now, so what are you trying to prove?

2

Anonymous OP 9w

I’m just saying, elections aren’t necessarily irrelevant under one-party dominance.

1

Anonymous #1 9w

And what makes you so sure that the one DSA party in power won’t split once the OOP gets its “dream future”

4

Anonymous #2 9w

North Korea literally has elections but only for candidates pre-approved by the dominant party. Their last parliamentary “elections” were in march of this year

1

Anonymous #1 9w

“Multiple factions and caucuses” so political parties?

1

Anonymous #3 9w

That would depend entirely on where you draw the line of a political faction being its own party vs. being a wing of a larger party.

4

Anonymous #1 9w

So a political party but you just don’t call it a political party? If there’s only one party in existence and competitive elections then the electoral competition will be between differing factions. That’s just political parties redeveloped from first principles.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

One party doesn’t mean everybody has the exact same opinions. It means that elections get to focus on actual policy and ideas rather than party labels.

1

Anonymous #3 9w

If candidates have to be pre-approved then it’s not really an election. Just a show they put on to make people feel like they have a voice.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

There’s a big difference between disagreeing with someone over an issue and deciding your differences are so great that you can’t associate with them.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

Yeah and both of those things are completely different than banning every political party that isn’t democratic socialists. I’m a democratic socialist and I don’t fucking want that. There needs to be political competition or else you just have a bunch of corrupt party officials enriching themselves with no opposition. AND I think that competition from liberals and farther left groups in the political apparatus is important.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Like Im not a communist or a liberal but that doesn’t mean they can’t have valid points AND if the socialist party is corrupt or doing a shit job (like can happen in many places, just look at Albania now) there needs to be opposition to make electoral consequences

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Banning other parties doesn’t ban opposing viewpoints, it just shifts the focus away from labels. Political parties don’t contribute to effective elections and governance, they detract from it. Even George Washington was able to recognize that 250 years ago.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

George Washington wanted people to not be involved in parties, not to make a one party state. And the ENTIRE point of that line in the post being quoted here is to ban opposing viewpoints. The OP there would say “oh it’s necessary to prevent fascist parties from running” or whatever but the literal point is to remove political opposition so only the DSA operates.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Like how the fuck is “the DSA bans all other parties” in any way unclear as to that being shitty

1

Anonymous #3 9w

There’s not a meaningful difference between a one party state and a zero party state. Both function similarly.

0

Anonymous #2 9w

Yes there is. Under a one party state you are required to adhere to the political ideology of the party. If the one party in the state is socialist, a non-socialist cannot run. The same applies if the one party is liberal or far right or whatever. Under a zero party state, anyone can run if they have the appeal of the voters.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

If you look at any one party state they aren’t exactly a bastion of democratic free choice. The Kuomintang wasn’t exactly letting a lot of socialists run for office. Same goes for Easy Germany and liberals.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

*east Germany

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Political parties generally have a stratified unelected internal apparatus that makes decisions about who can run and who gets party support. In a multi-party democracy, if they pick a shit choice then they can be defeated by opposition. In a one party state, they usually pick and choose who is allowed to run.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

“Adhere to the political ideology of the party” really just means don’t be a fascist and don’t take advantage of the less fortunate. I think we’d be better off if those people couldn’t run the country, don’t you?

1

Anonymous #3 9w

And just because there’s a single party doesn’t mean they decide who gets to run. Primaries exist for a reason

1

Anonymous #2 9w

OOP didn’t say ban fascists. OOP said “bans all other political parties.” And that’s AFTER the Republican Party is already banned in their list. That would include the democrats, the greens, the communists, the Vermont progressive party, the libertarians, and any other political parties which could arise.

1

Anonymous #3 9w

Have y’all taken any political science classes? Or history classes? One party states don’t just allow diverse political opinions. If there’s no alternative options, there’s no one else you can vote for if the party leadership becomes corrupt. Even today in the United States, political parties can straight up remove candidates who they don’t like from their primaries. If the primary is the only election that counts, boom you can ban any opposition.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Like god fucking damn y’all I can see how people fall for dictatorships. Think this shit through

6

Anonymous #3 9w

Cool, as I’ve said a dozen times by now, having more political parties isn’t good. It takes attention away from policies and values and shifts is towards meaningless labels. Having a single party removes those labels and lets us have more productive conversations again. Under a single party system, there’s a lot more room for disagreement between members of the same party.

-1

Anonymous #2 9w

Btw the current president of Albania (a supposed socialist) is calling the massive percentage of Albanians protesting against corruption (they’re selling a nature reserve to Trump’s son in law) “fascists” and “Greek plants”

0

Anonymous #3 9w

More parties doesn’t mean more options. It just means less substance.

0

Anonymous #2 9w

No there isn’t? What one party states do you know of that were or are free and functioning democracies? The Republican and democratic parties today already can just ban candidates who they deem as incompatible with their values.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Yeah, they currently ban candidates they don’t like because they have to compete with other parties. That means you can’t have much division within your own party to have a chance at winning. When there’s only one party, you don’t have to worry about that. You can have division and differing viewpoints without worrying about someone swooping in and taking over.

0

Anonymous #2 9w

What one party states do you know of that have functioning democracies?

0

Anonymous #3 9w

What two party states do you know of that give voters meaningfully different options?

1

Anonymous #2 9w

I don’t like two party systems either. I think they unfairly limit people’s choices. Generally two party systems arise when there is a large demographic of voters who will switch between the two, so they tend to be close ideologically in the USA or Poland the two dominant parties are relatively right wing. In Barbados or Trinidad, both are relatively left wing. I prefer electoral systems that encourage many different political parties. People should have many choices.

0

Anonymous #2 9w

But I am not advocating for a two party system. You are advocating for a one party system. Even two party systems, while shitty, are more democratic than any officially one-party state I know of. You are the one arguing that one-party states are democratic. Give me an example.

2

Anonymous #3 9w

A multi-party system doesn’t promote many choices. It just punishes diversity within an ideology. For example, if 60% of the population is left wing, but there are a bunch of different left-wing parties, then it’s really easy for a single right-wing party to come in and win with a minority of the voters support.

1

Anonymous #3 9w

he should be building bunkers and burning bridges with every other socialist on the planet, like a real Albanian socialist

0

Anonymous #2 9w

This is why presidential political systems like ours tend to coalesce into two main parties. I support ranked choice voting, mixed-member proportional representation, or party-list proportional representation to prevent this.

1

Anonymous #3 9w

That’s cool, but it still encourages a lot of division and infighting that are prevented by a partyless system. Political parties aren’t beneficial to voters or government.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

I’d be fine with a partyless system. It’s a good ideal but I think it’d break down eventually because parties are basically how you help voters more easily understand your political positions. But a partyless system and a one-party system are different. I’m fine with one, not fine with the other.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

A partyless system and a one-party system are functionally the same. In a one-party system, the party is basically just part of the government, it’s not a political party in the sense that we have in a multi-party system.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

No, it isn’t. A one-party system that restricts party membership to those that match its ideologies can effectively ban any major political opposition or significantly opposing viewpoints. That is the entire purpose of a one party system pretty much wherever it exists). That is also explicitly what OOP was arguing for. No one party states that I know of act like how you describe.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

This is like those monarchists who say “well under monarchism someone leads the country who was trained for their entire life to do so, so they will be the most competent person for the job.” Yeah you can say that but it’s not what actually happens.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

A one party system doesn’t have to restrict membership. They may have certain requirements to run for office, but similar requirements would be imposed by the government in a party-less system. Functionally, they operate the same way.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

It doesn’t have to, but that happens in every one party state that I know of. How many communists was the Kuomintang letting run in Taiwan? How many Tibetan nationalists in China? How many liberals in North Korea?

0

Anonymous #3 9w

This is like going “well a benevolent dictator would have total power to do what is best for the people” that’s never how it actually goes.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Except you’re advocating for a multi-party system despite the fact every multi-party system punishes diversity within one side and makes it incredibly easy for the minority to win.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

You aren’t arguing for a partyless system. You are arguing for a one-party system that banned all opposing political parties. No idea how you don’t see that.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

As I’ve already said multiple times, a partyless system and a one-party system are functionally the same. A party in a one-party system isn’t really comparable to parties in multi-party systems. They’re much more like an extension of the government than an independent entity. They fulfill the same role the government would in a partyless system.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

Except that happens in literally no one-party systems. The Kuomintang wasn’t electing communists.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

And the system you’re describing that you want literally never happens

1

Anonymous #3 9w

You’re confusing one-party states with authoritarian states. Those are not remotely the same thing.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

Name a one-party state that isn’t authoritarian.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Name a multi-party state that gives voters meaningful options without giving the win to the minority

1