You're viewing part of a thread.
If it's so easy to show, show me.
I did. Read the sources.
You linked elections, you said people could voice idea and vote on them. Election is not voicing an idea.
So you're moving the goalposts now, got it.
Here's another basic Wikipedia article on how politics functioned in the USSR.
I feel like you're the one moving the goalposts. Remember, this is what you said.
Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits. You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.
You say they banned certain ideologies, but beyond that you don't mention anything about elections or politics. You said people could voice different ideas and vote on them. You have not given actual evidence of that.
I have, read the sources. You seem allergic to doing so.
Your sources at not actual examples. They're broad strokes of how it might've worked. You wanted an actual example of vote manipulation, I want an actual example of voicing an idea and voting on it.
Oh, you're a genuine history denier and historical revisionist, lmao. Read the sources, not the headlines.
So you want me to go through your sources? Alright:
Before the proclamation of the 1936 Constitution, elections to soviets of all levels beyond local urban and rural ones (with varying ratios of citizens-per-representative each) were indirect, carried out by soviets of lesser scale below them. However, direct elections for township or industrial soviets were allowed to be competitive in theory, with candidates of different organizations other than the Communist Party and even the Orthodox Church allowed to fill the paperwork,[citation needed] although constant disenfranchisement of their voters and persecution of any activism during the campaign was the norm. [9]
Soviet Citizens were able to vote for representatives to represent them in the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, which was the legislative arm of the Soviet Union. The elections in the Soviet Union would be held every 4 years for the citizens to go to the polling station and vote for a single candidate. These candidates who were going to be elected for 4 years were approved by the Communist Party themselves and were the only option on the ballot. [10]
Even with a single candidate on the ballot, representatives could theoretically fail to get elected in the Soviet Union, but this did not happen above the lowest levels. A representative would have to keep local improvements satisfactory in order to try to gain greater than a 50% vote. Although not the definition of democracy, the Soviet people would still have the choice to keep or to basically "request" a new candidate from the Communist Party. Although selected by the Communist Party, each representative had to some degree keep their population somewhat satisfied with the way they were governing their people.[14] With the threshold of a 50% vote, many unsatisfied Soviets would form groups and would lobby to have their voices heard. This would allow the dissenters to have a small amount of input on how some things should be run in the Soviet Union. However, group dissent was extremely rare due to opposition from the authorities.
Literally spelling out that voicing ideas got you persecuted, candidates were pre-selected by the party in power and any dissent was met by opposition from the authorities.
And yet, not a single actual example of what you claim.
Pat Sloan provided evidence to the contrary. You literally quoted how there was dissent. Additionally, dissent is not the only way different ideas are pursued and voted on.
Here's a place to find newspapers from the USSR, you can read those if you want.
You're decidely a historical revisionist troll and not worth talking to.
Pat Sloan provided evidence to the contrary.
Well, link that then.
Here’s a place to find newspapers from the USSR, you can read those if you want.
I'm supposed to do your job for you? No thanks. If you can't find actual examples then maybe time for you to accept you're doing the “God is real because you can’t disprove him” argument.