It doesn't. There are plenty of bourgeois democracies that don't use FPTP for all their voting: Japan, Australia, South Korea for some of their elections. Doesn't make a difference (except it might make the bribery a bit more expensive, since you have to buy off more political parties than just two).

The fundamental problem is capital standing above political power. If it does so, then no amount of alternative voting systems can fix the issue. Socialism is the only answer.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

No, RCV wouldn't. The fundamental problem of electoral politics being a game between factions pre-approved by the bourgeoisie won't change, there are even safeguards preventing unwanted change that losing parties and government branches can pull in the rare event a worker party won.

It's the perfect carrot, it won't get passed nor would it change much.

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Even though RCV improves representation by only like 3%-6%. it's still an improvement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepresentWomen#Ranked_Choice_Voting

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago

Sure, I won't make the claim that it's a bad thing over FPTP. My argument is that focusing on Electoral Reform is wasted energy when it is ultimately easier to get compehensive change through via Revolution, and I'd argue Revolution is still required regardless.

[–] Commiunism 13 points 6 days ago

Imma be real as an European, we kinda have the same problem here even with better voting systems. You either vote for "nothing ever happens" parties or literal Russia funded reactionary nazis.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

I do advocate for it, I'm a proud member of the Forward Party.