Unfair Advantage to the Major Parties

[00000000000]

It seems in the UK (and the US) the socialist / hard left parties and their ideas never get a decent share of public exposure or the popular vote in elections.

Do you think this is purely down to the wealth and influence the major political parties have on the media and in mounting election campaigns? Or is it because the voters do not agree with what the Left have to say?

In other words, if the leftists parties / candidates somehow had as much exposure as the mainstream parties, do you think that would translate into votes and winning elections?

[thesadmafioso]

That's sort of how the system is designed, really. The modern political structures of developed capitalist society were created with the intent of preserving the status quo of bourgeoisie power, of course they will not be wholly representative of the interests of the working class and they will not provide them with a viable platform through which to make their demands known.

The inherent bias worked into the system demands extensive access to capital and class collaboration with the bourgeoisie for any party or candidate to find electoral victory, it is near the realm of impossibility for this organ of bourgeoisie rule and oppression to be turned into a channel through which proletarian politics would be able to be promoted.

This is why we seek to move beyond the system in its entirety, as it is not one with the interests of the majority in mind. It will never produce anything than representatives subservient to the capitalist class; the system of bourgeois democracy is one which only serves to benefit the entrenched elite.

[XenoLair]

Money = power.
You buy off all media corporations and easily spread your lies. Why would you allow advertisement of a any other political party in your newspaper/media channel except yours.
The system allows you to do it so it of course is done.

[Tim Finnegan]

In other words, if the leftists parties / candidates somehow had as much exposure as the mainstream parties, do you think that would translate into votes and winning elections?
Do you mean some hypothetical leftist party that was able to competently and effectively enunciate the interests of the working class- a latter-day ILP, you could say- or the current gaggle of humiliating train-wrecks that make up the bulk of the British party-left? Because the latter actually got a not bad shot at elections in the early days of the Scottish parliament, and managed to completely piss that away over the course of a few years, so I've frankly limited hope for them even in the most opportune of circumstances.

[Flying Trotsky]

Well, it's kinda both: one problem compounds the other.

The two major parties dominate the political scene, and they maintain there power party through their comparative wealth, which let's them continue to hold the center stage while third-party groups get sidelined. And so on.

But perhaps the most major advantage the two parties have in the US is their ability to use the idea of "lesser-evil". Both the Republicans and Democrats have lost most of their popularity, but they continue to enjoy the majority of votes because the public is told "If you don't vote for us, the Republicans/Democrats will win.". People become scared that if they vote for anyone other than the two major parties, they'll be throwing their vote away. This two-party culture of "lesser-evil" is what really maintains the system.

[00000000000]

"This two-party culture of "lesser-evil" is what really maintains the system. "

Also true in the UK. Conservative to Labour, then back to Conservative..then Labour again *heavy sigh*

[CAleftist]

The more the working class rejects the bourgeois political system, and replaces it not with some form of reactionary politics but real, revolutionary left-wing politics..well, that would be great, wouldn't it.

[ftm-communist]

In other words, if the leftists parties / candidates somehow had as much exposure as the mainstream parties, do you think that would translate into votes and winning elections?

Absolutely not, since we have not yet learned how to use modern rhetoric and communication media to spread our message in such a way that (a) people don't freak out when they see the words "socialism" or "Communism" and (b) people don't feel alienated by the rhetoric of our movements' forefathers (Marx, Lenin, etc.)

[B0LSHEVIK]

Its all kinds of things. From what you stated to corporate control of the media influencing public opinion (more so in the US). The US system is rigged to make it near impossible to make it on all 50 states ballots without large sums of cash, and thus nearly impossible to win. Media of course will spin things increasingly more ridiculously and because of it's corporate ownership, always business friednly:). Unions are not allowed to be outright political in the US. They can only encourage 'just vote!' This kind of dampens the potential of labor. All kinds of things, damn. We could all probably go out for drinks one morning and be completely hammered by midnight and still be talking about this.