How did Soviet Elections Work? Documentary
video description
Date: 2022-07-19
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 19
Premier
I think this video did a good job but it doesnt completely explain everything.
In the Soviet Union you did have elections for the Legislative Supreme Soviet. Basically people of the local workers Union would vote and elect a representative which was sent to a committee called a Soviet. This Soviet than elects a representative to be sent to a regional council and vote on issues. All local Councils gather at a Plenary Assembly and propose legislation. They also elect more people to represent a larger area (you can see how there are levels to Soviet Democracy. These people are than sent to the Supreme Soviet (equivalent to the U. S. Congress) and act as the Legislative Branch to pass laws with support from the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch (which was chosen by the Supreme Soviet) meanwhile the Executive Branch was chosen by who was leading the Communist Party. The Premier was head of state while the General Secretary was head of Government and the leader of the USSR can be either one. (I think Stalin was the only one that was both)
If anyone can explain it better than me please do because this was very simplified and its probably way more complicated than this. But in reality the Soviet Union wasnt really Democratic as you had a one party state, I know after Stalin it was less bad but even than it wasnt really completely a Liberal Democracy. Quite the opposite. Its why I like American Democracy better, its more direct, simpler, easier to fix, and more stable.
reply
I think this video did a good job but it doesnt completely explain everything.
In the Soviet Union you did have elections for the Legislative Supreme Soviet. Basically people of the local workers Union would vote and elect a representative which was sent to a committee called a Soviet. This Soviet than elects a representative to be sent to a regional council and vote on issues. All local Councils gather at a Plenary Assembly and propose legislation. They also elect more people to represent a larger area (you can see how there are levels to Soviet Democracy. These people are than sent to the Supreme Soviet (equivalent to the U. S. Congress) and act as the Legislative Branch to pass laws with support from the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch (which was chosen by the Supreme Soviet) meanwhile the Executive Branch was chosen by who was leading the Communist Party. The Premier was head of state while the General Secretary was head of Government and the leader of the USSR can be either one. (I think Stalin was the only one that was both)
If anyone can explain it better than me please do because this was very simplified and its probably way more complicated than this. But in reality the Soviet Union wasnt really Democratic as you had a one party state, I know after Stalin it was less bad but even than it wasnt really completely a Liberal Democracy. Quite the opposite. Its why I like American Democracy better, its more direct, simpler, easier to fix, and more stable.
reply
Christopher
Interesting. In Western countries many parliamentary seats are won by the same party all the time. Always a Republican. always Tory or in other parts Labour. The other lot don't get a look in. Winner takes all and turn out is low. There is a class bias in this as well. Lots of council houses good for Labour not so for Tories In US don't vote if you are black. Certainly, in seats like these election rules need to be modified to get government for all the people.
reply
Interesting. In Western countries many parliamentary seats are won by the same party all the time. Always a Republican. always Tory or in other parts Labour. The other lot don't get a look in. Winner takes all and turn out is low. There is a class bias in this as well. Lots of council houses good for Labour not so for Tories In US don't vote if you are black. Certainly, in seats like these election rules need to be modified to get government for all the people.
reply
Kvurenukri
The information is not entirely accurate, it wasn't always one person on the ballot, sometimes there were multiple, but all of them were obviously pro-Communist, but you could choose if you didn't like some guy for some reason to vote for another, source: my grandmother, who was forced to campaign by her work commitee. As for the not voting thing literally never heard about it, those must be very isolated to specific areas where there was some discontent
reply
The information is not entirely accurate, it wasn't always one person on the ballot, sometimes there were multiple, but all of them were obviously pro-Communist, but you could choose if you didn't like some guy for some reason to vote for another, source: my grandmother, who was forced to campaign by her work commitee. As for the not voting thing literally never heard about it, those must be very isolated to specific areas where there was some discontent
reply
Guesly-A.
Video is lacking.
Deputy could also get recall anytime by the people, also, the vote were secret. So no one could know for who you voted because, it was secret (I dont understand how the video missed this point. Also, the deputy that work inside the soviet actually had to recieve the strong support of the workers unions and other local organisation. And most of the time, you didn't have to vote for one candidates.
reply
Video is lacking.
Deputy could also get recall anytime by the people, also, the vote were secret. So no one could know for who you voted because, it was secret (I dont understand how the video missed this point. Also, the deputy that work inside the soviet actually had to recieve the strong support of the workers unions and other local organisation. And most of the time, you didn't have to vote for one candidates.
reply
D12TRG
So. If you vote and want something to change in your local area - don't do it.
If you won't, they will see that the sole candidate has no loyalty and thus a new one, who will do something, will be.
Huh.
Kinda like re-shuffling your local government administration officials until you get those you want as they will do something you desire.
Kinda. smart.
reply
So. If you vote and want something to change in your local area - don't do it.
If you won't, they will see that the sole candidate has no loyalty and thus a new one, who will do something, will be.
Huh.
Kinda like re-shuffling your local government administration officials until you get those you want as they will do something you desire.
Kinda. smart.
reply
Dna
Its funny that it actually worked more than western voting and civiliant power to affect change.
Imagine that a 1 candidate system can somehow be a more democratic process than voting for state chosen representatives. This is why Bernie will never win, because the people in charge have other options they would prefer.
reply
Its funny that it actually worked more than western voting and civiliant power to affect change.
Imagine that a 1 candidate system can somehow be a more democratic process than voting for state chosen representatives. This is why Bernie will never win, because the people in charge have other options they would prefer.
reply
Pat
You really, really missed an important detail here. That One candidate had to have been previously approved at a public assembly in which anyone could put their name forward, and people selected the candidate from there. Following that the election was really a vote to ratify/approve that decision on a larger scale.
reply
You really, really missed an important detail here. That One candidate had to have been previously approved at a public assembly in which anyone could put their name forward, and people selected the candidate from there. Following that the election was really a vote to ratify/approve that decision on a larger scale.
reply
Maddie
Not exactly democratic, sure, but on the other hand every few years I get to vote for a handful of near-identical do-nothings who'll spend the next few years lining their pockets with my money, only two of them have any real chance, and not voting just helps the most awful one. So I don't feel like I can judge.
reply
Not exactly democratic, sure, but on the other hand every few years I get to vote for a handful of near-identical do-nothings who'll spend the next few years lining their pockets with my money, only two of them have any real chance, and not voting just helps the most awful one. So I don't feel like I can judge.
reply
Larry
Well, Pete, I figured
it should be the one.
with the capacity
for abstract thought.
But if that ain't
the consensus view.
then hell,
let's put it to a vote.
Suits me!
I'm votin' for yours truly.
Well, I'm votin'
for yours truly, too.
Okay. I'm with you fellas.
reply
Well, Pete, I figured
it should be the one.
with the capacity
for abstract thought.
But if that ain't
the consensus view.
then hell,
let's put it to a vote.
Suits me!
I'm votin' for yours truly.
Well, I'm votin'
for yours truly, too.
Okay. I'm with you fellas.
reply
nonamebill
Ironically only having one candidate to vote for, but that candidate needing 50 percent of the vote to be elected. Actually led to st actually getting done. Where in our democracy, politicians say what they will do if you elect them. And then they do fk all once they're actually in power.
reply
Ironically only having one candidate to vote for, but that candidate needing 50 percent of the vote to be elected. Actually led to st actually getting done. Where in our democracy, politicians say what they will do if you elect them. And then they do fk all once they're actually in power.
reply
Martin
Here in Bulgaria (a former socialist country) we had 2 parties - the Communist party and the Agrarian union which was forced to become a Communist party to exist but on the media they called it, the opposition.
So it was still all Communist parties but 2 of them - technically a choice.
reply
Here in Bulgaria (a former socialist country) we had 2 parties - the Communist party and the Agrarian union which was forced to become a Communist party to exist but on the media they called it, the opposition.
So it was still all Communist parties but 2 of them - technically a choice.
reply
Fieldstuck
Seems like a more democratic system than what we have in the US. There's not much difference between a one-party system and a two-party system where the two parties are a right-wing party and a far-right party. But here, if turnout is low, one of the candidates still wins.
reply
Seems like a more democratic system than what we have in the US. There's not much difference between a one-party system and a two-party system where the two parties are a right-wing party and a far-right party. But here, if turnout is low, one of the candidates still wins.
reply
hatchmaster
No they were nothing more than a farce and a waste of time, that's how they were intended. It wasnt a democratic process, it was more a totalitarian tool to prevent uprisings without actually having to do anything by replacing one puppet with a more effective one
reply
No they were nothing more than a farce and a waste of time, that's how they were intended. It wasnt a democratic process, it was more a totalitarian tool to prevent uprisings without actually having to do anything by replacing one puppet with a more effective one
reply
Napoleon
Let me guess before watching. Like everything in a communist society work ( lets pretend. The government pretend they are actually holding votations and the people pretend they are actually voting and the votation will have some effect.
reply
Let me guess before watching. Like everything in a communist society work ( lets pretend. The government pretend they are actually holding votations and the people pretend they are actually voting and the votation will have some effect.
reply
Jak
The USSR at it's most democratic (the mid to late 1980s) was about as democratic as the US is today - only difference really that was in the USSR all the candidates were communists, whereas in the US today they are all corporatists xD
reply
The USSR at it's most democratic (the mid to late 1980s) was about as democratic as the US is today - only difference really that was in the USSR all the candidates were communists, whereas in the US today they are all corporatists xD
reply
Rapto
I wonder if something was happening at the time stalin was in power that may have made change in leadership not a good idea. Maybe like a war or something. Idk probably not i dont think there were any wars at the time
reply
I wonder if something was happening at the time stalin was in power that may have made change in leadership not a good idea. Maybe like a war or something. Idk probably not i dont think there were any wars at the time
reply
Ethribin
Giving the population an ever so small impact on politics is also important to reduce the ammount of discontent and revolts.
So that this system still had some small power giben to the citizen was by designe.
reply
Giving the population an ever so small impact on politics is also important to reduce the ammount of discontent and revolts.
So that this system still had some small power giben to the citizen was by designe.
reply
Waffle-Waffle
Babushka I know you're dying but the supreme soviet can't elect themselves legally so here's a ballot and make your choice or you'll go to gulag before going to heaven USSR highly effective voting promotion
reply
Babushka I know you're dying but the supreme soviet can't elect themselves legally so here's a ballot and make your choice or you'll go to gulag before going to heaven USSR highly effective voting promotion
reply
Michael
It's fairly ingenious of the voters. By not voting, they embarrass their rep, which is an embarrassment to the party. The voters, in a small way, could turn the repressive system against their local rep.
reply
It's fairly ingenious of the voters. By not voting, they embarrass their rep, which is an embarrassment to the party. The voters, in a small way, could turn the repressive system against their local rep.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
