Election from hell

[jackelgull]

I am not white, so I'll take the alternative least likely to get me gassed and vote Mussolini. Also I'd like to point out that a combined Italian-German-Austrian state would not necessarily be the strongest naval power, given that naval power is as much a political decision as determined by industrial capacity. So you know, there'd probably be treaties signed on naval capacity, and assuming the former president was a regular kind of president who honors their treaty obligation, the British and IGA fleets would likely be roughly equal. Also, the manpower and industrial power of this combined state aren't the only considerations in actual combat ability. When asking about military capacity, the question should also be - how good are their operational doctrines? Do they make full use of their mobility? Do they understand current combined arms theories?

It is important to bear in mind that the IGA state will be a combination of 3 nations, each with their own military and doctrine. If that is not standardized, then it hampers effectiveness of the army as a whole. So like the interwar years will have been spent resolving the doctrinal confusion, or turning Italy, Germany and Austria into 3 separate armies so that each can have its own doctrine in which case it doesn't matter. However, I'll be assuming the generals will have spent their time fighting over how to implement doctrines among a combined army.

So the point I'm trying to make is that we won't necessarily get "German blitzkrieg with a larger industrial base and more manpower" but we might as well get "Italian doctrinal stupidity on a larger scale" in which case voting for Hitler and having him get the snot beat out of him because his general staff implemented all of the wrong lessons learned from fighting colonial wars in Ethiopia and thinking that an easy victory against an opponent who doesn't have the industrial base to even challenge you validates your wrong headed theories, is a valid option.

I'm not risking it though. I'll just assume the generals who understand warfare the best won out and reformed the army.

 

[crabapple]

Who in their right mind would NOT choose Nader? Only real right wing extremists would choose Hitler or Mussolini

 

[Bootstoots]

I am not white, so I'll take the alternative least likely to get me gassed and vote Mussolini. Also I'd like to point out that a combined Italian-German-Austrian state would not necessarily be the strongest naval power, given that naval power is as much a political decision as determined by industrial capacity. So you know, there'd probably be treaties signed on naval capacity, and assuming the former president was a regular kind of president who honors their treaty obligation, the British and IGA fleets would likely be roughly equal. Also, the manpower and industrial power of this combined state aren't the only considerations in actual combat ability. When asking about military capacity, the question should also be - how good are their operational doctrines? Do they make full use of their mobility? Do they understand current combined arms theories?

It is important to bear in mind that the IGA state will be a combination of 3 nations, each with their own military and doctrine. If that is not standardized, then it hampers effectiveness of the army as a whole. So like the interwar years will have been spent resolving the doctrinal confusion, or turning Italy, Germany and Austria into 3 separate armies so that each can have its own doctrine in which case it doesn't matter. However, I'll be assuming the generals will have spent their time fighting over how to implement doctrines among a combined army.

So the point I'm trying to make is that we won't necessarily get "German blitzkrieg with a larger industrial base and more manpower" but we might as well get "Italian doctrinal stupidity on a larger scale" in which case voting for Hitler and having him get the snot beat out of him because his general staff implemented all of the wrong lessons learned from fighting colonial wars in Ethiopia and thinking that an easy victory against an opponent who doesn't have the industrial base to even challenge you validates your wrong headed theories, is a valid option.

I'm not risking it though. I'll just assume the generals who understand warfare the best won out and reformed the army.

The IGA Navy isn't totally dominant - the UK, with some assistance from the US, has enough ships to keep it sort of balanced, although nobody knows for sure which side would ultimately be dominant in war. There are probably bilateral treaties of some sort in order to put a few brakes on the arms race, which the outgoing president is honoring.

German military doctrine reigns supreme. Top military academies are overwhelmingly dominated by German instructors. There are some Austrian and Italian generals in order to pay homage to the idea of all three former countries being equal, but current IGA military strategy is much like that of the real-life Wehrmacht.

This army has had battle experience in the wars of the early 1920s, in which it decisively crushed Slavic separatism from the former Austria-Hungary along with some socialist movements in all three former states. By 1925 all organized resistance had ended, but the "state of emergency" laws persist - hence the exit ban and the fact that the president is an electoral dictator who rules by decree, with a rubber-stamp parliament.

Even if it weren't de-facto German dominated, and the army were instead incompetent in the Italian manner, "voting for Hitler and getting the snot beaten out of him" means you're voting for a continental/world war that will leave millions of people dead both at home and abroad. Mussolini's death tolls will be much lower than that, albeit nontrivial.

 

[Bootstoots]

Who in their right mind would NOT choose Nader? Only real right wing extremists would choose Hitler or Mussolini

Did you read the OP? The country is dominated by right-wing extremists, with a clear lesser-of-two-evils choice. Nader's running, but he is polling 3% of the vote. Assuming you did read the OP, do you think that you would still have to be a right-wing extremist to support one in this election?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd vote for Mussolini, on the grounds that we can hang him later. That much is a proven historical fact. Hitler, you have to maneuver him into doing the job himself, much trickier.

But, in the booth, I'd probably find myself voting for Nader. Some lines can't be crossed, regardless of circumstances, and I think that voting against democracy is one of those lines. Democracy has as only as much power as the citizenry has self-respect.

 

[jackelgull]

I'd vote for Mussolini, on the grounds that we can hang him later. That much is a proven historical fact. Hitler, you have to maneuver him into doing the job himself, much trickier.

But, in the booth, I'd probably find myself voting for Nader. Some lines can't be crossed, regardless of circumstances, and I think that voting against democracy is one of those lines. Democracy has as only as much power as the citizenry has self-respect.

At this point, it is either going to be Mussolini or Hitler. The citizenry has no self-respect. And at this point, I'd have burned through my reserves of patriotism. It's no longer about who would be best for the country, it's about self defense.

The Democratic institutions have not only failed, they have lead to this travesty. A plus for Mussolini is that he's Catholic, and will likely seek support from the Catholic Church to bolster his power - which certainly won't go over well in protestant Germany. Who knows, maybe he'll inspire a liberal backlash.

 

[Traitorfish]

At this point, it is either going to be Mussolini or Hitler. The citizenry has no self-respect. And at this point, I'd have burned through my reserves of patriotism. It's no longer about who would be best for the country, it's about self defense.

The citizenry is ultimately a self-defined group. If a majority cede their democratic responsibilities, it falls all the more to the remainder to uphold them. Democracy doesn't just mean voting, it means the rule of the people, and the people have no right to abdicate that rule.

 

[Ajidica]

But, in the booth, I'd probably find myself voting for Nader. Some lines can't be crossed, regardless of circumstances, and I think that voting against democracy is one of those lines. Democracy has as only as much power as the citizenry has self-respect.

While I would like to agree with you, I feel that when confronted with probably the closest humanity has come to Pure Evil, idealism takes a back seat to pragmatism. If the only way to avoid an apocalyptic race war with untold millions murdered along an assembly line of carnage is by voting for Mussolini (or Mugabe, or any other sordid little dictator with a violent secret police) then that to me isn't a hard choice.
Plus, Mussolini seems the type to purge Nazis from his ranks, so at least some Nazis will die.

 

[Traitorfish]

If voting was enough to beat the Nazis, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, because these guys would have no stronger presence in the historical imagination than Thalmann or Gramsci. If it reaches the point that we're engaged in the farcical and self-defeating process of electing the best fascist, voting has become pure theater: the only thing left is to act out your part with a little dignity, before acquiring a rifle and taking to the mountains.

 

[jackelgull]

If voting was enough to beat the Nazis, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, because these guys would have no stronger presence in the historical imagination than Thalman or Gramsci. If it reaches the point that we're engaged in the farcical and self-defeating process of electing the best fascist, voting has become pure theater: the only thing left is to act out your part with a little dignity, before acquiring a rifle and taking to the mountains.

Or join the army to give accurate intelligence to your friends in the mountains.

 

[Ajidica]

If voting was enough to beat the Nazis, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, because these guys would have no stronger presence in the historical imagination than Thalman or Gramsci. If it reaches the point that we're engaged in the farcical and self-defeating process of electing the best fascist, voting has become pure theater: the only thing left is to act out your part with a little dignity, before acquiring a rifle and taking to the mountains.

From the OP:

The election is free and fair in the sense that there's no fraud and ballots are cast secretly and counted accurately. You can be pretty sure this is going to be the last such election for a long while, but this election is not a sham.

I took that to mean if the Nazis fail to achieve a plurality of the votes, they will not be in power. There aren't enough parties in this scenario for the Nazis to backdoor their way into power through a coalition and Hindenburg -being little more than a shambling corpse with fascist tendencies- is not present.
If we are forced to a situation where we are voting between who is the least horrifying, surely you would want to ensure that the least horrifying fascist comes into power? Otherwise you are forced into the ethical minefield like the Catholic Church found itself it, forced to declare "a pox on both your houses" in a farcical attempt to imply there was any sort of equivalency between the Grand Coalition and the Nazis.

 

[crabapple]

Did you read the OP? The country is dominated by right-wing extremists, with a clear lesser-of-two-evils choice. Nader's running, but he is polling 3% of the vote. Assuming you did read the OP, do you think that you would still have to be a right-wing extremist to support one in this election?

So? you shouldnt vote after what polls says, you should vote of what you think is right, tactical voting is bull**** . Regardless polls can be wrong. Relevant youtube clip

 

[Lohrenswald]

Probably wouldn't vote. I don't really know anything about Nader, what's he about?

 

[red_elk]

Nader actually may have a chance. Latest polls show he is on 2-nd place with 25% and already ahead of Hitler

 

[Peuri]

I'd vote for this Nader fellow. Even if Mussolini wouldn't be half as bad as Hitler, what about the guy who comes after him? If the citizenship thinks in a way where about 90% would vote a form of fascist, the Machiavellian moment is well past and the republic is essentially already dead.

 

[caketastydelish]

I would strongly recommend either voting for a third party (such as Nader or someone else) or just not vote at all. "We only have two choices" is baloney people tell themselves, which is why it happens. It doesn't have to be that way. And there should DEFINITELY be better choices than Hitler and Mussolini.

 

[bernie14]

The citizenry is ultimately a self-defined group. If a majority cede their democratic responsibilities, it falls all the more to the remainder to uphold them. Democracy doesn't just mean voting, it means the rule of the people, and the people have no right to abdicate that rule.

so, democracy is defined as a "right" by the people for the people but they have no "right" to abdicate from that rule? sounds tautological to me

 

[Bootstoots]

I took that to mean if the Nazis fail to achieve a plurality of the votes, they will not be in power. There aren't enough parties in this scenario for the Nazis to backdoor their way into power through a coalition and Hindenburg -being little more than a shambling corpse with fascist tendencies- is not present.
If we are forced to a situation where we are voting between who is the least horrifying, surely you would want to ensure that the least horrifying fascist comes into power? Otherwise you are forced into the ethical minefield like the Catholic Church found itself it, forced to declare "a pox on both your houses" in a farcical attempt to imply there was any sort of equivalency between the Grand Coalition and the Nazis.

That's correct - it's not a parliamentary system, it's a (very) strong presidential system with FPTP voting, where the two major parties are the Fascists and the Nazis. If Mussolini is elected, the Nazis will have little influence on actual policy. But I'm sure there will be plenty of street brawls featuring brownshirts vs blackshirts, which would be fun to watch on the sidelines.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd vote for Nader and buy a bunch of guns

 

[Quintillus]

I'd like to say I'd vote for Nader. But having seen this movie once before in a time loop, I know that in a FPTP election where I'm strongly against one candidate who has a serious, even if somewhat less than 50% chance, of winning, I'm going to vote for the candidate who I don't particularly like, but is clearly the less bad of the two choices.

And this second iteration of the time loop has worse candidates on both the "more bad" and "less bad" halves of the ballot, by quite a margin, but the principle still applies. Thus, the vote has to be for Il Duce.

Assuming I could bring myself to actually cast the ballot. It actually becomes a harder question when considering instead of Il Duce, a modern strongman such as Bashar al-Assad. Could I really vote for him, and if not, would Il Duce be any better? If I disliked both candidates enough, perhaps I would vote Nader anyway. I hope to not find out in real life.