 |
| |
|
|
Transcend
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, USA
Apr 1999
time: 22:17
|
|
There are significant differences in how candidates are voted into the parliament in various countries.
One way is what the US and UK are doing: divide up the country in districts, winner of each district gets everything while the losers get none. This type of election system usually favors only 1 or 2 parties, and rejects smaller parties.
The other way is what Israel and German Weimarer Republic uses: the percentage of each party received in national election determines the make-up of the parliament. What you get here is that even the smallest party has a chance to show up in the national parliament. Both Israeli and Weimarer parliaments has or had over 30 parties.
Then there is the hybrid solution which is employed by Germany today: half of the parliament is made up from candidates from winners in districts, while the half depends on the votes parties received at the national level. If you want multiple parties and to avoid splintering of votes at same time, this is the way to go.
Almost every country except the US has a head of state and a head of government. The head of state is always a president or a
monarch, and the head of government is usually the prime minister(Germans call it Chancellor). The American President is the only person I know that performs both as the head of the state and the head of government. The "government" I mentioned here only refers to the executive branch.
The American Presidential Cabinet is also rather unusual compared to the rest of the world, because its members are directly selected by the President. The parliament(Congress) has very little to say about its composition other than denying the confirmation of ministers(Secretary). In every other democracies, cabinet members MUST be member of the parliaments and of the ruling parties.
The head of American government(executive) is also directly elected by the people and does not derive from the majority in the parliament. It's quite often than American executive and legislature are led by opposite parties, a pheneomen that's also very rare in other democracies.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"Would you like to see a third party?"
Er... I belong to a third party.
It's time for the press to start paying attention to it, is all.
--"Oh, and Pat Buchanan, from what I've seen, is a nut and a half."
Yes. Yes, he is.
--"the reform party almost made it in"
Well, they were able to scare the two major parties into (yet another) rule shift, but the Reform Party was never more than personality cult. Once Perot left it was doomed.
--"Then maybe the TWO tradional parties could shift a bit away from the center"
Okay, not the first time this has shown up in this thread. Since when are either of them "centrist" by US historical standards?
Wraith
Death or compliance - now that's not too much to ask for, is it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"Hey, Wraith, if your party can't command more than 10% in national elections, it's not a party anyone cares about"
This is what's known as a catch-22. We need mainstream media recognition to get significant numbers in national elections, but until we get significant numbers in national elections the mainstream media will have an excuse not to cover us. We would have done well if we had recieved the same amount of attention Nader or even Buchanan recieved.
As far as viability, well, we aren't going anywhere. The Green Party will be dead in the water as soon as Nader stops running. The Reform Party is pretty much gone already, and none of the others comes close to the Libertarian Party is numbers, elected officials, or organization.
Wraith
"Democrats are... the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
-- P. J. O'Rourke
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
The rules in the US are certainly stacked against 3rd parties, and there's no history of their success in the US except as either fringe groups (The Vegetarian Party ran candidates for president repeatedly in the 1st few decades of the 20th century) or cults of personality (Perot, Wallace, TR, maybe even Debs). But another problem here is that everyone is assuming that parties actually mean anything anymore. Once, party identification was a point of pride, and a party was an institution to which people beloged and for which they would work, like a church or a fraternal organization. That's what building a 3rd party requires; only after it is successful can it largely dispense with its constituency exept when assembling them every four years for Nuremberg-rally-like conventions. That's why, these days, when people say "there should be a third party," they don't mean that they want to dedicate themselves to a political organization; they just mean they want the store to start stocking Dr. Pepper along with Coke and Pepsi.
This is why, if a third party emerges, it won't be centrist; building a party requires a dedicated organization sustained by ideological fervor. The Greens and the Libertarians have the best start here, and the Greens are probably slightly better positioned to succeed (since the GOP can convincingly embrace economic libertarianism, even if they don't mean it, but the Dems are having a harder time remaining believable as environmentalists). But I honestly think that if a third party does emerge in the US, it'll emerge out of the Christian right: they've got the money, the grassroots network, and the committed membership already in place. And if that happens, I'll surely regret all those times I said such mean things about the Republocrats. 
Last edited by Rufus T. Firefly on 07-02-2002 at 15:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
U.S. electoral rules definitely hurt third parties. Either of the changes Stefu suggested (runoffs if no one gets a majority, or preference votes) would really help; I'm sick to death of hearing the "wasted vote" excuse for not voting Libertarian, and the Nader votes really did have the unintended consquence of electing Bush last time.
Another change I'd like to see is to quit basing representative bodies on geography. Instead, people should be able to select a representative who really represents them, regardless of where they happen to live. Proportional representation (each party gets seats in proportion to their votes) would approximate that, but I'd like to see the system be even more flexible by getting away from party designations altogether. For instance, if enough people decided that promoting the space program was the most important issue, they should be able to seat a rep who promises to make that his primary concern.
Finally, I (unhappily) agree with Shi that the major parties have too much vested interest in the current system to ever allow changes like these to happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"If anything I think Enron will sort of Re-Energize the Reform and Green partys."
I don't really see that happening. If the Reform Party can get rid of Buchanan, maybe so, but the most likely replacement would be for Perot to come back. Not sure his oil/energy ties would exactly be helping him right now...
As for the Green Party being re-energized by Enron, well, not likely. Enron had too many ties to various green movements in the first place. They were one of the groups petitioning Bush to support Kyoto (emissions credit trading would have been big money for them). They were also one of the bigger industry global warming advocates, despite what their own scientists were telling them. If the Greens try to capitalize on this they're going to get discredited and lose a lot of ground.
--"because people will always vote for the lesser of 2 evils."
Yeah, that's pretty much the way it is. Exit polls anymore show that elections are more about who's got more votes against them than for them.
--"and there's no history of their success in the US except as either fringe groups"
Some of those fringe groups ended up very powerful. The Prohibition Party managed to get the Constitution changed (failed experiment that was, but still). The Socialist Party never really managed to gain a large following, but their entire platform is current policy thanks their influence.
And don't forget the Whigs being replaced by the Republicans. Third parties have had a lot of influence in the past.
--"since the GOP can convincingly embrace economic libertarianism, even if they don't mean it,"
You're probably right about the Dems, but the GOP can't claim economic libertarianims convincingly any more these days either. Republican budgets lately have been huge, and they certainly aren't above spreading the pork around (and being obvious about it).
--"I'm sick to death of hearing the "wasted vote" excuse for not voting Libertarian,"
That's one reason I'm looking forward to this next Presidential election. With an incumbent running this excuse loses a lot of force.
Wraith
I tried being reasonable once--I didn't like it
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"ROTFLMAO!"
This is from one of Friedman's books...
quote:
SOCIALIST PLATFORM OF 1928
(NOTE: Herewith the economic planks of the Socialist party platform of 1928, along with an indication in parenthesis of how these planks have fared. The list that follows includes every economic plank, but not the full language of each.)
1."Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly at Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals." (Boulder Dam, renamed Hoover Dam, and Muscle Shoals are now both federal government projects.)
2."A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost." (Tennessee Valley Authority.)
3."National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication." (Railroad passenger service is completely nationalized through Amtrak. Some freight service is nationalized through Conrail. The FCC controls communications by telephone, telegraph, radio, and television.)
4."An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation." (Government expenditures for these purposes are currently in the many [non-adjusted] billions of dollars.)
5."Immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works ..." (In the 1930s, WPA and PWA were a direct counterpart; now, a wide variety of other programs are.) "All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions." (The Davis-Bacon and Walsh-Healey Acts required contractors with government contracts to pay "prevailing wages," generally interpreted as highest union wages.)
6."Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery." (Federal grants in aid to states and local municipalities currently total [non-adjusted] tens of billions of dollars a year.)
7."A system of unemployment insurance." (Part of Social Security system)
8."The nation-wide extension of public employment agencies in cooperation with city federations of labor." (U.S. Employment Service and affiliated state employment services administer a network of about 2,500 [in 1980] local employment offices.)
9."A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance." (Part of Social Security system.)
10."Shortening the workday" and "Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week." (Legislated by wages and hours laws that require overtime for more than forty hours of work per week.)
11."Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment." (Not achieved as amendment, but essence incorporated in various legislative acts.)
12."Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents." (Party achieved, partly not.)
13."Increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance." (In 1928, highest personal income tax rate, 25 percent; in 1978, 70 percent; in 1928, corporate tax rate, 12 percent; in 1978, 48 percent; in 1928, top federal estate tax rate, 20 percent; in 1978, 70 percent.)
14."Appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation." (Not achieved in this form, but property taxes have risen drastically.) |
You'll notice that some of those have become more the case since this was written. #1, for instance, as Clinton vastly increased the amount of land owned by the federal government during his term.
Wraith
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
-- Charles Austin Beard
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DetroitDave
Voter apathy is what's killing third-party possibility. How does anyone expect to gather the needed grassroots support to build one if you can't get Billy Bob and the other 50 % of us americans off the couch to vote for their local city council. |
It's actually worse than that. 50% is the turn out for presidential elections; off-year elections tend in most places to have a turnout more like 20-25%, unless there's a hotly contested race or controversial referendum on the ballot.
That, however, is actually good for third parties, as the Greens have been showing in Western states. The turnout for local elections is so small that the votes of the party faithful, even in a small party, count for lots more. Of course, there's not much power in a single city-council seat, but if you win enough of them you can be perceived as a "real party," which helps tremendously when you start spoiling for bigger prizes. I think there's a perception in the US that third parties don't expect or even want to win elections and just use elections to publicize their pet causes. Actually electing people, at any level, can help dislodge that prejuidice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"Claiming that the US political-economic system is based on socialist values sounds pretty absurd if you compare what the european system is like for example"
Well, we aren't as socialist as y'all yet, no. However, as I posted above, the old Socialist Party platform pretty much is the standard policy these days. I like pointing that out to people who call me a radical  What is considered "centrist" today is considerd such only because of the absolutely crappy job our schools do teaching history.
--"And really, what's going on in Austin? It seems to be a world of its own."
Austin is pretty much a world of it's own down here. However, that's pretty irrelevant, since I was a Libertarian before I moved here.
--"Voter apathy is what's killing third-party possibility."
Traditional non-voters are about a third of the Libertarian Party, actually. A lot of people are fed up with the Demopublican vs. Republicrat "choice" and don't vote. When they find out about other options they start again. Third parties are the best chance of increasing voter turn out.
--"Actually electing people, at any level, can help dislodge that prejuidice."
The LP has been doing this for a while, but it hasn't really helped (We've got a majority on the Leadville city council, for instance). It's that whole media bias thing again. The majority of the press corps is even further left than DC, so they have this little problem with people saying government can't fix everything. And they seem to deal with problems the way a lot of people do; pretend it isn't there and hope it goes away.
Wraith
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-02-2002 03:42
).
) But not nationalistic or racist at all. 
|