 |
| |
|
|
johncmcleod
|
 |
Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA
Jan 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
I hate having political parties, and I wouldn't mind if they didn't exist in our system. Democracts vote democrat and republicans vote republican. Every time a bill is passed, almost all the republicans vote the same way and almost all the democrats vote the same way. In fact, our representatives sometimes vote against what they believe just for a concession. They will also do whatever they can to keep up the strength of their political party. For example, some of the liberal democrats who were for civil rights wouldn't really push for those rights because if they did, the blacks who weren't allowed to vote would be allowed to and they wouldn't vote for the segragationist democrats representing their state. That would cause the democratic party to lose power. So the liberals wouldn't actually do anything for civil rights, they would just make a bunch of lies about progress and clap their hands at how great the movement was going.
It's much worse with the public. Though you may deny it, most people just vote for the person of their political party. Political parties mask what the leaders are really about. For example, my dad knows a lot about politics but the political party system has masked him just like other Americans. First off, I don't remember him ever opposing something the democrats were for, or ever opposing a decision that a democratic president did, and he always disagrees with stuff that only republicans go for. Another example is the other night, my family watched the movie called The Emperor's Club. The movie dealed with morals in both people and leaders. At the end my dad told us how important it was for our leaders to have good morals. He then talked about how this isn't the case in most politicians, and how it isn't the case especially in George Bush. But then of course he never had a problem with Clinton having the affair and then lying to the nation about it. And many other times he'll agree with a democratic president on one decision he makes but if a republican president does the same thing he'll disagree with it.
In fact, I think it is very possible for American to become Totalitarian because of them. A political party's representatives gradually lean more towards less freedom for the people. If it goes slow the everyone in the party will support them. People especially just go along with their political party on the things that seem small at the time. Over large amounts of time they add up and it could happen, like what Versayen was talking about.
Does anyone agree with me? Or am I forgetting about the good things that political parties bring us?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Do you have a better solution? Do you want the European system? Or do you prefer the Israeli Knesset?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
The problem lies how candidates are voted into the parliaments:
Our country is divided up into districts where the winner moves into the congress, even at a distribution such as 34%, 33%, and 33%. It's very hard, if not impossible, to establish a viable third party under such a system.
In Israel, the exact opposite happens. There are no districts there. The representation of parties in the national parliament is purely determined by the percentage each party gets in the election. Without the 5% hurdle, Israeli Knesset is jammed with 30+ parties and endless squablings. Do we want something like that?
I think Germany offers a nice comprise, since they learnt the mistakes from the Weimarer Republic when the Reichstag was put together in a similar as the Israeli Knesset. In Bundestag, half of the members are winners of individual districts and half are determined by the percentage each party gets. Coupled with the 5% hurdle, this system guarantees multiple party representation, but without the mess of splintering.
All the talks about a viable 3rd party in the US are completely useless something is done about our election system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traianvs
|
 |
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Jan 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The problem lies how candidates are voted into the parliaments:
Our country is divided up into districts where the winner moves into the congress, even at a distribution such as 34%, 33%, and 33%. It's very hard, if not impossible, to establish a viable third party under such a system.
In Israel, the exact opposite happens. There are no districts there. The representation of parties in the national parliament is purely determined by the percentage each party gets in the election. Without the 5% hurdle, Israeli Knesset is jammed with 30+ parties and endless squablings. Do we want something like that?
I think Germany offers a nice comprise, since they learnt the mistakes from the Weimarer Republic when the Reichstag was put together in a similar as the Israeli Knesset. In Bundestag, half of the members are winners of individual districts and half are determined by the percentage each party gets. Coupled with the 5% hurdle, this system guarantees multiple party representation, but without the mess of splintering.
All the talks about a viable 3rd party in the US are completely useless something is done about our election system. |
This is the case in other countries as well, like ours for example... 5% minimum or no seat in the parliament. There is a catch however.. It's not 5% of our entire population, as Belgium is divided into Flanders and Wallonia... You'll have to get 5% in your part, the parties are not quite the same...
This means that if a party in Flanders manages to get 5%... it only has 5% of a population of 6 million, and not the 10 million Belgians... 
teh European system rulez. People sure as hell don't vote for their "side" because otherwise their counterpart would become too powerful.. The thing is there are various parties here, although not too much (like in Israel with their masses of unimportant, small parties)... It means that coalitions are almost never the same here... which is a good way of making sure one party doesn't hold on to power for a too long period. A disadvantage is that even the biggest party here only gets say 25% more or less... But I don't really see it as a disadvantage, because they have to get a coalition partner that serves as a counterweight... the ruling party can't do whatever it wants, unlike in America... Bush ruling all => would be impossible here!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
How about their aren't any political parties at all? The people just vote for the person who has the best policies. |
Actually, the US system comes the closest to your ideal. European politics are far stronger party based than candidate based. Also, European party organization and discipline is far stronger than ours.
The other difference is that the executive branch in Europe can pretty much do what they want since they have the majority in the legislature 95% of the time. Voting for the legislature is essentially the same as voting for the chief executive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trajanus
But I don't really see it as a disadvantage, because they have to get a coalition partner that serves as a counterweight... the ruling party can't do whatever it wants, unlike in America... Bush ruling all => would be impossible here! |
Bush only gets free reign in foreign policies. Domestically, his agenda are less likely to get through. For example, his original 800 billion tax cut has been slashed in half after debates in Congress. Had the Democrats not failed utterly in the last election, his tax cut would not have passed at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
I keep reading on this boards that the 3rd parties are not viable because the 2 old parties are much more appealing |
It's simplistic, but not altogether false. The 2 main parties are LARGE conglomeration of beliefs. When a 3rd party takes too much of the vote, the blob of the party nearest to that view takes over that position, but moderates it. More people find this moderated position more appealing than the radical version the 3rd party was advocating. |
If the US changes its voting system to resemble European ones more, there will be guaranteed more parties represented in the Congress. It's not a matter of appeal, but of system. Many people don't vote smaller parties because they know that those parties don't have a chance to be represented.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
Yes, that is true... but when you have two large parties, they will take the positions of the smaller ones, or incorporate them into their government. It happens all the time. The bigger party, in the end, wins out.
Even in a parlimentary system, I doubt third parties would get much... maybe 10-15% of the seats at best... and of course that wouldn't be nearly enough to do anything.
The problem is that with a parlimentary system the smaller parties control everything. Think about it this way, the Democrats have 45%, Republicans 45%, Libertarians 6%, and Greens 4%. In this situation, the ones with the MOST power are the Libertarians, who can pick and choose which big party will be in power and of course that party will have to compromise. You have the position that 6% of the populace controls much more than their share of the vote.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
How about their aren't any political parties at all? The people just vote for the person who has the best policies. |
Suppose that Apolyton has elections without political parties, and I become a congressman. Many of my supporters want to add a Simcity forum. Many of Imran's (assume he gets elected) supporters advocate the creation of a WarCraft forum. Both of our supporters like the idea of a HALO forum.
We will see the opportunity for mutual benefit, and I say I'll vote for a WarCraft forum if he votes for a SimCity forum. We introduce a bill that adds forums for all three games.
Sava wants to add a forum dedicated to South Park, and he also supports the SimCity forum idea. We add the South Park forum to our bill, and he promises to vote with us.
Me, Imran, and Sava have formed an alliance, and we get our stuff passed. Our supporters happily vote for our reelection because we helped them get the forums they wanted. People who didn't band together don't get their stuff passed.
The same thing happens with politicians in the US. Maybe even if Imran doesn't support the South Park forum, he'll vote with us anyway because he gets stuff that he wants passed.
If we want to get rid of parties in the US, we need to change the system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, that is true... but when you have two large parties, they will take the positions of the smaller ones, or incorporate them into their government. It happens all the time. The bigger party, in the end, wins out.
|
Or bigger parties can disintegrate into smaller ones given enough ideological differences.
quote:
Even in a parlimentary system, I doubt third parties would get much... maybe 10-15% of the seats at best... and of course that wouldn't be nearly enough to do anything.
|
That depends. In Germany, the Union and SPD have each about 40% in most elections, while the Green, FDP, and PDS carve up the remaining 20%. However, the largest party in Belgium has less than 30%.
quote:
The problem is that with a parlimentary system the smaller parties control everything. Think about it this way, the Democrats have 45%, Republicans 45%, Libertarians 6%, and Greens 4%. In this situation, the ones with the MOST power are the Libertarians, who can pick and choose which big party will be in power and of course that party will have to compromise. You have the position that 6% of the populace controls much more than their share of the vote. |
The German Free Democrats (a little like Libertarians) were part of every government from 1949 until 1998, within only a brief interruption between 1966 and 1969. Thus, they got a nickname called "die Regierigen". "Regierung" means government, and "gierig" means greedy in German.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The problem lies how candidates are voted into the parliaments:
Our country is divided up into districts where the winner moves into the congress, even at a distribution such as 34%, 33%, and 33%. It's very hard, if not impossible, to establish a viable third party under such a system.
In Israel, the exact opposite happens. There are no districts there. The representation of parties in the national parliament is purely determined by the percentage each party gets in the election. Without the 5% hurdle, Israeli Knesset is jammed with 30+ parties and endless squablings. Do we want something like that?
I think Germany offers a nice comprise, since they learnt the mistakes from the Weimarer Republic when the Reichstag was put together in a similar as the Israeli Knesset. In Bundestag, half of the members are winners of individual districts and half are determined by the percentage each party gets. Coupled with the 5% hurdle, this system guarantees multiple party representation, but without the mess of splintering.
All the talks about a viable 3rd party in the US are completely useless something is done about our election system. |
Good analysis, and I agree with your conclusion. We need to get rid of Congressional districts and simply elect the X top vote getters in the state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, that is true... but when you have two large parties, they will take the positions of the smaller ones, or incorporate them into their government. It happens all the time. The bigger party, in the end, wins out.
Even in a parlimentary system, I doubt third parties would get much... maybe 10-15% of the seats at best... and of course that wouldn't be nearly enough to do anything.
The problem is that with a parlimentary system the smaller parties control everything. Think about it this way, the Democrats have 45%, Republicans 45%, Libertarians 6%, and Greens 4%. In this situation, the ones with the MOST power are the Libertarians, who can pick and choose which big party will be in power and of course that party will have to compromise. You have the position that 6% of the populace controls much more than their share of the vote. |
And here I thought that the Republicans and Democrats had the power because they are going to be the only ones who are asked to form a government and give the Libs a chance to bargain. And of course one of those two parties is going to be the home of the PM, while the Libs will have to be satisfied with the Ministry of Home Schooling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheStinger
There is some really bas US analysis of european political systems going on here.
Has anyone looked at the UK or even the French system. |
We inherited the district - winner gets all - system from you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PMKeates
|
 |
London, Great Britain
May 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
With a parliamentary system, the executive can force through anything it pleases as it will have majority control over the legislature. However, it can only do so if the party's own MPs support whatever is attempting to be passed. In the case of the UK system, parties can impose a "Three Line Whip" which means that an MP must:
Turn up
Vote for his party
No questions asked
If an MP does not obey this "Three Line Whip" he/ she can face disciplinary action by his/ her respective party. However, if enough MPs "rebel" against the Three Line Whip the government can actually have its attempted enforcement stopped.
Another benefit of the UK system is that there are two houses, the House of Common and the House of Lords. The House of Lords can temporarily stop a bill being passed, which if the bill is extreme enough, could result in the party attempting to pass the bill being not being re-elected and thus never being able to carry out their will. As the House of Lords is comprised of far more varied political and social representation it is not entirely unlikely that this could happen.
On the subjet of a viable 3rd part in America, it would be possible if there was a change in electoral system. As the FPTP (First Past the Post) electoral system uses a simple majority method of deciding votes, this does not allow for proportional representation and results in the weakining of the weak and the strengthening of the strong. If a proportionally representative system was to be introduce in America you would find that the smaller parties will gain more power and the strongest party other than the Republicans and the Democrats, will become a viable 3rd party.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorizael
Okay, I haven't read the entire thread, but you're wrong about the American public. Party identification is actually falling. More people are becoming independents and more people are also split ticket voting, i.e. voting for republicans and democrats (and at the local level third parties) on ballots with multiple positions. |
This, however, is exactly the problem; the rising number of registered independents is actually strengthening the 2-party stranglehold on American politics. How? By opting out of the primary process (aside to non-US residents: the party primary election process here is generally closed to anyone not registered for the party), and allowing an increasingly narrow band of "party faithful" to determine the choices in elections.
The most recent victim of this mentality was John McCain. When McCain was running in the GOP primary, his biggest fans were the registered independents who'd fled from the Democratic and Republican parties. That makes for a lot of fans, but they didn't translate into votes because independents can't vote in most primaries. So, having declared their independence, independents got to watch their candidate of choice flame out, without ever once getting to support him.
Now, of course, at least independents vote. An even bigger issue is the 45-55% of Americans who apparently are so alienated by the political process that they don't vote at all (essayist and novelist Joan Didion refers to them as "America's largest political party"). Every four years we go through some low-level hand-wringing about the low voter turnout in the US, but the truth is that that's just the way politicians like it; the fewer the people who turn out, the more that power can be concentrated in the hands of our increasingly-unpopular political parties.
Politics in the US is increasingly turning into a choice between McDonald's and Burger King, and in this sorry state of affairs most people have chosen to either (a) starve, or (b) feel real proud of themselves because they're not brand-loyal, but instead eat at McDonald's on some days and Burger King on others. And meanwhile, the management keeps serving up the same old crap, because everyone whose a regular seems to like it.
The real solution, I suspect -- and one the Christian Right has learned but the activist left has not -- is to get a job at McDonald's, get all of your friends jobs at McDonald's, slowly but surely take over the management of McDonald's, and change the damned menu.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lorizael
|
 |
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
Quite true, more and more extreme conservatives are coming into the Republican party.
But, I think I recall that more states are also switching to open primaries, which will make indepedents real happy. There's also a lot of evidence that people will choose a party just so that they can vote in the primaries, even if they don't have any strong party affiliations.
The other thing to consider is the old theory of third parties. Eventually, if a third party gets enough votes, the party closest it to it will start to lose votes, and that party will be forced to adopt some of the policies of the third party. Unfortunately this does not bring in any more parties, but it is a way of slowly affecting the policy stances of the two major parties. The other problem with this is that people don't vote for third parties, because they feel their vote is wasted. This is worsened, at least in the eyes of the people, by the electoral college.
And the last time a third party won the presidential election.
Lincoln.
And that's not right.
And Rufus, our constitution says nothing about political parties, but one of the most influential of framers, Madison, was a very strong proponent of them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2003 04:52
. Remember, Americans usually say, it's a republic, not a democracy.
|