The Netherlands has had a multiparty system, with 6-12 seated parties in parliament, since our constitution was written. Coalition is usually the biggest 2-3 parties (Though this can change, and 4 has happened in the past). Of the current parties, 5 have governed in the last 20 years, 4 have not because they are relatively extreme / small, and 2 have not because they have only existed for one election cycle.
The problem in the USA is that the electoral college makes it impossible for a third party to exist.
Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.
Not really. Canada, for instance, has had a multi-party, non-coalition system for ages.
The American system just has alot of things in place that make a 3rd party useless and not very function at a national level.
The Westminster first-past-the-post system allows the party that gets about 40% or so of the votes to have a solid majority in Parliament. That's why coalitions are (thankfully) so rare in Canada, the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere. AFAIK, the only parties that have formed governments in Canada are the Liberals and the Conservatives (in their various incarnations). The NDP and other minor parties don't hold much influence on a national level.
Coalition governments are much more common in political systems where seats in the legislature are allocated proportionally based on votes in the election. But those systems tend to lead to unstable governments.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.
Not really. Canada, for instance, has had a multi-party, non-coalition system for ages.
The American system just has alot of things in place that make a 3rd party useless and not very function at a national level.
The Westminster first-past-the-post system allows the party that gets about 40% or so of the votes to have a solid majority in Parliament. That's why coalitions are (thankfully) so rare in Canada, the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere. AFAIK, the only parties that have formed governments in Canada are the Liberals and the Conservatives (in their various incarnations). The NDP and other minor parties don't hold much influence on a national level.
Coalition governments are much more common in political systems where seats in the legislature are allocated proportionally based on votes in the election. But those systems tend to lead to unstable governments.
Japan has PR and coalitions, and had the same party in power for 50+ years.
That sounds stable to me. Oh, and it was also bloody awful.
PR can be stable, and stable but awful is nothing to be desired.
First, I recognized that we were taking two different samples when discussing this. That's why I said "All other things equal" in the OP.
Of course that's not the case and so our debate continues; why *wouldn't* a representative be able to logically form his vote based on his constituents?
No it doesn't. In most areas political parties don't even come into play below the county/state level. General apathy kills local politics, because if you're any good you'd be in higher office or the private sector because it pays better, is generally more interesting and makes a bigger difference.
True, but we're talking political parties there. What I originally asked (and I should have made more clear) was about the structure. I see no logical reason there isn't a large-scale voting system in place throughout the country in which citizens can cast their vote on publicly reserved days of the year. Systems such as this have been shot down before coming to fruition because of political agendas, but given the way the Republicans have fractured with Palin and the teabaggers, there can't be much in the way of resistance, especially as a forum for communicating their platform. Getting issues before the people who are directly affected seems like a better (read: more responsible) way to vote for a representative than by following his own agenda.
Since this is all about direct democracy anyways, I see no reason that public votes (whether or not to build a bridge where it endangers a flock of birds who nest there, etc) couldn't be first decided by the voting public and then voted on in a supervisory capacity by the elected representatives.
Ideally I think that the modern Representative democracy should have infrastructure in place to allow Representatives to poll their district/constituencies prior to a floor vote of legislation. Not that they have to follow the results, but they would at least be informed as to the opinions of their citizenry, and in turn (due to this sub vote) the constituency might be a tad more informed of what the fuck their rep is doing.
And in the current age of connectivity I dont think this is pants shittingly crazy.
But I also want to repeal the 17th Ammendment so what the fuck do I know, right?
First, I recognized that we were taking two different samples when discussing this. That's why I said "All other things equal" in the OP.
Of course that's not the case and so our debate continues; why *wouldn't* a representative be able to logically form his vote based on his constituents?
No it doesn't. In most areas political parties don't even come into play below the county/state level. General apathy kills local politics, because if you're any good you'd be in higher office or the private sector because it pays better, is generally more interesting and makes a bigger difference.
True, but we're talking political parties there. What I originally asked (and I should have made more clear) was about the structure. I see no logical reason there isn't a large-scale voting system in place throughout the country in which citizens can cast their vote on publicly reserved days of the year. Systems such as this have been shot down before coming to fruition because of political agendas, but given the way the Republicans have fractured with Palin and the teabaggers, there can't be much in the way of resistance, especially as a forum for communicating their platform. Getting issues before the people who are directly affected seems like a better (read: more responsible) way to vote for a representative than by following his own agenda.
Since this is all about direct democracy anyways, I see no reason that public votes (whether or not to build a bridge where it endangers a flock of birds who nest there, etc) couldn't be first decided by the voting public and then voted on in a supervisory capacity by the elected representatives.
1) Elections are expensive to run, ballots, election monitors, poll workers are not free. And if you are thinking about computerized voting...don't be fucking stupid.
2 The voting public is stupid, short-sighted, and bigoted. Hell a fair number of the people they elect are the same, but they are still going to prove smarter than your average voter.
3) Having a vote to advise every representative how to vote would make the already glacier like pace of legislation even slower. Heaven forbid some key vote-advisals got held up in recounts.
edit: I'm in favor of going the opposite direction, making people pass the citizenship test before they are allowed to vote at all or at least in national elections.
Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.
Not really. Canada, for instance, has had a multi-party, non-coalition system for ages.
The American system just has alot of things in place that make a 3rd party useless and not very function at a national level.
The Westminster first-past-the-post system allows the party that gets about 40% or so of the votes to have a solid majority in Parliament. That's why coalitions are (thankfully) so rare in Canada, the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere. AFAIK, the only parties that have formed governments in Canada are the Liberals and the Conservatives (in their various incarnations). The NDP and other minor parties don't hold much influence on a national level.
Coalition governments are much more common in political systems where seats in the legislature are allocated proportionally based on votes in the election. But those systems tend to lead to unstable governments.
What would happen if you took all of the Quebec wackiness out of the picture, though? Would the remaining smaller parties have enough relative clout to avoid being completely marginalized?
Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.
Not really. Canada, for instance, has had a multi-party, non-coalition system for ages.
The American system just has alot of things in place that make a 3rd party useless and not very function at a national level.
The Westminster first-past-the-post system allows the party that gets about 40% or so of the votes to have a solid majority in Parliament. That's why coalitions are (thankfully) so rare in Canada, the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere. AFAIK, the only parties that have formed governments in Canada are the Liberals and the Conservatives (in their various incarnations). The NDP and other minor parties don't hold much influence on a national level.
Coalition governments are much more common in political systems where seats in the legislature are allocated proportionally based on votes in the election. But those systems tend to lead to unstable governments.
What would happen if you took all of the Quebec wackiness out of the picture, though? Would the remaining smaller parties have enough relative clout to avoid being completely marginalized?
I think the only relevant finding in this study is that democracy increases public satisfaction even as nothing really changes. That's pretty interesting.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think the only relevant finding in this study is that democracy increases public satisfaction even as nothing really changes. That's pretty interesting.
It's just like in Civilization, you just gotta be careful that you goad other people into warring with you rather than declaring it yourself
I really wonder why people think that coalition government is inherently unstable. I know of very little countries that run it (out of most of the non anglian world) that get in a lot of trouble with it.
I think the only relevant finding in this study is that democracy increases public satisfaction even as nothing really changes. That's pretty interesting.
It's something effective autocrats have known for years.
As long as people think they have a say, they're happy. It's not until it becomes obvious that all the power is at the top that you get the populist shitstorm.
I think the only relevant finding in this study is that democracy increases public satisfaction even as nothing really changes. That's pretty interesting.
It's something effective autocrats have known for years.
As long as people think they have a say, they're happy. It's not until it becomes obvious that all the power is at the top that you get the populist shitstorm.
Aren't most autocracies pretty transparently undemocratic, though? I mean, nobody in Iraq really thought Hussein was really elected, right?
Or more realistically, Iran? I mean, everyone knows that Abidminijamalama is a figurehead, right?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think the only relevant finding in this study is that democracy increases public satisfaction even as nothing really changes. That's pretty interesting.
It's something effective autocrats have known for years.
As long as people think they have a say, they're happy. It's not until it becomes obvious that all the power is at the top that you get the populist shitstorm.
Aren't most autocracies pretty transparently undemocratic, though? I mean, nobody in Iraq really thought Hussein was really elected, right?
Or more realistically, Iran? I mean, everyone knows that Abidminijamalama is a figurehead, right?
Iran's actually a really good example.
The general populace was pretty ok with the system until there was a legitimate concern over election fraud. Then they went about as batshit as a population can go short of armed rebellion. As long as the illusion was maintained there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, but it didn't become effectively mainstream until the facade cracked.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I think the only relevant finding in this study is that democracy increases public satisfaction even as nothing really changes. That's pretty interesting.
It's something effective autocrats have known for years.
As long as people think they have a say, they're happy. It's not until it becomes obvious that all the power is at the top that you get the populist shitstorm.
Aren't most autocracies pretty transparently undemocratic, though? I mean, nobody in Iraq really thought Hussein was really elected, right?
Or more realistically, Iran? I mean, everyone knows that Abidminijamalama is a figurehead, right?
Yeah, and that's why there were protests.
Napoleon is a good example of an autocrat who harnessed the democratic spirit. He held yes/no plebiscites that basically amounted to "heads I win, tales you lose," but it endeared the people to him.
Posts
The problem in the USA is that the electoral college makes it impossible for a third party to exist.
Coalition governments are much more common in political systems where seats in the legislature are allocated proportionally based on votes in the election. But those systems tend to lead to unstable governments.
Rigorous Scholarship
Japan has PR and coalitions, and had the same party in power for 50+ years.
That sounds stable to me. Oh, and it was also bloody awful.
PR can be stable, and stable but awful is nothing to be desired.
Of course that's not the case and so our debate continues; why *wouldn't* a representative be able to logically form his vote based on his constituents?
True, but we're talking political parties there. What I originally asked (and I should have made more clear) was about the structure. I see no logical reason there isn't a large-scale voting system in place throughout the country in which citizens can cast their vote on publicly reserved days of the year. Systems such as this have been shot down before coming to fruition because of political agendas, but given the way the Republicans have fractured with Palin and the teabaggers, there can't be much in the way of resistance, especially as a forum for communicating their platform. Getting issues before the people who are directly affected seems like a better (read: more responsible) way to vote for a representative than by following his own agenda.
Since this is all about direct democracy anyways, I see no reason that public votes (whether or not to build a bridge where it endangers a flock of birds who nest there, etc) couldn't be first decided by the voting public and then voted on in a supervisory capacity by the elected representatives.
And in the current age of connectivity I dont think this is pants shittingly crazy.
But I also want to repeal the 17th Ammendment so what the fuck do I know, right?
1) Elections are expensive to run, ballots, election monitors, poll workers are not free. And if you are thinking about computerized voting...don't be fucking stupid.
2 The voting public is stupid, short-sighted, and bigoted. Hell a fair number of the people they elect are the same, but they are still going to prove smarter than your average voter.
3) Having a vote to advise every representative how to vote would make the already glacier like pace of legislation even slower. Heaven forbid some key vote-advisals got held up in recounts.
edit: I'm in favor of going the opposite direction, making people pass the citizenship test before they are allowed to vote at all or at least in national elections.
What would happen if you took all of the Quebec wackiness out of the picture, though? Would the remaining smaller parties have enough relative clout to avoid being completely marginalized?
Yes.
It's just like in Civilization, you just gotta be careful that you goad other people into warring with you rather than declaring it yourself
As long as people think they have a say, they're happy. It's not until it becomes obvious that all the power is at the top that you get the populist shitstorm.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Aren't most autocracies pretty transparently undemocratic, though? I mean, nobody in Iraq really thought Hussein was really elected, right?
Or more realistically, Iran? I mean, everyone knows that Abidminijamalama is a figurehead, right?
The general populace was pretty ok with the system until there was a legitimate concern over election fraud. Then they went about as batshit as a population can go short of armed rebellion. As long as the illusion was maintained there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, but it didn't become effectively mainstream until the facade cracked.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yeah, and that's why there were protests.
Napoleon is a good example of an autocrat who harnessed the democratic spirit. He held yes/no plebiscites that basically amounted to "heads I win, tales you lose," but it endeared the people to him.
http://www.theolympian.com/breakingnews/story/1131836.html
Need a vizier? I don't even have to be a grand one.
Can I be the leader of the Janissaries? I'll just make it a supersoldier program. I mean, the name means "new soldier" for crying out loud.