My opinion:
by Garkland » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:25 am
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:34 am
Garkland wrote:now people want a three party or even a multi party system.
by Lorrana » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:38 am
by The Blaatschapen » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:39 am
by Greater Kopmakia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:39 am
by Garkland » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:41 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:I always state that a two party system is just one party away from a one party system.
The good thing about no party having more than 50% of the seats in parliament is that they have to make compromises. This takes the sharper edges off everyone's platform.
And the best way to reach a state where no party has more than 50% is by having more than two parties in parliament.
3, 4,5,6 parties is good.
More than 10 and it becomes quite impractical in getting a majority coalition.
by The Two Jerseys » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:43 am
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:46 am
Garkland wrote:I do wonder, what would be the 2 other parties in America if it was a Multi party system?
by Greater Kopmakia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:47 am
Garkland wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:I always state that a two party system is just one party away from a one party system.
The good thing about no party having more than 50% of the seats in parliament is that they have to make compromises. This takes the sharper edges off everyone's platform.
And the best way to reach a state where no party has more than 50% is by having more than two parties in parliament.
3, 4,5,6 parties is good.
More than 10 and it becomes quite impractical in getting a majority coalition.
I do wonder, what would be the 2 other parties in America if it was a Multi party system?
by Garkland » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:53 am
Greater Kopmakia wrote:Garkland wrote:
I do wonder, what would be the 2 other parties in America if it was a Multi party system?
Well, the Democrats and Republicans are two massive coalitions. If there were multiple parties in the US a centrist party would likely gain quite a bit of power as it would attract people from either side of the spectrum. Hard line Christian conservatives might leave the Republicans and form their own party, same thing with the more radical leftists. The Libertarian Party would definitely see some growth as well.
by Greater Kopmakia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:55 am
Garkland wrote:Greater Kopmakia wrote:Well, the Democrats and Republicans are two massive coalitions. If there were multiple parties in the US a centrist party would likely gain quite a bit of power as it would attract people from either side of the spectrum. Hard line Christian conservatives might leave the Republicans and form their own party, same thing with the more radical leftists. The Libertarian Party would definitely see some growth as well.
What do you think is the chances of a Multi party system (technically USA is multi party but in action is two party) being established in the US? I think very high there is a need for it, having a two party system causes polarization.
by My Political Fantasy » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:59 am
by Greater Kopmakia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:00 am
My Political Fantasy wrote:I don't think it is physically possible for the United States to actually have a functioning multiparty system until we get rid of our voting system all together. The United States uses first-past-the-post voting which is basically a system in which a candidate with the largest plurality wins and election. First-past-the-post results in smaller parties never getting elected because they fail to get a large enough plurality in elections. The end result is that the United States has two competing parties to see who can get the larger piece of the plurality cake. Maybe something closer to a proportional representation will give smaller parties a chance in the United States.
by Arisyan » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:02 am
by Major-Tom » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:09 am
by Greater Kopmakia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:13 am
Major-Tom wrote:It depends on your end goal. Multi-party parliamentary systems tend to move a bit more incrementally, be a bit less polarized, and focus on slow-moving coalitions that gradually get things done. Two-Party systems (US) or "two-party dominant systems (IE the UK, Canada, Australia)," have the downside of higher rates of polarization and less of a voice for many people in the electoral process, but with one party often having the majority, a policy program tends to be rammed through a good deal faster.
Still, I'd take the multi-party model on account of how badly the overton window can shift under a two-party system, how it breeds polarization, and how it can be dangerous to the democratic process in the long term. Look no further than the GOP continually trying to suppress voters and pack our legal system with ideologues less concerned about the judicial process than rigid conservatism, for instance.
by Major-Tom » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:15 am
Greater Kopmakia wrote:Major-Tom wrote:It depends on your end goal. Multi-party parliamentary systems tend to move a bit more incrementally, be a bit less polarized, and focus on slow-moving coalitions that gradually get things done. Two-Party systems (US) or "two-party dominant systems (IE the UK, Canada, Australia)," have the downside of higher rates of polarization and less of a voice for many people in the electoral process, but with one party often having the majority, a policy program tends to be rammed through a good deal faster.
Still, I'd take the multi-party model on account of how badly the overton window can shift under a two-party system, how it breeds polarization, and how it can be dangerous to the democratic process in the long term. Look no further than the GOP continually trying to suppress voters and pack our legal system with ideologues less concerned about the judicial process than rigid conservatism, for instance.
Eh, I think both the GOP and Dems have been attempting to suppress the other side for decades. For example the GOP carrying on countless investigations into the Dems, and the Dems attempting to impeach a president that's no longer even in office to ensure he can't run again.
by Nuroblav » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:38 am
by The Huskar Social Union » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:40 am
by Atheris » Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:01 pm
My Political Fantasy wrote:I don't think it is physically possible for the United States to actually have a functioning multiparty system until we get rid of our voting system all together. The United States uses first-past-the-post voting which is basically a system in which a candidate with the largest plurality wins an election. First-past-the-post results in smaller parties never getting elected because they fail to get a large enough plurality in elections. The end result is that the United States has two competing parties to see who can get the larger piece of the plurality cake. Maybe something closer to a proportional representation will give smaller parties a chance in the United States.
Andrew K'Tetch Morton wrote:This 'tactical voting' is the waste of a vote. Instead of voting for the person you wish to represent you, you are voting to try and deny someone else from doing so, by supporting the opponent who is believed to be the greatest challenge. This then leads to the two major parties producing candidates who are at odds with each other, to get this dichotomy, and play people into an 'us or them' situation. There is another cost. The elected representatives in Congress are universally distrusted, and often thought of as corrupt. Why? Well, they don't actually represent the views of their constituents. What they represent is the views of the political party of the candidate that was not as disliked as the other. The other result is the rise in negative campaign adverts. Why spend money saying “vote for me, I'm better,” when you can spend the money pointing out how bad your major opponent is, and get the tactical vote as a response. The additional bonus from this method is if you lose, you've got your adverts to say “I told you so,” and if you win you've got very few promises to be held accountable for. All this from tactical voting. What a sham!
“Third parties are a waste of time. They will never win.”
There is no reason why they are a waste of time. The main reason they won't win is not because people don't support them, but due to tactical voting (see above) people are too afraid to be on the losing side. In addition, there are other elements to supporting the party that matches your views most closely, even if it's a 3rd party. Aside from winning the election, there are other goals that can be achieved, such as federal funding if the party reached 5% in the previous election. This can be a substantial benefit to many candidates. Major parties are also scared of third parties. In 2004, when the Libertarian party sued the Commission for Presidential Debates (the organization that runs the presidential campaign debates), the Republican party, and the Democratic Party, over being unfairly excluded from the debates (they had a nationally available candidate, and the debate was paid for using state funds, and held in a state venue (Arizona State university for the 3rd debate), the debate could have gone ahead if the two candidates had agreed to allow Badnarik to participate. Both refused. The Presidential Debates are a substantial piece of advertising, rather than actual debate when it excludes significant candidates. Ninety minutes of prime time television and radio is expensive, and when you add in the news coverage and analysis of it, it's a major chunk.
by -Ocelot- » Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:22 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Hidrandia, Likhinia, Republics of the Solar Union, Singaporen Empire, Soul Reapers, Spirit of Hope, Stratonesia
Advertisement