Political Parties

Which system would you prefer?

  • Total voters
    91
C

Commodore

Deity
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
12,059
I have always thought that political parties were counter-productive to the democratic process and feel that things would go a lot smoother if they were abolished. You could then have the primary focus on the candidate and their stance on issues without all that party politics getting in the way.

So, what do you people think? Should there be a two party system like America, a multi-party system like various European Republics, a one party system, or my favorite, the no party system?
 
Errr you can't really vote for an individual because an individual will never be capable of running the country single-handedly. They will naturally need colleagues and sympathisers to fill the various departments. And voila! You have a political party. In this sense it is a crucial part of the practicalities of government.

What is counter-productive to the democratic process is, as you rightly point out, the fact that we often end up with a two party system that's simply a choice between muck and mud. Same difference. Or it is grossly one-sided, as in the US and UK atm for example.

Worse still is when a politician acts based on their ratings or voter base rather than what is 'right'.

I've always thought that power sharing is preferable in this case. But then again, governments such as the current Indian one (a wide-ranging coalition) find themselves weighed down by a cacophony of opinions within government and less gets done. The EU constitutional debacle is a more dramatic example of this in action.

I've never been very good with discussion governmental systems, but there is some blabbing to set things off :).
 
I guess what turned me against political parties is all that rhetoric they spew about making the nation stronger and safer. These parties also tend to polarize the government and the people. In America for example we have Democrats and Republicans at each others' throats in Congress which is preventing anything from getting done. If a Congressman from one party suggests something beneficial to the nation the other party will block it just because they weren't the ones who thought of it.

It also ruins voting, because a lot of people will vote based on their party affiliation instead of who might be better for the nation.
 
There is no easy answer to this question as there is very little ideology involved. The question is, what is the best way to create a government reflecting the views of the people?

I am certain of one thing - a one-party system is not ideal, wether it is truly autocrat or simply one party dominating over all others (Sweden, Japan). Such a system merely breeds corruption and corporatism.

A multi-party system with broad government coalitions being formed appears to be best, but it has many downsides. It might (paradoxally) create a tremendous regimentation, which makes it hard for people to raise their voice and might even make room for extremists (such as in Denmark). It might even create a minority government such as in Sweden (more parties mean less democracy).

A two-party system gives the people two very different choices, such as in the US, where the ideological differences between the two parties were enormous int the last election. I think this is democratic - the voters have two clearly different parties and the one which appeals to the voters the most wins.

None of these systems are of course perfect, but some are worse than others.
 
difficult!


on the one hand, parties tend to beomce groups led by one or few people, entrenched on their opinions and with party discipline - thus basically the will NOT be able to work on BEST KNWOLEDGE AND INTENTION.

OTOH, as Ram pointed out, it is impractical for each and every person in politics to do everything themselves.

just imgaine reading up on sciences, social security and international trade policies, so you yourself can alone decide what you think is right for the country. And that's only about 10% of the issues you'd have to know.

So parties are an evil necessity, sort of.
And, the more available, the better! In multitude lies the ability to express, as a voter, your opinion and strengthen THAT mix of opinions YOU favor!
 
If you really want to be democratic and allow everyone to voice his opinion, I can't see how you can have atwo parties system.
Having no party is not a good idea either, it's to clause to anarchy, and without a "political family" to help, nothing would be done.

So I think the multi party system is the best
 
Two party system, no doubt.
Look at Germany, the people have voted and could end with a left coalition (traffic light), a large coalition (black'n'red) and a right coalition (Jamaica)
The people still haven't decided what their government will be, the political parties still have all the power ...
I'm sick of coalition, they usually don't even reflect society correct.
 
I do not like how politicians are forced to compromise their beliefs by endorsing a specific manifesto.

I also do not like the way in which the UK/US 'democracies' make voters select the lesser of two evils, instead of their preferred candidate. There is only one candidate per party, but no two politicians are equal! :crazyeye:
 
SonicX said:
Two party system, no doubt.
Look at Germany, the people have voted and could end with a left coalition (traffic light), a large coalition (black'n'red) and a right coalition (Jamaica)
The people still haven't decided what their government will be, the political parties still have all the power ...
I'm sick of coalition, they usually don't even reflect society correct.
Click to expand...

I while I do agree that coalitions suck, I don't think a two-party system is the better solution. Personally, I favour a multi-party system with no coalition/opposition system in place, more or less like we have it in switzerland. That way the various parties work together based on the individual issues. for one issue maybe FDP/SP/Greens get the majority for another CVP/FDP/SVP, etc. IMHO this system is much more flexible and stable, and it reflects the voters better.
 
KaeptnOvi said:
I while I do agree that coalitions suck, I don't think a two-party system is the better solution. Personally, I favour a multi-party system with no coalition/opposition system in place, more or less like we have it in switzerland. That way the various parties work together based on the individual issues. for one issue maybe FDP/SP/Greens get the majority for another CVP/FDP/SVP, etc. IMHO this system is much more flexible and stable, and it reflects the voters better.
Click to expand...
I agree that that is probably the best way of doing it.

The problem with that is that certain aspects of government policy have to be decided outside of parliament, within ministies and such. Take foreign policy as an example, you can't send the whole parliament to negotiate on behalf of the nation. In short, a government has to be formed. That necessity almost inevitably will lead to the formation of coalitions of some sort, be it formal or informal ones.

How does Switzerland handle that?
 
Hitro said:
The problem with that is that certain aspects of government policy have to be decided outside of parliament, within ministies and such. Take foreign policy as an example, you can't send the whole parliament to negotiate on behalf of the nation. In short, a government has to be formed. That necessity almost inevitably will lead to the formation of coalitions of some sort, be it formal or informal ones.

How does Switzerland handle that?
Click to expand...

The minsters (or federal council in switzerland) are elected by parilament according to the so-called "Zauberformel". This isn't written law, but the parliament so far more or less follows it. That way the federal council seats are awarded to the four large parties (that make up about 95% I think). Each 2 seats go to FDP, SP and SVP, one to CVP (CVP lost it's second seat to the SVP last year). The elected foreign councils then usually distribute the ministeries among themselves.
Theoretically the system could be abused if two parties that have the absolute majority elect only ministers from their own parties, but they surely would be thrashed in the next elections for doing it, so far nobody ever dared it.

edit: oops, small mistake, the big four parties make up only 88% of all seats, i forgot the greens :mischief:
 
KaeptnOvi said:
The minsters (or federal council in switzerland) are elected by parilament according to the so-called "Zauberformel". This isn't written law, but the parliament so far more or less follows it. That way the federal council seats are awarded to the four large parties (that make up about 95% I think). Each 2 seats go to FDP, SP and SVP, one to CVP (CVP lost it's second seat to the SVP last year). The elected foreign councils then usually distribute the ministeries among themselves.
Theoretically the system could be abused if two parties that have the absolute majority elect only ministers from their own parties, but they surely would be thrashed in the next elections for doing it, so far nobody ever dared it.
Click to expand...
I see, sounds good.

Then of course our system has all sort of measures as written law to rule out as many possible "could be abused if" scenarios due to bad experiences... ;)
 
KaeptnOvi: that DOES sound like more of a system where the electoral's wishes get respected!
 
I don't like the Swiss system much. I basically don't see a point in voting anymore. Might be a reason for the low turnout in the elections for the Nationalrat.
 
kronic said:
I don't like the Swiss system much. I basically don't see a point in voting anymore. Might be a reason for the low turnout in the elections for the Nationalrat.
Click to expand...

why don't you see a point in voting with that system? it seems to me that the wishes of the voters get respected more. if I look at the german elections, you might end up with a center-left or center-right government with the exact same voting result, depending on how the parties arrange themselves. I can't see how this is according to the voters' wishes.

it's true the turnout for elections is traditionally pretty low in switzerland, but maybe that's just because we have many elections, and in the end only the people who care about it go to vote.
another reason might be, that due to the direct-democracy elements, the parliament isn't as powerfull as it is in most other countries, since all major decisions will be made by the people anyway. that way many might think that it doesn't really matter that much. this, however, has nothing to do with how the ministeries are distributed, or how many parties we have. it's a direct result of direct demorcracy.
 
KaeptnOvi said:
why don't you see a point in voting with that system? it seems to me that the wishes of the voters get respected more. if I look at the german elections, you might end up with a center-left or center-right government with the exact same voting result, depending on how the parties arrange themselves. I can't see how this is according to the voters' wishes.
Click to expand...
I already know that my party will be in the government. Why should I go to vote?
 
Multiparty! It's easier to find a party that can represent me if there are a couple to choose between. If there's a new need among the people, a new party will come. It might not be as 'powerful' but it's normally more 'healthy' imo.
 
kronic said:
I already know that my party will be in the government. Why should I go to vote?
Click to expand...

you vote for the parliament, not the government, so it does matter who you vote for. furthermore, you don't really know that. The "Zauberformel" isn't fixed, it can and does change if vote-distributions changes. this happened 2003 when the SVP took a seat from the CVP. Furthermore, I said before that the parliament is less powerfull than in other nations.
The same is applicable to the government. The Parliament is usually much more important than the fed. council. In practice it doesn't really matter that much who is in the federal council. Many people feared a slide to the right, when Blocher got elected into the federal council. What happened was that he got considerably more moderate, because he wouldn't have been able to get much work done if he'd stuck to his right-wing ideas (parliament or the people would have shot them down...).

Personally, I like this system much more, since the parties don't have to a coalition for all issues, but can decide from issue to issue. As a result majorities shift. sometimes center-left has a majority, sometimes center-right....
 
KaeptnOvi said:
you vote for the parliament, not the government, so it does matter who you vote for. furthermore, you don't really know that. The "Zauberformel" isn't fixed, it can and does change if vote-distributions changes. this happened 2003 when the SVP took a seat from the CVP. Furthermore, I said before that the parliament is less powerfull than in other nations.
Click to expand...
But see, the incentives to go to vote are far weaker. There's a huge difference between "either you are in charge or not" and "you either have one minister or two". This is part of the stability the system provides. And I believe there have to happen really big things until one party loses every seat.

How do you make sure that your opinion is really represented? Who says that left wing parties have the majority on issues you agree with them? There's imho no evidence that you're really better represented in that system than in one where the voters have the chance to change the majority in the parliament and therefore the government in the next elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

stfoskey12
Strategic Party Affiliation
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
Core Imposter
C
Zardnaar
NZ Election
Replies
3
Views
522
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Zards Political Theories In Action
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
Arwon
Arwon
Zardnaar
Is This Stupid? Greens Political Ouster
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
innonimatu
Oppressive empires - a false argument of liberals?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
3K
Angst
Angst
Top Bottom