Being Neutral is a Terrible Choice

[HoloDoc]

You obviously have never been to, or lived in Canada, at all, but only sup from the American propaganda and media mill, who core demographic of recipient is the braindead, sheepish, willfully ignorant masses unused to thinking for themselves - not all inline with the self-biographical clips you've given several times of late. I suggest sources on Canada (and other nations you haven't personally visited) more up to par with the erudite and respectable status of a man of letters like you claim to be.

This is an inappropriately serious response.

I blame Canada.

 

[Traitorfish]

If anything, the UK has reverted back to two parties with the decimation of the Liberal Democrats in the last two elections.

The thing about UK politics is that, in electoral terms, it's five hundred-plus localised two-party systems, mostly either Lab-Con, Lab-Lib, or Con-Lib. The recent performance of the Liberal Democrats doesn't indicate that this has fundamentally changed, there aren't many Lab-Lib or Con-Lib seats that have switched to Lab-Con, it's just that the Liberal Democrats have lost a lot of these local contest.

Scotland and Wales complicate this a bit, because the presence of nationalist parties means there are some genuine three-party races, but the broader trend is towards local opposition between nationalists and a UK-wide party. Northern Ireland, as usual, is operating on an entirely different set of logics and doesn't represent anything but itself.

 

[Patine]

The thing about UK politics is that, in electoral terms, it's five hundred-plus localised two-party systems, mostly either Lab-Con, Lab-Lib, or Con-Lib. The recent performance of the Liberal Democrats doesn't indicate that this has fundamentally changed, there aren't many Lab-Lib or Con-Lib seats that have switched to Lab-Con, it's just that the Liberal Democrats have lost a lot of these local contest.

Scotland and Wales complicate this a bit, because the presence of nationalist parties means there are some genuine three-party races, but the broader trend is towards local opposition between nationalists and a UK-wide party. Northern Ireland, as usual, is operating on an entirely different set of logics and doesn't represent anything but itself.

And, from what I can gather, the UKIP have always just been Conservatives who have ALWAYS publicly the EU, not just going into the Brexit vote. Their platform seems little different otherwise. But this type of division is pretty typical of why many similar parties would be separate whole parties in true multi-party systems (that, and often, leadership differences). But that's not always the case, either. Multi-party systems usually have different parties that represent a bigger of points-view outright and show that politics really isn't a Manichaeist phenomenon after all. And gives the voters real choice. NOT like the U.S., or even Australia, where a rigid two-party system cheats the voters of choice of robs them of very election, ALMOST as badly, in effect, as any Russian or Zimbabwean election, just with two parties-of-power marginalizing all opposition and artificially limiting true voter choice. Kind of like the "Turno Pacifico" of 19th Century Spain or the "Gentleman's Agreement" of late 19th Century/Early 20th Century Argentina. That's how corrupt and rigged U.S., and even Australian, elections, appear.

 

[Hrothbern]

And, from what I can gather, the UKIP have always just been Conservatives who have ALWAYS publicly the EU, not just going into the Brexit vote. Their platform seems little different otherwise. But this type of division is pretty typical of why many similar parties would be separate whole parties in true multi-party systems (that, and often, leadership differences). But that's not always the case, either. Multi-party systems usually have different parties that represent a bigger of points-view outright and show that politics really isn't a Manichaeist phenomenon after all. And gives the voters real choice. NOT like the U.S., or even Australia, where a rigid two-party system cheats the voters of choice of robs them of very election, ALMOST as badly, in effect, as any Russian or Zimbabwean election, just with two parties-of-power marginalizing all opposition and artificially limiting true voter choice. Kind of like the "Turno Pacifico" of 19th Century Spain or the "Gentleman's Agreement" of late 19th Century/Early 20th Century Argentina. That's how corrupt and rigged U.S., and even Australian, elections, appear.

Multiparty and proportional representation is not in every way sunshine.
The main advantage I see are that your vote can be much more made on positive considerations, voting for something, strenghtening democracy. There will mostly be a party that fits fairly well. Two party systems encourage a negative choice: voting against the other party.
There is more than the one-dimensional of just horizontal left-----right, or diagonal left&progressive-----right&conservative. It is already a two dimensional field, with green-climate and populism as newer factors.
In multi-party the voter decides. In two-party systems internal party politics decides between factions.
Another advantage is that the parliament as a whole is more in the position to check, challenge, control the proposed actions of the government cabinet. A real discussion on arguments listened to.
In a two party system there is no real need to listen to the opposition party. The only thing that counts is whether the question-answer session delivers a good show for the newsmedia, with the right statements to keep your voter flock.
One could argue that the political parties of the coalition cabinet do the same. But because after every election often other coalitions are needed, this two-party opposition ignoring style, often insulting shouting, will backfire in a next cabinet.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Politico bemoaned the loss of political neutrality 7 weeks ago.
Might as well pine for the 1950's again.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/06/common-ground-good-america-society-219616

Under Trump, neutrality has become a difficult position for any individual or institution to maintain. Everyone is expected to take a side. Even attempts to articulate safe, bipartisan points of consensus run afoul of tribal suspicions. Journalists who serve up anodyne platitudes about a free press suddenly seem like militant anti-Trumpers, while commonsense pleas from no less than Barack Obama not to ignore someone’s ideas solely on the basis of his race or sex are mocked as wrongheaded or naive. Where the early internet, with its blogs and comments, had put pressure on the mainstream media, social media have amplified that pressure many times over—with Twitter enticing officially neutral reporters into staking out positions, voiced with sarcasm, snark or notes of partisanship that would be verboten in the news pages. No sooner does someone try to set up a new kind of neutral arbiter—like the invaluable fact-checking sites PolitiFact and FactCheck.org—than that, too, comes under fire for bias, as these sites have from the right. PolitiFact founder Bill Adair is trying to create an automated tool that conservatives will accept as neutral—though allegations that Facebook’s algorithms are politically skewed suggest that not even a computer program can attain that holy status anymore.

On campuses, departments now offer courses in “social justice,” which usually means the advocacy of left-wing politics, and university presidents feel pressure to take liberal political stands. Republicans no longer consider universities forces for good. In law, opposition is growing to widely respected concepts like viewpoint-neutrality—the idea that the government can’t punish speech based on its content. Even legal scholars on the left, as the New York Times’ Adam Liptak wrote, “have traded an absolutist commitment to free speech for one sensitive to the harms it can inflict.” The First Amendment, in some eyes, isn’t really neutral anymore.

The demise of neutrality lies behind the dominant political problems of our age. It is responsible for all the chatter about a “post-truth society” that we have heard lately. Truth still exists, of course, but agreement on the truth feels more elusive than it has in a long time. That spells danger for democracy, which depends on constructive argument and deliberation. Without trusted sources of information or respected vehicles of settling differences, there is only partisan argument and the triumph of the powerful.

Even AI's struggle to be neutral.
What hope do humans have?
https://slate.com/business/2018/10/amazon-artificial-intelligence-hiring-discrimination-women.html

“In effect, Amazon’s system taught itself that male candidates were preferable. It penalized resumes that included the word ‘women’s,’ as in ‘women’s chess club captain.’ And it downgraded graduates of two all-women’s colleges,” Reuters reported. The program also decided that basic tech skills, like the ability to write code, which popped up on all sorts of resumes, weren’t all that important, but grew to like candidates who littered their resumes with macho verbs such as “executed” and “captured.”


After years of trying to fix the project, Amazon brass reportedly “lost hope“ and shuttered the effort in 2017.

 

[Patine]

"I am a radical centrist, and all to the right or left of me should be castrated,"
-A lesser-known and lesser-used quote by Benjamin Franklin when queried on his political alignment and loyalties.

 

[HoloDoc]

"I am a radical centrist, and all to the right or left of me should be castrated,"
-A lesser-known and lesser-used quote by Benjamin Franklin when queried on his political alignment and loyalties.

He just wanted men castrated so he could monopolise the women. More than he was already.

 

[Hrothbern]

"I am a radical centrist, and all to the right or left of me should be castrated,"
-A lesser-known and lesser-used quote by Benjamin Franklin when queried on his political alignment and loyalties.

If Franklin would wake up from his grave, he would immediately invent a time machine to go back in time and change the constitution.
perhaps only adding some on the good works and virtues he believed in as soft protection against polarising
perhaps some more....

 

[Sommerswerd]

If Franklin came back to life he'd promptly move to the Netherlands and subsist on a diet of fancy wine, edibles and courtesans.

 

[Farm Boy]

I doubt he'd have to go so far. California has probably better wine, probably better edibles, and what is a court other than a place to watch the vapid, rich, and beautiful posture preen and fornicate. Franklin's moving to Hollywood.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I doubt he'd have to go so far. California has probably better wine, probably better edibles, and what is a court other than a place to watch the vapid, rich, and beautiful posture preen and fornicate. Franklin's moving to Hollywood.

You forget the most important part... in Hollywood he'd have to deal with Muricans... he gets one whiff of what we've become and he's outta here on the first thing smokin'

 

[Farm Boy]

Franklin? He'd take like a pig to #*$%.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Switzerland begs to differ

The Swiss have joined the EU in sanctioning Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/28/switzerland-neutral-ukraine-russia-sanctions/

Where is your god now neutrals?!

Even pandemics have 2 political sides now.

 

[João III]

The Swiss have joined the EU in sanctioning Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/28/switzerland-neutral-ukraine-russia-sanctions/

Where is your god now neutrals?!

Even pandemics have 2 political sides now.

To what extent was Switzerland truly given a choice though? If they were coerced, is it really a choice? It'd certainly be representative of contemporary politics, "get in line or we'll ruin your life"