Multiparty Democracy vs 2 Party Democracy

silver 2039

Deity
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,208
I've always considered Multiparty democracy to be a true representation of democracy.Would the US be better off with a Multiparty democracy? A 2 Party Democracy where there are only 2 parties to choose from seems a bit restricted and not truly representive to me. What do you think?
 
Multi party. That way you actually get more choice and aren't forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. Ideally there should be proportional representation, so if no 1 party gets an overall majority they have to negotiate with other parties, thats what democracy is all about, making sure people are represented and finding compromises.

The US 2 party system holds the country back - both parties are obsessed with getting re-elected and tend to look out for the intrests of their sponsors rather than the country.
 
silver 2039 said:
I've always considered Multiparty democracy to be a true representation of democracy.Would the US be better off with a Multiparty democracy? A 2 Party Democracy where there are only 2 parties to choose from seems a bit restricted and not truly representive to me. What do you think?

I think you cannot generalise that. Among the two great parties, there are often serious disagreements between various sub-groups.

In multiparty political systems, things are much more clear. The downside is a lesser political stability.
 
I like britians 3 party system. Its a nice balance. Although the lib dems wont be getting into power soon, they have a huge potential to take most of labours votes away if labour cock up (its happened before).
The problem with a 2 party system is you just have 1 party say something, then the other party automatically disagrees. Both parties try to make the other look bad as much as they work on making themselves look good, and its very often the case that neither party comes up with a idea you like. Not just reffering to the US system, but also Britian a few decades ago (when it really was just 2 parties winning a vast majority of seats).
 
It doesn't really matter. What matters is that they are REAL political parties, with their own principles, philosophy and vision about how they want to run the government and what they want the country to become, not merely vessels for getting their members elected!

I say this because I've seen the process of decline happen to my land of birth the Philippines. Initially we had a 2 party democracy - the Nationalistas and Liberals were almost an exact copy of the American system. Within a few decades however things slowly slipped. By the 1960s members who aren't doing so well in one party would jump ship to the other one for career purposes. Gone were all sense of integrity and party loyalty.

And then Marcos came along, created his own super party the KBL, and the 2 old venerable parties declined. By 1986 when a bloodless revolution deposed the dictator, both the old parties were already completely inept and couldn't be counted on to make any impact politically. New parties were formed and we became a multi-party democracy.

But these new parties were nothing like the original ones. They have no history, no political vision or anything. They are formed only for the express purpose of contesting the next elections and are frequently disbanded afterwards if they lose. And even if they win, political manueverings mean that they would most likely be merged with other parties or split up into 2 or more separate parties later on. It's so confusing I can't even remember any of their names. :ack:

Our politicians have done one better than the old system of jumping ship when they're not happy. They now create their own parties instead. :crazyeye: Thus the chaos that is Philippine politics.
 
I choose a 2 party democracy, or a winner takes all multi party democracy.
This is primarily because I'm sick and tired of the particratic system with their dubious coalition.

I am a right wing economic liberal and therefore I don't want socialists in our government.
The parties we can vote for are : socialist, liberal, christan democrats, green socialist and far right. The liberal and christian democrat party however ALWAYS go into a coalition with the socialists because they can't stand eachother.
This only leaves the far right for me to vote for, if I want to decrease socialism.
 
ComradeDavo said:
Multi party. That way you actually get more choice and aren't forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. Ideally there should be proportional representation, so if no 1 party gets an overall majority they have to negotiate with other parties, thats what democracy is all about, making sure people are represented and finding compromises.
I couldn't agree more.

For example, Greece has steady, from 3 up to 5 political parties the last 25 years(it currently has 4 parties), and although, the even smaller parties don't get elected(don't reach the minimum 3,0% required), many votes go to the them, because, if one is believing in a specific party he won't always think that his vote will go wasted, as some "clever" ones claim: you won't get a change if you won't try, that's for sure(with a bit more votes at the last elections, we'd now have 5-6 parties).
 
The point of representative Democracy should be that the people, the sovereign of the nation, is represented by those elected. The more options the individual voter has to pick his representation, the better.
 
How about no parties. Everyone who stands for an election is independant and therefore there is no party line to follow. No whips or anything like that enforcing party dicipline. All members of the parliement vote for the wishes of there constituents. It makes sense to me, but I'm probably overlooking a few minor (or major) details.
 
silver 2039 said:
I've always considered Multiparty democracy to be a true representation of democracy.Would the US be better off with a Multiparty democracy? A 2 Party Democracy where there are only 2 parties to choose from seems a bit restricted and not truly representive to me. What do you think?

Agreed, before any American laugh or criticize dictatorship China, they do have to understand that they are only 1 more party more than China. :eek:
 
Wolfe Tone said:
How about no parties. Everyone who stands for an election is independant and therefore there is no party line to follow. No whips or anything like that enforcing party dicipline. All members of the parliement vote for the wishes of there constituents. It makes sense to me, but I'm probably overlooking a few minor (or major) details.
And it will take about 1 minute before the individual gets all his supporters to help him out, even if its not official party stuff.
 
Wolfe Tone said:
How about no parties. Everyone who stands for an election is independant and therefore there is no party line to follow. No whips or anything like that enforcing party dicipline. All members of the parliement vote for the wishes of there constituents. It makes sense to me, but I'm probably overlooking a few minor (or major) details.
That would be absolutely ideal for me, but, the human nature is always a mystery..., nevermind the fact that, it'd require a VERY HIGH level of consciousness, responsibility, and dignity, something almost all politicians don't have.
 
Multiparty democracy with proportional representation is the best way to have a working democracy I think.

At least three partys are needed IMO. So yes, I believe the US isn't as democratic as it could be.
 
the 2 party system is what is killing American democracy. a multi party system is needed badly.
 
Wolfe Tone said:
How about no parties. Everyone who stands for an election is independant and therefore there is no party line to follow. No whips or anything like that enforcing party dicipline. All members of the parliement vote for the wishes of there constituents. It makes sense to me, but I'm probably overlooking a few minor (or major) details.
And how do you expect 500 odd individual MPs to agree about anything? The system we have at the moment is there to make sure there is agreement between what policies to pursue. Yes, it is undemocratic, but it has to be or it would never work.
 
Wolfe Tone said:
How about no parties. Everyone who stands for an election is independant and therefore there is no party line to follow. No whips or anything like that enforcing party dicipline. All members of the parliement vote for the wishes of there constituents. It makes sense to me, but I'm probably overlooking a few minor (or major) details.
The individuals would of course band into different groupings, and there you have a party system again.
 
Wolfe Tone said:
How about no parties. Everyone who stands for an election is independant and therefore there is no party line to follow. No whips or anything like that enforcing party dicipline. All members of the parliement vote for the wishes of there constituents. It makes sense to me, but I'm probably overlooking a few minor (or major) details.

I agree.

You know whats funny. In my country it's a constitutional law that all mp's make decisions about matters completely on their own. It is illigal according to our constitution for these members to vote for anything because of any outside pressure.

Yet that's all that happens. The party's bosses decide who votes what, you don't want to vote that way because you don't agree, you run a serious risk that you have to get out of the party and you certainly don't get back in the next elections.

I want my MP's to make their own decission without interference of party politics. So I am for a system like you describe. It was that way in 19 th century. But then the socialists came up and introduces party dicispline, which was also the end of mp's thinking on their own.
 
Multi-party would be nice, but unless we decide to change to a parliament, or the Supream Court decides that money does not = free speach, it won't happen. The trouble is that we barely have two parties anymore. They both coopt each others platforms so often just to get vote. It sounds like the Phillipeans to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom