Multiparty Democracy vs 2 Party Democracy

[Hakim]

In a 2-party system, the government is stronger (for the same reason one-party system is even stronger) and responsibility is clearer. Still, I definately prefer multi-party system.

 

[Godwynn]

Multiparty democracy, this way the Libertarians have a chance at winning.

 

[amadeus]

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.

Uganda is trying that to some success, but it's unlikely it would work in a European or American setting.

 

[zjl56]

The U.S is fine with its two party democracy. The only thing keeping it from being multi is the people who are members. You can't just create a multiparty democracy...

 

[ComradeDavo]

The U.S is fine with its two party democracy. The only thing keeping it from being multi is the people who are members. You can't just create a multiparty democracy...

Actually you can. It's called proportional representation.

 

[zjl56]

Still that wouldn't solve the problem of having to major parties. To change it would have to be the people who lift a few more parties into the political mainstream.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Still that wouldn't solve the problem of having to major parties. To change it would have to be the people who lift a few more parties into the political mainstream.

It would help to solve it - parties would be given power dependent on amount of votes they get. Suddenly people realise there vote actually counts (every single one), so make sure they vote for the party that they want to reprsent them. Of course to start with Republicans and Democtrats would hold all the power but you'd get a couple of Greens and Libertarians as well in the legislitive houses, and from teh coverage they recieve no doubt their partys vote would go up at the next election.

 

[North King]

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.

They won't all vote 500 different ways. If they like a bill, they'll vote for it. Otherwise, no. It's not like you put 500 options on the card.

 

[zjl56]

It would take along time for anything like that to happen. Only one or two states have proportional representation. So either it would have to the states constitutions, or an amendment be made to the U.S consitutions. Both ways would take a while and stand a risk of failing.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It would take along time for anything like that to happen. Only one or two states have proportional representation. So either it would have to the states constitutions, or an amendment be made to the U.S consitutions. Both ways would take a while and stand a risk of failing.

Better to take a while than to stay with the current system.

 

[farting bob]

Actually you can. It's called proportional representation.

In theory, PR is a great system and should be the faiest. Every person's vote can help. It doesnt matter where you live, in a split-down-the-middle place, or a huge majority place.
But in practise, its doomed to suck, since theres almost never a majority party and governments change a hell of a lot.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

In the end you need a coalition in a multi-party system. I think it sounds better in theory, but in practice gives the extremes more power. The two party system as designed in the US tends to push the rule to the center, where in my opinion it should be. Neither is perfect.

 

[ComradeDavo]

In theory, PR is a great system and should be the faiest. Every person's vote can help. It doesnt matter where you live, in a split-down-the-middle place, or a huge majority place.
But in practise, its doomed to suck, since theres almost never a majority party and governments change a hell of a lot.

Erm, do countries such as Switzerland not count then?

 

[Sims2789]

It all depends in what country you're in. In the US, the two-party system has worked better so far. The parties serve as coalitions between different interests. For example, the Republicans now mainly consist of Big Government religious fanatics, subsidy-dependent welfare-capitalists, Far Right racio-nationalists like the Minutemen, and so-called libertarians who care little about civil liberties and are willing to tolerate Republican subsidies as they feel that their other option is Democratic welfare. The Democrats mainly consist of socialists, libertarians who care about civil liberties and don't like subsidies, social liberals, post-nationalists, and an every-dwindling number of liberal ultra-nationalists who believe that the United States has been hijacked by the undemocratic, anti-secular Right Wing and wish to restore their country to its former glory as a nation admired by the world. These serve as looser forms of the coalitions seen in Europe. The Republicans, for example, will lose power because the religious fanatics are scaring away less conservative Republicans. Even Bill Frist, the impidomy of the evanjo-welfare-capitalism alliance, has endorsed stem-cell research because he knows that in 2008 another religious fanatic won't be electable, as Bush will have alienated too many old-school Republicans and libertarians.

 

[Cuivienen]

Multiparty.

The biggest problem the US has is not, as many suggest, laws that encourage the two-party system. This is a part of the problem, but it isn't the root of it. The root?

The United Kingdom
Population: ~60,000,000
Members of Parliament: 644
Individuals per MP: ~93,000

The United States
Population: ~300,000,000
Representatives in the House: 435
Individuals per Representative: ~690,000


There is simply too small a level of representation per individual in the United States for a third party to have a chance. I'm not arguing here for an increase in the size of the House (though I think its size should increase), I'm just pointing out that the United States' system doesn't allow for a third, weaker party such as the Lib Dems in the UK.

This, of course, is simply talking about the House, which should be the easiest location for a third party to gain power. When speaking of the Presidency and the Senate... well, only 50 divisions, each at a very high population, makes it very hard for a third party to win anything at all. Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992 - and no electoral votes.

 

[Masquerouge]

Multi-partism has its flaws, though.
If you look at French history, you can see the two most obvious :
-low turnout at the poll booth will mean some wacko will end up being in the second round of the presidential election. Granted, maybe you should not have a second round with the 2 candidates who got the most votes in the first round, but then wouldn't a president elected with 20% of the votes look kinda stupid ?
-the second point was pointed out by Farting Bob. Once we had true PR in France. We had to change the Constitution to get rid of it, so governments could last more that a few monthes, because alliances were made and cancelled faster than you could name them.
Now we have a system that is a mix : for some elections, the party with the most votes gets 50% of the seats, and then the remainder is PRed between all the parties that entered the election. For instance, if only two parties are running, and the win is 60%-40%, then one party will get 80% of the seats (50% +60% of the other 50%) and the other one 20%. That way, you kind of have PR, but also a strong majority ensuring governing can be efficiently done.
I'm not saying this is the best system, it's just an answer the French have given to the too-many-political-parties problem.

 

[luiz]

before any American laugh or criticize dictatorship China, they do have to understand that they are only 1 more party more than China.

There are actually plenty of political parties in the US. Besides the big two, there are the Greens, the libertarians, Reform Prty, Constitution party, and even a communist and a nazi party.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Agreed, before any American laugh or criticize dictatorship China, they do have to understand that they are only 1 more party more than China.

Actually, that's not true. Just one more party with a chance of getting elected on the national stage (although wasn't there a Representative who was part of the Green party?). Its still a world of difference, since anyone can run and be voted for.

IMO, multiparties allow things to be more democratic, but decreases the chance of stability, since political alliances are likely to be more temporary. America has had one of the more stable democracies for a long time. But this stability comes at a cost to change, since some things are out of the range of normal politics, and everything requires baby steps to make changes.

 

[sysyphus]

The real thing to worry about is strategic voting, i.e. voting for somone purely because they are the strongest rival to the one they hate the most. Counter productive. I hated nothing more than hearing people decry Ralph Nader for "helping put George Bush back in the White House".

Whether or not you like the man, give him credit for giving American smore options rather than teh traditional two: right-wing and even-more-right-wing.

 

[Godwynn]

There are actually plenty of political parties in the US. Besides the big two, there are the Greens, the libertarians, Reform Prty, Constitution party, and even a communist and a nazi party.

Even a beer drinking one!