Multiparty Democracy vs 2 Party Democracy

[Ramius75]

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.

yes, but do they even have the slightest chance to win ? i think not. so it doesnt really matter for choices. Thou i have to admit that Nader's determination to take part is applaudable, but even then some democrats begged him not to.

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.

Yes, i do agreed, In singapore, we only have a 1 party system and its really sucks too, the opposition just doesnt have the chance, at all. but we do enjoy extreme stabily and prosperity at the cost of personal freedom.

That is what communist China is emulating now, and as quoted Machiavelli

"Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him."

 

[amadeus]

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.

You've got screws loose if you think the Democratic party is "right-wing," unless the definition of political conservatism has come to mean raise everyone's taxes, kill defense spending, and spend it on useless social welfare programs that inevitably fail.

 

[Cuivienen]

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.

There is currently one Independent Senator and one Independent Representative, both from Vermont.

Senator Jeffords (I-VT) was elected and reelected in 2000 as a Republican but left the party in disgust in 2001 or 2002, I'm don't remember which. Even before leaving the Republicans he usually voted with the Democrats.

Congressman Sanders (I-VT) is a self-described Socialist but is not a member of any political party. He runs his campaigns purely off of donations and has faced no challenge from the Democratic Party for many elections. The Democratic Party is often annoyed by his unwillingness to compromise on any issue, but by and large he is a member of the Democratic Party.

Senator Jeffords plans to retire rather than run for reelection in 2006. Congressman Sanders plans to run for his vacated seat and will almost certainly win. Vermont has only one Congressional District, so, as Sanders has already been elected statewide by margins of 65% and greater to the House, he is virtually certain to win the Senate seat. His House seat will likely be filled by a Democrat since Vermont is widely acknowledged as the most liberal state in the US.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That is what communist China is emulating now, and as quoted Machiavelli

"Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him."

And taken from Alpha Centauri

How about this quote:

"Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents."

Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

 

[Ramius75]

And taken from Alpha Centauri

How about this quote:

"Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents."

Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

true,if only this is realistic.human are easily maniplated. and not all men are equal. Some pigs are more equal than others.

 

[Louis XXIV]

An animal farm reference?

I think you're missing Orwell's point if your using that to support the Chinese position.

EDIT: I guess I should say that, although I disagree with the Chinese government's policy, I do think that they are probably right that it will keep much of China happy (it seems that, for the most part, stability and prosperity keeps people content). As long as there is bread and circuses, there won't be any major uprisings against the Party and State.

 

[SonicX]

You've got screws loose if you think the Democratic party is "right-wing," unless the definition of political conservatism has come to mean raise everyone's taxes, kill defense spending, and spend it on useless social welfare programs that inevitably fail.

Even though the Democratic party would try to emulate the failure of Europe, if a party like that came to my country I'd vote for it, because for us it is more right wing than what we have in our governments right now (liberal-socialist)

 

[Ramius75]

An animal farm reference?

I think you're missing Orwell's point if your using that to support the Chinese position.

EDIT: I guess I should say that, although I disagree with the Chinese government's policy, I do think that they are probably right that it will keep much of China happy (it seems that, for the most part, stability and prosperity keeps people content). As long as there is bread and circuses, there won't be any major uprisings against the Party and State.

well, i have to say that after much observation, i believe that Orwell is right about everything. Human are indeed not equal and any idea of trying to briing equality into them are just plot by the "princes" up there to control the ppl.

Its the real world approach.

 

[Kayak]

You've got screws loose if you think the Democratic party is "right-wing," unless the definition of political conservatism has come to mean raise everyone's taxes, kill defense spending, and spend it on useless social welfare programs that inevitably fail.

Couldn't resist reply on this one, I fought the urge but...
Yes to most europeans the Democrates would be a centrist or center-right party. Think Greens and Socialists.
About your other remarks:
How is raising taxes bad? Our debts have to be paid somehow don't they?
Who killed defence spending?
You mean programs such as No Child Left Behind, and Block grants to religeous organizations?

 

[Louis XXIV]

BTW, no one has killed defense spending. Of the entire world's money spent on defense, the United States spends 49%

 

[Cilpot]

I like Multiparty Democracy.

In Norway we effectivly have only two alternatives to vote: Liberal/Conservative or Labour/Socialist Coalitions, but within those you can choose to give more power to the party you mostly affiliate with. For example: I am a liberal, but that doesnt mean I want religouls dogma mixed in with politics, thus I vote for parties within the Liberal coalition that support my views.

 

[farting bob]

BTW, no one has killed defense spending. Of the entire world's money spent on defense, the United States spends 49%

I never like how they always call it defence. Why? you bloody use all the money to attack someone, and it goes into your defence budget. propaganda at work.
As for the real issue the norway idea looks pretty good. Coalitions with roughly the same politcal stance, but differ of keyissues, so you vote for the 1 who's policy you specifically like.

 

[stormbind]

The most democratic form of representation is a collection of independents.

 

[Aleph-Null]

i personally right now prefer a two-party system. however, the people, not the government are responsible for how many parties. the US has thousands of political parties, most of them are under the umbrella of the larger parties.

my absolute personal preference?

The One Party = No Parties systems.

If there is only ONE party, it becomes the equivalent of NO PARTIES. therefore, I support the Republican party becoming the sole and only party of the United States of America. Again, ONE PARTY = NO PARTIES because it is the individual that matters.

 

[Aleph-Null]

a multiparty democracy moves far too slowly to be taken seriously.

 

[Ayatollah So]

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.

Two-party systems seem to foster monodimensional thinking on political issues, which isn't good.

I've always found first-past-the-post systems perverse.

What Hitro said (as usual). What TLC said (as usual).

There's a way to encourage third+ parties, and avoid the "wasted vote" issue, without going to proportional representation. It's called "instant run-off voting", or also by another name which I forgot. The idea is that you rate your preferences. All top preference votes are totalled and the candidate with the least votes (say, Ralph Nader) is stricken from the list. For any voter, who ranked Nader as their top choice, their second choice vote is now what counts. Rinse and repeat until done. You don't even need to have a second round of voting.

 

[knorman]

Even though the Democratic party would try to emulate the failure of Europe, if a party like that came to my country I'd vote for it, because for us it is more right wing than what we have in our governments right now (liberal-socialist)

It has to be said that "Liberal" in Europe means almost completely he opposite than in the USA. Here, in Belgium, you could say that Liberal is basically for cutting taxes and against state influence. I think "liberal" means something completely else in America (left-wing).

 

[Godwynn]

yes, but do they even have the slightest chance to win ?

You obviously don't remember Ross Perot.

 

[Savage Discipil]

You obviously don't remember Ross Perot.

He didnt win either he just split the Republican vote.

 

[Godwynn]

He didnt win either he just split the Republican vote.

He still got over 18% of the vote.