What's more Democratic? two party system or multiparty system?

[stratego]

What's more Democratic? two party system or multiparty system? In a two party system, the winner needs the majority of the votes, while in a multiparty system the ruling party may have only 20% of supports. However a multiparty system does offer more choices.

 

[Bugfatty300]

A leader should be ellected by majority. Not 33% as Hitler was.

 

[kronic]

In a two party system, the winner needs the majority of the votes, while in a multiparty system the ruling party may have only 20% of supports.

I don't think this is correct. Take the UK's electoral system where the partys need to get majorities in the districts. It could happen that only 2 parties get these majorities (which would defacto create a 2-party-system) and that the party with the most votes has to form the opposition. (Even Bush could become president without having won the popular vote.)
On the other hand there is a multiparty system in Germany in which the coalition parties always get more votes than the opposition parties that take the 5 % hurdle.

 

[kronic]

A leader should be ellected by majority. Not 33% as Hitler was.

Germany wasn't a democratic country since 1930 though the constitution wasn't changed.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Both are equally democratic.

 

[Godwynn]

Multiparty system. What is so democratic about having only two choices?

 

[bobgote]

parties in general aren't great - best system would be without political parties. i'd say a multiparty/coalition system is better, although less efficient (but if you wanted efficiency, you wouldn't be democratic in the first place, i guess).

 

[stormbind]

There's no option for a zero-party system, where each candidate is an independent

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

A leader should be ellected by majority. Not 33% as Hitler was.

Lincoln was also elected with far less than 50%

 

[Syterion]

Who needs a president? We should vote on the issues. In favor of gay marriage? Vote yes, and if a majority decides it's okay, it becomes law.

Who decides what issue to vote on is beyond me.

 

[(+) Influence]

By eliminating people's choice you are able to come to a conclusion with a majority vote. If you say that's more democratic than a multi-party system, then a one party system would be the most democratic.

 

[downwithgravity]

maybe some day we'll be able to have a truly democratic society where everyone can vote electronically on all the issues.

on topic: i think that both are equally democratic.

 

[bobgote]

By eliminating people's choice you are able to come to a conclusion with a majority vote. If you say that's more democratic than a multi-party system, then a one party system would be the most democratic.

hehe, well put

 

[amadeus]

Uganda is supposedly experimenting with the concept of "no-party" democracy. Party activities are heavily restricted.

Of course, one has to wonder what a "success" in Uganda would be. Stability of the state, growth of the economy, or eradication of AIDS?

Uganda has suprisingly showed all three of those under President Museveni. The country is stable, the economy is growing at a steady rate, and AIDS is now limited to about 5% of the population, down from double digit numbers. They're the "bizzaro Zimbabwe."

So in short...Uganda is doing better.

 

[ainwood]

Is the question "more democratic" or "better for the country"?

NZ experience of proportional representation is that too many parties can paralyse parilament. Eg: Main party has 45% of the legislative power and wants to force through some bill or other. The party that holds the balance of power can therefore effectively ony have 6% (or even less) of the legislative power.

In practise, this requires up-front coalition agreements which general require a supply vote. Whilst this makes it possible to govern, it basically means that when you hold your elections you need to be very sure who your party is prepared to work with and who they are not. In my opinion, it actually waters-down the whole concept of democracy.

 

[bobgote]

yup, what i was saying about efficiency. in the end you'd have to water everything down so much you never actually achieve anything. good for maintaining the status quo tho

 

[The Person]

I live under a multi-party system, and it better than what I hear about the two-party system in the US, but not by much.

BTW, where's the Radioactive Monkey option?

 

[Sweeney Todd]

Both are equally democratic.

If, in a multiparty democracy, a party gets into power with say 40% of the votes then 60% of voters won't be happy and this is not very democratic. The winning 40% party will go into coalition with a smaller party to make up the parlament seat numbers. If you need proof, take a look at the current situation in Ireland. There's shag all democracy.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

maybe some day we'll be able to have a truly democratic society where everyone can vote electronically on all the issues.

So the difference between a pencil and a button will make a revolutionary difference. Electronic voting failed in Ireland because the people's votes are potentially unsafe due to power failures, viruses etc.

 

[mitsho]

The ruling party does not have to have only 33 % or so to rule. In fact, there's no need for ONE party to rule. Switzerland is a good example. Government and opposition practically don't exist (there is one party, who partly tries to create such an environment, but the population is against this). Instead we have all big 4 parties involved in government all the time (we have 7 Bundesräte (=Presidents), that makes 2-2-2-1 per party, which is called the 'Zauberformel' (or was, cause in last election, two parties switched sides (the CVP got one bundesrat instead of two and the SVP vice versa)). And this system works since 1848.
Besides these four parties, there are many more.
mfG mitsho