Political Parties

[ExNavyAmerican]

I'll let everyone know right now that I'm speaking from an American standpoint.


I'm of the opinion that political parties are breeding grounds for corruption, "conspiracies", and treason. Political parties care only about putting their man (or woman) in office, and all else is secondary. Political caucusing can't be stopped; indeed it existed in Athens and Rome. Complex internal politics is viewed a criterion for advanced civilization. However, political caucusing is not the same as political parties. Caucuses exist in Congress independent of the Republican or Democratic parties; therefore it will be easy to see which platform has control. So why not just do away with organized political parties? We haven't chosen our candidates in years. The parties nominate, and we end up with only two choices -all the 3rd parties having absolutely no chance due to ballot access laws. Candidates can caucus, but should not have to rely on being in good favour with their party to get elected. The term I've heard used more than once is, "pay your party dues" -a lot like fascists or communists.

What are everyone's views on the subject?

[Ironduke]

I believe it's impossible to have any type of electoral system without political parties being formed. If my friend is willing to look out for my interests, I may be willing to look out for his. Then it snowballs into a political party.

[Parihaka]

We've currently got IIRC eight parties in parliament at the moment, the trick is to not have the same ones for too long.

[crooks]

I'll let everyone know right now that I'm speaking from an American standpoint.


I'm of the opinion that political parties are breeding grounds for corruption, "conspiracies", and treason. Political parties care only about putting their man (or woman) in office, and all else is secondary. Political caucusing can't be stopped; indeed it existed in Athens and Rome. Complex internal politics is viewed a criterion for advanced civilization. However, political caucusing is not the same as political parties. Caucuses exist in Congress independent of the Republican or Democratic parties; therefore it will be easy to see which platform has control. So why not just do away with organized political parties? We haven't chosen our candidates in years. The parties nominate, and we end up with only two choices -all the 3rd parties having absolutely no chance due to ballot access laws. Candidates can caucus, but should not have to rely on being in good favour with their party to get elected. The term I've heard used more than once is, "pay your party dues" -a lot like fascists or communists.

What are everyone's views on the subject?

The American system is in my view incredibly divisive - you're either a Neocon or a Commie, I don't get how it came to that......it could use an overhaul.

Here in Éire we have 6 major parties representing different viewpoints, some are conservative, some Liberal, some centrist, all to different degrees and with different branches (in order of number of seats in our Dáil):

Fianna Fáil - Centrist, Populist, Irish Republicanism, mildly Conservative
Fine Gael - Christian Democracy, Centre-Right
Labour - Social Democracy
Greens - Enviromentalism, Economic Protectionalism
Sinn Féin - Irish Republicanism, United Ireland, Centre-Left
Progressive Democrats - Social Progressivism, Economic Liberalism

Would this be hard to replicate in America?

There are so many differing viewpoints on both sides that it makes sense to create entities that can stand on a specific issue, such as Socialism, Economic Liberalism, Christian Conservatism, Secularism, rather than the broad, sweeping parties that aim to take everything under it's mantra, failing to cover anything (FF are the closest we have to such a party).

[crooks]

We've currently got IIRC eight parties in parliament at the moment, the trick is to not have the same ones for too long.

Ah, my former token NZ girlfriend lives in Christchurch - hard National voter :) .

[Nuna]

I agree with crooks. Even if in Germany only two parties have the chance to make demands for the chancellor, they almost alwasy need the support of another party and therefore we have not only two options. It's not this black and white schema like in the USA.

[Tarek Morgen]

And further it is not impossible here for a complete new party to have a chance. It is easier on the local and state level though than on the federal to archive some access for them. But just for example, 20 years ago we had 3 parties in the parlament, now it are 5.

[glyn]

America prides itself in the number of choices it can offer, yet politically to the electorate there are only two parties. I find this to be curious. Did I once read that there are over 500 religions on offer in California alone? Yet in the entire US of A there are effectively only TWO parties. Bloody hell, you couldn't make this up!

[Dwarven Pirate]

All organizations are prone to corruption, I think.

America does have some independent congressmen and senators, but so few as to be dis-regarded. I agree that there needs to be more division in the electorate, or rather that the electorate would find that they were better represented by some of the marginal candidates were those candidates policies to be objectively aired in the larger media.

Tho it is not a recent phenomenon and not specific to either/any group, the 'legal' re-drawing of voter districts to ensure one's own election here in the US is, to me, one of our biggest problems in this matter and, I think, treasonably corrupt.

For the non-US here, what has happened is that im[portant areas have had their boundaries redrawn in order to ensure a majority. They base this on historic voting trends, race, income and the like. (What went on in Ohio in the last presidential election had much of its basis in this sort of thing, with many people unaware that the place they were to vote had been changed.)

[astralis]

this issue of political parties has been researched by political scientists for years and years.

basically it comes down to the structure of the democracy: whether one is in a presidential or parliamentary democracy, and whether the voting is structured around proportional representation or first-past-the-post system.

see also duverger's law.

and then there's the really nasty stuff like single transferable vote and single non-transferable vote, semi-presidential democracies, open-closed party list PR system, and all the other fun stuff that only turns on post-grad students...

[glyn]

An interesting link.:) (And yet another 'law' that I had never heard of! )

[gunnut]

The American system is in my view incredibly divisive - you're either a Neocon or a Commie, I don't get how it came to that......it could use an overhaul.

Here in Éire we have 6 major parties representing different viewpoints, some are conservative, some Liberal, some centrist, all to different degrees and with different branches (in order of number of seats in our Dáil):

Fianna Fáil - Centrist, Populist, Irish Republicanism, mildly Conservative
Fine Gael - Christian Democracy, Centre-Right
Labour - Social Democracy
Greens - Enviromentalism, Economic Protectionalism
Sinn Féin - Irish Republicanism, United Ireland, Centre-Left
Progressive Democrats - Social Progressivism, Economic Liberalism

Would this be hard to replicate in America?

There are so many differing viewpoints on both sides that it makes sense to create entities that can stand on a specific issue, such as Socialism, Economic Liberalism, Christian Conservatism, Secularism, rather than the broad, sweeping parties that aim to take everything under it's mantra, failing to cover anything (FF are the closest we have to such a party).

Very hard to do in America.

We have a "winner takes all" voting system for our president and we have seperate votes for our representatives in the Congress.

If I'm not mistaken, in European style of parlamentary government the voters vote for the party. Then the parlament is divided up according to the results. Very often there will be no majority in the government and a coalition has to be formed to get anything working.

We will always have a majority in the Congress. It doesn't mean we can always get something through, but at least our Congress doesn't dissolve due to no majority being formed.

There are advantages to our systems and there are drawbacks too. The biggest drawback is there are only 2 choices on the ballot. We settle for the lesser of the 2 evils.

[crooks]

Very hard to do in America.

We have a "winner takes all" voting system for our president and we have seperate votes for our representatives in the Congress.

If I'm not mistaken, in European style of parlamentary government the voters vote for the party. Then the parlament is divided up according to the results. Very often there will be no majority in the government and a coalition has to be formed to get anything working.

We will always have a majority in the Congress. It doesn't mean we can always get something through, but at least our Congress doesn't dissolve due to no majority being formed.

There are advantages to our systems and there are drawbacks too. The biggest drawback is there are only 2 choices on the ballot. We settle for the lesser of the 2 evils.

A majority can nearly always be formed here, due to the fact that many parties would share similar broad policies - Bertie Ahern, our Taoiseach (Irish for "Chieftain", possibly Prime Minister would be the best equivalent) has a tri-party coalition, consisting of FF, the PDs and the Green party - ideologically they're fairly different, but they all make concessions, giving us a pro-corporate economy commited to Green Policy and an Expansion of Public Services - it works gunnut, no other way to describe it.
We have a Parliamentry Republic, basically the Taoiseach needs the support of the Dáil and can do little without passing bills in it - the President is a figurehead with little legislative power here, though she is the Commander-in-Chief on the Irish Defence forces (in the US, the president has significant powers, Congress seems to be there only to chastise him).

Our vote system is referred to as "STV" (Single transferable vote) - basically you get a list with maybe ten standing for election, and you tick 1, 2, 3 etc all the way down - so you're number one is the vote get's counted, and if he gets elected then you're number two is "transferred" to the number 2's pile, and so on (if your candidate is eliminated, you get the same system, number 2 gets it) - So your vote get's counted the entire way down, it's very democratic.

I can't see how with massive regions and diverse viewpoints that you couldn't have a multi-party system......virtually every other democracy I can think of has one.

[gunnut]

A majority can nearly always be formed here, due to the fact that many parties would share similar broad policies - Bertie Ahern, our Taoiseach (Irish for "Chieftain", possibly Prime Minister would be the best equivalent) has a tri-party coalition, consisting of FF, the PDs and the Green party - ideologically they're fairly different, but they all make concessions, giving us a pro-corporate economy commited to Green Policy and an Expansion of Public Services - it works gunnut, no other way to describe it.

Actually we have that kind of coalition also. We have the ultra liberals and ultra conservatives. Then we have the moderate liberals and moderate conservatives. And then there are the swing votes. They just don't have the name tag on their shirts and form large voting blocks generally adhering to the stereotypes.

We have a Parliamentry Republic, basically the Taoiseach needs the support of the Dáil and can do little without passing bills in it - the President is a figurehead with little legislative power here, though she is the Commander-in-Chief on the Irish Defence forces (in the US, the president has significant powers, Congress seems to be there only to chastise him).

Don't let the media fool you. The Congress has significant power in passing laws. Many of the laws they pass don't even get mentioned. Bush has used his veto only once or twice in his near 7 years in office. The fewest of any president in recent history.

Our vote system is referred to as "STV" (Single transferable vote) - basically you get a list with maybe ten standing for election, and you tick 1, 2, 3 etc all the way down - so you're number one is the vote get's counted, and if he gets elected then you're number two is "transferred" to the number 2's pile, and so on (if your candidate is eliminated, you get the same system, number 2 gets it) - So your vote get's counted the entire way down, it's very democratic.

That's a very interesting system. I have never heard of it. It sounds very complicated though.

I can't see how with massive regions and diverse viewpoints that you couldn't have a multi-party system......virtually every other democracy I can think of has one.

We weren't always this big and this diverse. Many of our laws were made back in the old small town era and continue to be used. Our jury system is probably the prime example. Everyone has the chance to serve on the jury. It's great if the towns are small and people know each other and know their town. But it gets to be a hassle in our complex economy and huge sprawl of suburb communities. People cease to be neighbors and don't really care about their communities any more.

[Dwarven Pirate]

I've read somewhere that near (or all) recent governments have been formed in the parliamentary tradition. Recent as in 20th century. Not sure how true this is, or whether there were enough of them to bear counting...