Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lagslayer]

That's a defeatist attitude - perfection may not be achievable, but are you seriously going to argue that no government does overall better than another?

Anarchy is self defeating.

I believe that even moderately bad direction is better than no direction at all. No direction means absolute chaos, and nothing gets done.
(at least when it comes to large-scale government)

[MonkeyHead]

Actually, I take it back. There is nothing wrong with a system that allows for many possible parties that represent the broad spectrum of political opinions. A system which has at most 2 or 3 parties will have great difficulty in allowing people to make a choice that truly reflects what they think without making compromises and voting for the least objectionable party.

[GlyphGryph]

Lagslayer - no one was arguing for anarchy, and I still don't understand what the point of your previous post was supposed to be.

And Monkeyhead, the question is - is there any country that really manages to pull off multiple political parties? Structurally, most are capable of little more than providing the illusion of such better than the US while being functionally identical.

[misko27]

Anything in between the extremes just splits the problems, but doesn't make them go away.

No system is going to fit the needs of every person. it's impossible. People are simply too diverse. If you were to remove this diversity, you might be able to construct a better system, but is it worth the cost?

I am wedded mentally to the idea that extremes are bad exponentially, not linearly, which is why they meet.


And as for Diversity, it only underscores the importance of a equally complex solution. Things are not simple, there is no simple answer, it is something that is achieved after a long period of slow jerks towards a better system.

[GlyphGryph]

Also, there are more than two extremes and an infinite variety of ways for them to meet.

[Baffler]

India has been called a functional anarchy. It isn't the best system but it is pretty unique, an interesting case study in how political parties form and respond to change in a diverse environment to say the least.

[MonkeyHead]

Lagslayer - no one was arguing for anarchy, and I still don't understand what the point of your previous post was supposed to be.

And Monkeyhead, the question is - is there any country that really manages to pull off multiple political parties? Structurally, most are capable of little more than providing the illusion of such better than the US while being functionally identical.

I am stuggling to think of one... Here there are ... *counts* 11 parties, I think, that are represented in parliament. Granted, 3 of those are single seats, and 4 of them are Welsh, Scottish or Irish nationalists. Tories and Labour will always be the big players (with LibDem hanging on to one or the other) pulling the others to obtain a majority, but If you wanted to vote for the Socialists, Greens or whatever as an independant entity, you can. No picking Party A just as you dont like Party B.

Anecdotally, I remember reading somewhere that India has an insane number of parties involved in various levels of governance, and that Isreal has around 6 or 7 parties in the Knesset, as well as some quite frankly bizzare parties for things such as a Taxi driver coalition.

[XXSockXX]

And Monkeyhead, the question is - is there any country that really manages to pull off multiple political parties? Structurally, most are capable of little more than providing the illusion of such better than the US while being functionally identical.

Actually quite a lot of countries have multiple parties (that manage to make it into parliament if there is a threshold). I would think a 2 party system like the US has or an almost 2 party system like the UK has had for a long time are rather an exception, because "winner takes it all" is most common in anglo-american influenced countries. It depends on the voting system, the more proportional elements you have, the more likely you are to get multiple parties.
In Germany, which is somewhere in the middle on the number of (relevant) parties, with 2 big ones and 3 small ones (plus 2-3 very small ones that have a shot at getting into parliaments), the voting system is 50:50 proportional vs single winner. The small parties don't get most of their votes through direct candidates, but through the proportional second vote.

[10ebbor10]

How about Belgium. I mean, over the last few years our major parties actually changed. And even with a language conflict, it's still fairly stable.

[Lagslayer]

Actually, I take it back. There is nothing wrong with a system that allows for many possible parties that represent the broad spectrum of political opinions. A system which has at most 2 or 3 parties will have great difficulty in allowing people to make a choice that truly reflects what they think without making compromises and voting for the least objectionable party.

Even if additional parties aren't outlawed, only a small number of parties will be serious contenders for long. People will naturally choose something acceptable with a greater chance of winning to something that matches them perfectly but has lesser chance of winning. No system is going to change that.

Lagslayer - no one was arguing for anarchy, and I still don't understand what the point of your previous post was supposed to be.

And Monkeyhead, the question is - is there any country that really manages to pull off multiple political parties? Structurally, most are capable of little more than providing the illusion of such better than the US while being functionally identical.

I just thought I'd throw the anarchy bit in there, to fill any gaps and head off confusion. It seems I have created a bit of confusion in the process  .

I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, but drawing from similar conversations I've had in the past. I figured I might as well put up everything.

I guess what I'm saying is that this isn't even the right question we should be asking.

I am wedded mentally to the idea that extremes are bad exponentially, not linearly, which is why they meet.


And as for Diversity, it only underscores the importance of a equally complex solution. Things are not simple, there is no simple answer, it is something that is achieved after a long period of slow jerks towards a better system.

If everyone were more similar, there would be less to fight about. A system could be tailor-made and specialized a bit better. As for "jerking towards a better system", it is not better for everybody. People often have diametrically opposing views. Anything that benefits one group is to the detriment of the other. Morality is objective.

Also, there are more than two extremes and an infinite variety of ways for them to meet.

It is true that this is not a binary problem. However, extremes are extremes, and each has their own problems.


(so many ninjas)

[misko27]

How about Belgium. I mean, over the last few years our major parties actually changed. And even with a language conflict, it's still fairly stable.

What was that quote, "It all ends with Belgium, because no one rules Belgium, not even the government"?

I am wedded mentally to the idea that extremes are bad exponentially, not linearly, which is why they meet.


And as for Diversity, it only underscores the importance of a equally complex solution. Things are not simple, there is no simple answer, it is something that is achieved after a long period of slow jerks towards a better system.

If everyone were more similar, there would be less to fight about. A system could be tailor-made and specialized a bit better. As for "jerking towards a better system", it is not better for everybody. People often have diametrically opposing views. Anything that benefits one group is to the detriment of the other. Morality is objective.

Yes, Yes, sure. That doesn't mean some people aren't wrong though. And many of those views are, as I repeatedly point out, quite extreme. This is as important as the fact that they have rights too. Their rights end where other people's begin, and they don't have the right to impose bad ideas.


Which is why the difficult to achieve but most favorable idea remains a Altruistic Meritocracy.

[10ebbor10]

Actually, I take it back. There is nothing wrong with a system that allows for many possible parties that represent the broad spectrum of political opinions. A system which has at most 2 or 3 parties will have great difficulty in allowing people to make a choice that truly reflects what they think without making compromises and voting for the least objectionable party.

Even if additional parties aren't outlawed, only a small number of parties will be serious contenders for long. People will naturally choose something acceptable with a greater chance of winning to something that matches them perfectly but has lesser chance of winning. No system is going to change that.

Only a problem in a first past the post system. In a population proportion coalition system, there's no reason not to vote for your preferred party. Especially when it's not impossible for the largest party to end up in the opposition.

How about Belgium. I mean, over the last few years our major parties actually changed. And even with a language conflict, it's still fairly stable.

What was that quote, "It all ends with Belgium, because no one rules Belgium, not even the government"?

[/quote]
It's surprisingly stable for a system that sometimes results in 500 days without government/

[XXSockXX]

Actually, I take it back. There is nothing wrong with a system that allows for many possible parties that represent the broad spectrum of political opinions. A system which has at most 2 or 3 parties will have great difficulty in allowing people to make a choice that truly reflects what they think without making compromises and voting for the least objectionable party.

Even if additional parties aren't outlawed, only a small number of parties will be serious contenders for long. People will naturally choose something acceptable with a greater chance of winning to something that matches them perfectly but has lesser chance of winning. No system is going to change that.

Only a problem in a first past the post system. In a population proportion coalition system, there's no reason not to vote for your preferred party. Especially when it's not impossible for the largest party to end up in the opposition.

Exactly. In our mixed system many people give their direct vote to their preferred big party and their proportional vote to the small party they want to see in a coalition. Since no party has a real chance to govern alone, this is an additional motivation to vote for small parties. Also the small parties end up being pretty influential, as they are needed by the big ones to get a coalition.

[ed boy]

Consider the following:

-The government is broken down into a number of tiered councils. The tiers consist of a group in charge of geographic locations of increasing size (e.g. tier 1 is local area council, tier 2 is town council or section of city council, etc), such that any given person is governed by exactly one tier 1 council, exactly one tier 2 council, etc.
-Each council has a set of responsibilities that they are in charge of, with decision within the council made by simple majority
-Each council has at least one council directly below it.
-Every few years (provisionally 4), elections are held.
--To apply for a council position you must hold a position on a council one tier below the one you are applying for. To apply for the lowest tier council, you must be from the relevant local area for that lowest tier.
--If one is already on a council, they can also choose whether or not they want to run for their current council position. This can be done as well as running for a higher council position (in case one's attempt at a higher position fails)
--Once everybody decides whether or not they are running, everybody that is governed by the position they are running for gets a list of all the people running. This happens for each council. So each person would get a list of tier 1 candidates, a list of tier 2 candidates, etc
--Each person would be able to approve or deny each person on each list. If a candidate's application is denied by more than a quarter of people, their application is stopped and they do not proceed to the next steps.
--Next, each surviving candidate is given a pseudonym. They will write their manifestos and issue statements and respond to questions using their pseudonym. Revealing the pseudonym will be highly illegal. Anything produced under the pseudonym will be done so electronically and with no links to the candidate's actual identity.
--Each person gets a list of the manifestos of all the people running for each tier, and gets a single transferrable vote for each tier. So each person ranks their tier 1 candidates in order, then their tier 2 candidates in order, etc.
--Starting with the highest ranked tier and descending by tier rank, the nine most popular candidates who are not part of a higher tier are placed into each council.

Advantages:
-An individual gets to choose how they are governed at multiple levels
-Since individuals present themselves under pseudonyms, this prevents racism/sexism/other from penalizing candidates unfairly
-Since individuals keep their identities secret for the policy debate, it reduces the need for an individual to be in a party to succeed
-The initial approval and tiered system means that people aren't flooded with thousands of crazy people to be approved
-The tiered system means that all the candidates for higher position have years worth of experience

[GlyphGryph]

In Germany, which is somewhere in the middle on the number of (relevant) parties, with 2 big ones and 3 small ones (plus 2-3 very small ones that have a shot at getting into parliaments), the voting system is 50:50 proportional vs single winner. The small parties don't get most of their votes through direct candidates, but through the proportional second vote.

In most systems, it's usually "Government" versus "Opposition" with the names switching occassionally, from what I understand - almost all of the systems with multiple parties in parliament have a system where the "majority party" has all off the power, and party loyalty is simply assumed - effectively leading to the exact same situation as in the US, where you've got a variety of people under one banner or the other. At least, this is the way it works in most of the countries I've been to - you may be voting for the Greens, but you also know who you're REALLY voting for by doing so, and there's ultimately two "big parties" that actual control of the government takes turns switching between, with the smaller parties having almost no say. Am I wrong in that assessment? It may just be incorrect for any of a variety of countries I haven't been to.

The problem with belgium as an example is that it seems ot have made it blazingly obvious how badly the system works when attempting to support more than two parties. At least that's what the news makes it seem like... On the other hand, Belgium still seems to be getting along despite all its "problems", as mentioned, so maybe I'm wrong.

Also, ed boy - your system seems built to incentive people to lie their asses off completely, and to be completely unaccountable for their actions. It also doesn't seem to have any reward for actually performing their job well in way way. What are your controls for this?