• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.

pigeon

Banned
What are the benefits of a two-party system versus a multi-party system based on coalitions?

There are no particular benefits, in my view. If I were to design an election system for America from scratch I would probably ditch the presidential system altogether and use some sort of PR-plus-state-reps system. Basically have the House and Senate together elect a President or First Citizen or whatever and have them run the country.

Could the Democrats or Republicans reasonably decentralize into multiple collaborating parties?

In practice the Dems and GOP are already basically two large coalition parties. The internal parties are just informal, although there are subgroups like the Congressional Black Caucus which are basically representative of a particular aspect of the coalition. I'm not sure what formal coalition party structure would add to the conversation.

edit: FUK U OHIO
 
Certainly FPTP doesn't guarantee a two party system. Canada has three at the federal level, plus the Bloc Quebecois. But it does tend to create pressures against having a large number of parties. On the other hand, pure proportional representation (i.e. with no thresholds) tends to lead to a lot of parties. See Germany during the Weimar Republic, where having 12 to 15 parties earn representation in the Reichstag was typical.

The US also has the Electoral College, which creates several more pressures for a two party system.
I concur. I was merely contesting that a third party in the US has no viability. That's not true; we just have bad ones. I think a capitalist party with a strong emphasis on social justice, minority rights, and some limited support for social welfare programs would fare very well in this country, with a socialist labor party and a traditionalism and nativism party serving as the two flanks.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
There are no particular benefits, in my view. If I were to design an election system for America from scratch I would probably ditch the presidential system altogether and use some sort of PR-plus-state-reps system. Basically have the House and Senate together elect a President or First Citizen or whatever and have them run the country.



In practice the Dems and GOP are already basically two large coalition parties. The internal parties are just informal, although there are subgroups like the Congressional Black Caucus which are basically representative of a particular aspect of the coalition. I'm not sure what formal coalition party structure would add to the conversation.

I'm gonna disagree with you here. The importance of a party line (even if informal) really kills a lot of ideological diversity that a coalition party could preserve. For instance, does the Democratic party really offer any room for anticapitalism?

American politics are so homogeneous because our political framework discourages dissent within the parties.
 
Remember Cleveland is the city that is going to nominate Trump for President.

City and state was nothing but a mistake

MTI5NTQ5MTE5NzU1NzAwMjM0.gif


BROWNS FOR SUPER BOWL! (Commercials....)

(I don't know how to talk shit about basketball because I've never watched a full basketball game in my life.)
 
I'm gonna disagree with you here. The importance of a party line (even if informal) really kills a lot of ideological diversity that a coalition party could preserve. For instance, does the Democratic party really offer any room for anticapitalism?

American politics are so homogeneous because our political framework discourages dissent within the parties.

There is no sustainable or substantial anti-capitalist movement anywhere.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I have friends from Cleveland
(and a long-term standing job offer, should I ever want it.. or should something awful happen to New Orleans)
, so I'm pretty happy for them right about now. I totally get the whole "loser sports city" thing. 'Grats, Adam - enjoy it!

There may be trouble ahead
So while there's moonlight
And music
And love
And romance..
Let's face the music and dance!
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Sorry meant US.

Fair enough. The Green Party recently declared themselves to be anti-capitalist, but they're a joke. Socialism is also pretty far down on their priority list.

Anti-capitalist sentiment is absolutely on the rise in the United States, as America's youth groan under the stressors of fiscal liberalism and see few of the benefits their parents and grandparents enjoyed. Despite only being a particularly labor-minded social democrat, Bernie Sander's use of the word socialist is radical and has altered our political climate.

The Democrats are going to see increasing challenges from the left going forward. I'm not sure how the party will respond to this.
 
The one thing that amazes me about the Green Party is that the Green Party almost anywhere in the world is a joke. How in blazes can they be that consistently bad?


SNP brah.

Scotland is basically a two party system between Labour and SNP. Obviously, SNP has no power outside of Scotland. And Plaid Cymru hasn't been anything in Wales, so there's no other regional party with that level of power.

Stopped being the case.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
This is a shitty attitude. While the Green Party and Libertarians can be wacky, both of them offer desperately well-needed alternative policies to those offered by either major party. Much of the reason why third parties seem silly is because most pragmatic voters who agree with their views are either Democrats or Republicans.

No, no they don't.

I'm absolutely certain that a more powerful Green Party wouldn't harbor anti-vacc positions. Problem is, American politics is so restricting that crazies are more likely to be party members.

The problem with the Green Party is far more than their anti-vacc position. They have a whole host of anti-science positions that don't even deserve to be spoken about as if they were serious. They don't care about actual evidence and that's evident with a lot of their stated positions. The Libertarian Party is even worse.

Neither one deserves to be taken seriously because they can't be bothered to take their own positions seriously.

The fact is, if we had a third party system then the Dems and GOP would split into four different parties. Our coalitions are formed during the primary process not after the election.
 
The one thing that amazes me about the Green Party is that the Green Party almost anywhere in the world is a joke. How in blazes can they be that consistently bad?



Stopped being the case.

In the Scottish Parliament, ya. Didn't SNP really cannibalize the Labour seats there? Somehow, I missed the Conservatives getting more seats than Labour. Legit surprised by that.
 
They have a whole host of anti-science positions that don't even deserve to be spoken about as if they were serious.

To be fair, that can be said of all parties. Some just more than others.

In the Scottish Parliament, ya. Didn't SNP really cannibalize the Labour seats there? Somehow, I missed the Conservatives getting more seats than Labour. Legit surprised by that.

Scottish tories used the mlg pro league strat of pretending that they wasn't tories. Was super effective.

Plus labour still trying to kill itself in an effort to get rid of corbs. Or something.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
To be fair, that can be said of all parties. Some just more than others.

The Greens are especially bad though. A lot of their stances just aren't backed up by evidence, it's mostly just magical thinking behind them. Until they can be bothered to take their own issues seriously they don't deserve to be taken seriously by anyone else.
 
To be fair, that can be said of all parties. Some just more than others.



Scottish tories used the mlg pro league strat of pretending that they wasn't tories. Was super effective.

Plus labour still trying to kill itself in an effort to get rid of corbs. Or something.

Has Labour managed a unifed response to Brexit? Corbyn is so shit.
 

danm999

Member
The Australian Greens moved away from anti-vax, anti-GMO positions when an actual doctor of medicine took over the party.

Though Jill Stein was a doctor too...
 
UKIP is just the tea party. In the US they'd be another group of Republicans. The UK has an illusion of more than two parties.

SNP brah.

Scotland is basically a two party system between Labour and SNP. Obviously, SNP has no power outside of Scotland. And Plaid Cymru hasn't been anything in Wales, so there's no other regional party with that level of power.
Right, what Adam said. And before that I would have told you that it was a four party government between the liberal democrats, the labour party, and the conservative party, but the lib dems have done extinct because they're traitors and made a supply and confidence coalition with the conservatives once upon a time.

Adam is right that the SNP is a regional party and only hold seats in Scotland but that still counts as 1/12 of the seats in Parliament and they're a sizable force (the conservatives hold a supermajority but that's Labor's fault, not Scotland's), so I would not dismiss them as regional. This counts as three successful parties! The coalitions work in the UK.

I still prefer PR, though.
 
The only way I can see a multiparty system working in the US is if the Electoral College went to proportional representation, and then we amended the Constitution to allow coalitions to exist within the electoral college. In a Presidential system, I don't think it's possible to have a minority government.

That, or the 3rd party is just going to have to win an out right majority in the electoral college.
 
The Greens are especially bad though. A lot of their stances just aren't backed up by evidence, it's mostly just magical thinking behind them. Until they can be bothered to take their own issues seriously they don't deserve to be taken seriously by anyone else.

Eh, i'm going through their Really Important Stuff laundry list, and aside from pants on head stuff like the vaccine bit and gmo's (cuz of course), the only other red flag seems to be nuclear aaaand...
M: National Debt
OUR POSITION

Greens will reduce our national debt.
which, well, yeah.

Can't quite see why they're especially bad, tho, when weighting that shit against, say, their pretty god damn baller stances on civil rights, education, criminal justice or welfare.

But then, i've only given it a quick look.

Has Labour managed a unifed response to Brexit? Corbyn is so shit.

Not as far as i'm aware, and that's quite the smart move by him, given that any hard stance he could take would piss off significant segments of his party.

But then, Brpol has become so fun that i've largely stopped following everything else. A brand new scandal every monday.
 
Eh, i'm going through their Really Important Stuff laundry list, and aside from pants on head stuff like the vaccine bit and gmo's (cuz of course), the only other red flag seems to be nuclear aaaand...

which, well, yeah.

Can't quite see why they're especially bad, tho, when weighting that shit against, say, their pretty god damn baller stances on civil rights, education, criminal justice or welfare.

But then, i've only given it a quick look.
I mean I guess the big problem with the Greens is their whole platform is built around "We'll do everything the Democrats promise but faster and 100x better!" without taking into account any of the practicality and reality of politics. Like cool, you're principled to the core and won't compromise. And that gets you almost jack shit in politics.

I mean they draw in the same people who saw Republicans stonewalling PPACA every step of the way and asked Obama to start over with single-payer, and decided he was corrupt for not doing so. Fucking stupid.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
The only way I can see a multiparty system working in the US is if the Electoral College went to proportional representation, and then we amended the Constitution to allow coalitions to exist within the electoral college. In a Presidential system, I don't think it's possible to have a minority government.

That, or the 3rd party is just going to have to win an out right majority in the electoral college.

Unfortunately, I can't imagine politicians willingly ceding the power of their own parties.

Part of representative democracy is representing anti-scientific beliefs that many hold.

A frightening amount of Americans are anti-vaccine. I don't think representation trumps ethics.
 

shem935

Banned
Unfortunately, I can't imagine politicians willingly ceding the power of their own parties.

Pretty much. I don't know, has there ever been a government that made the changes we are talking about partway through without some major turmoil associated? It feels like we screwed the pooch from the get go.
 
I mean I guess the big problem with the Greens is their whole platform is built around "We'll do everything the Democrats promise but faster and 100x better!" without taking into account any of the practicality and reality of politics. Like cool, you're principled to the core and won't compromise. And that gets you almost jack shit in politics.

Is a catch-22, tho. You gotta promisse more, for if you promisse less, then you're promissing the same as dems, so why should one vote for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom