political parties have terrible effects

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, that is true... but when you have two large parties, they will take the positions of the smaller ones, or incorporate them into their government. It happens all the time. The bigger party, in the end, wins out.

Or bigger parties can disintegrate into smaller ones given enough ideological differences.

Even in a parlimentary system, I doubt third parties would get much... maybe 10-15% of the seats at best... and of course that wouldn't be nearly enough to do anything.

That depends. In Germany, the Union and SPD have each about 40% in most elections, while the Green, FDP, and PDS carve up the remaining 20%. However, the largest party in Belgium has less than 30%.

The problem is that with a parlimentary system the smaller parties control everything. Think about it this way, the Democrats have 45%, Republicans 45%, Libertarians 6%, and Greens 4%. In this situation, the ones with the MOST power are the Libertarians, who can pick and choose which big party will be in power and of course that party will have to compromise. You have the position that 6% of the populace controls much more than their share of the vote.

The German Free Democrats (a little like Libertarians) were part of every government from 1949 until 1998, within only a brief interruption between 1966 and 1969. Thus, they got a nickname called "die Regierigen". "Regierung" means government, and "gierig" means greedy in German.

[Lorizael]

Okay, I haven't read the entire thread, but you're wrong about the American public. Party identification is actually falling. More people are becoming independents and more people are also split ticket voting, i.e. voting for republicans and democrats (and at the local level third parties) on ballots with multiple positions.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The problem lies how candidates are voted into the parliaments:

Our country is divided up into districts where the winner moves into the congress, even at a distribution such as 34%, 33%, and 33%. It's very hard, if not impossible, to establish a viable third party under such a system.

In Israel, the exact opposite happens. There are no districts there. The representation of parties in the national parliament is purely determined by the percentage each party gets in the election. Without the 5% hurdle, Israeli Knesset is jammed with 30+ parties and endless squablings. Do we want something like that?

I think Germany offers a nice comprise, since they learnt the mistakes from the Weimarer Republic when the Reichstag was put together in a similar as the Israeli Knesset. In Bundestag, half of the members are winners of individual districts and half are determined by the percentage each party gets. Coupled with the 5% hurdle, this system guarantees multiple party representation, but without the mess of splintering.

All the talks about a viable 3rd party in the US are completely useless something is done about our election system.

Good analysis, and I agree with your conclusion. We need to get rid of Congressional districts and simply elect the X top vote getters in the state.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, that is true... but when you have two large parties, they will take the positions of the smaller ones, or incorporate them into their government. It happens all the time. The bigger party, in the end, wins out.

Even in a parlimentary system, I doubt third parties would get much... maybe 10-15% of the seats at best... and of course that wouldn't be nearly enough to do anything.

The problem is that with a parlimentary system the smaller parties control everything. Think about it this way, the Democrats have 45%, Republicans 45%, Libertarians 6%, and Greens 4%. In this situation, the ones with the MOST power are the Libertarians, who can pick and choose which big party will be in power and of course that party will have to compromise. You have the position that 6% of the populace controls much more than their share of the vote.

And here I thought that the Republicans and Democrats had the power because they are going to be the only ones who are asked to form a government and give the Libs a chance to bargain. And of course one of those two parties is going to be the home of the PM, while the Libs will have to be satisfied with the Ministry of Home Schooling.

[TheStinger]

There is some really bas US analysis of european political systems going on here.

Has anyone looked at the UK or even the French system.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by TheStinger
There is some really bas US analysis of european political systems going on here.

Has anyone looked at the UK or even the French system.

We inherited the district - winner gets all - system from you.

[TheStinger]

It was more the all european sytem are the same as compared to the US system that I was objecting to.

[PMKeates]

With a parliamentary system, the executive can force through anything it pleases as it will have majority control over the legislature. However, it can only do so if the party's own MPs support whatever is attempting to be passed. In the case of the UK system, parties can impose a "Three Line Whip" which means that an MP must:

Turn up
Vote for his party
No questions asked

If an MP does not obey this "Three Line Whip" he/ she can face disciplinary action by his/ her respective party. However, if enough MPs "rebel" against the Three Line Whip the government can actually have its attempted enforcement stopped.

Another benefit of the UK system is that there are two houses, the House of Common and the House of Lords. The House of Lords can temporarily stop a bill being passed, which if the bill is extreme enough, could result in the party attempting to pass the bill being not being re-elected and thus never being able to carry out their will. As the House of Lords is comprised of far more varied political and social representation it is not entirely unlikely that this could happen.

On the subjet of a viable 3rd part in America, it would be possible if there was a change in electoral system. As the FPTP (First Past the Post) electoral system uses a simple majority method of deciding votes, this does not allow for proportional representation and results in the weakining of the weak and the strengthening of the strong. If a proportionally representative system was to be introduce in America you would find that the smaller parties will gain more power and the strongest party other than the Republicans and the Democrats, will become a viable 3rd party.

[Swissy]

Changes in the electoral system are not likely to happen. The Democratic party has a vest interest in keeping things the way they are as they cater to groups who would most likely form third parties in a system that grants representation to a party the attains a minimum percentage of the popular vote. The only way such a change would happen would be a constitutional convention, which would open up a multiple cans of worms as everything would be on the board for possible change. So we are basically stuck with this system.

[PMKeates]

Originally posted by Swissy
Changes in the electoral system are not likely to happen. The Democratic party has a vest interest in keeping things the way they are as they cater to groups who would most likely form third parties in a system that grants representation to a party the attains a minimum percentage of the popular vote. The only way such a change would happen would be a constitutional convention, which would open up a multiple cans of worms as everything would be on the board for possible change. So we are basically stuck with this system.

A constitution that prevents democratic process? I think it's time for a change...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Okay, I haven't read the entire thread, but you're wrong about the American public. Party identification is actually falling. More people are becoming independents and more people are also split ticket voting, i.e. voting for republicans and democrats (and at the local level third parties) on ballots with multiple positions.

This, however, is exactly the problem; the rising number of registered independents is actually strengthening the 2-party stranglehold on American politics. How? By opting out of the primary process (aside to non-US residents: the party primary election process here is generally closed to anyone not registered for the party), and allowing an increasingly narrow band of "party faithful" to determine the choices in elections.

The most recent victim of this mentality was John McCain. When McCain was running in the GOP primary, his biggest fans were the registered independents who'd fled from the Democratic and Republican parties. That makes for a lot of fans, but they didn't translate into votes because independents can't vote in most primaries. So, having declared their independence, independents got to watch their candidate of choice flame out, without ever once getting to support him.

Now, of course, at least independents vote. An even bigger issue is the 45-55% of Americans who apparently are so alienated by the political process that they don't vote at all (essayist and novelist Joan Didion refers to them as "America's largest political party"). Every four years we go through some low-level hand-wringing about the low voter turnout in the US, but the truth is that that's just the way politicians like it; the fewer the people who turn out, the more that power can be concentrated in the hands of our increasingly-unpopular political parties.

Politics in the US is increasingly turning into a choice between McDonald's and Burger King, and in this sorry state of affairs most people have chosen to either (a) starve, or (b) feel real proud of themselves because they're not brand-loyal, but instead eat at McDonald's on some days and Burger King on others. And meanwhile, the management keeps serving up the same old crap, because everyone whose a regular seems to like it.

The real solution, I suspect -- and one the Christian Right has learned but the activist left has not -- is to get a job at McDonald's, get all of your friends jobs at McDonald's, slowly but surely take over the management of McDonald's, and change the damned menu.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Swissy
Changes in the electoral system are not likely to happen. The Democratic party has a vest interest in keeping things the way they are as they cater to groups who would most likely form third parties in a system that grants representation to a party the attains a minimum percentage of the popular vote. The only way such a change would happen would be a constitutional convention, which would open up a multiple cans of worms as everything would be on the board for possible change. So we are basically stuck with this system.

You lost me. Political parties aren't even mentioned in the constitution. What constitutional changes are you thinking of?

[Lorizael]

Quite true, more and more extreme conservatives are coming into the Republican party.

But, I think I recall that more states are also switching to open primaries, which will make indepedents real happy. There's also a lot of evidence that people will choose a party just so that they can vote in the primaries, even if they don't have any strong party affiliations.

The other thing to consider is the old theory of third parties. Eventually, if a third party gets enough votes, the party closest it to it will start to lose votes, and that party will be forced to adopt some of the policies of the third party. Unfortunately this does not bring in any more parties, but it is a way of slowly affecting the policy stances of the two major parties. The other problem with this is that people don't vote for third parties, because they feel their vote is wasted. This is worsened, at least in the eyes of the people, by the electoral college.

And the last time a third party won the presidential election.

Lincoln.

And that's not right.

And Rufus, our constitution says nothing about political parties, but one of the most influential of framers, Madison, was a very strong proponent of them.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Actually, by the time Lincoln won, the Whigs were history, so the Republicans were technically not a 3rd party.

And while you're right about Madison, it's nevertheless true that there's no constitutional support for parties, or even mention of them.

As for open primaries -- they're a great idea, and I'm all for them. But come election day, I know the Democrats will be calling me up to make sure I get to the polls, and the Republicans will be calling up my best friend to make sure that he gets to the polls. The Independents are just going to have to get motivated on their own. And that's another reason why being independent will never constitute a threat to the party structure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And here I thought that the Republicans and Democrats had the power because they are going to be the only ones who are asked to form a government and give the Libs a chance to bargain. And of course one of those two parties is going to be the home of the PM, while the Libs will have to be satisfied with the Ministry of Home Schooling.

Look at the situation in Austria and Haider's party getting much more power than they recieved votes. Or in Germany, where the Greens are extremely powerful, much more than their vote total would indicate.

A constitution that prevents democratic process?

That was the whole point of it, really . Remember, Americans usually say, it's a republic, not a democracy.