"Russia will soon be a one party state"

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by MarkG
meanwhile, the US is being run by two vastly different parties...

But that's OK, because third parties have realistic chances of winning elections in teh US

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It is extremely hard for a truly independent geopolitical player outside of the western sphere of influence to become truly democratic. The thing is that the internal political fight, which is a necessary attribute of a democratic process, offers too great an opportunity for geopolitical rivals to influence the situation in their favor.

Just wow.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
For years and years, huh?

Yes, for years and years.

Russia has been a political mess for years. Is anyone at all shocked by the OP? Did anyone not expect it?

Originally posted by MarkG
meanwhile, the US is being run by two vastly different parties...

See threads about the death of democracy(if it ever existed) in America for my statements on that.

[SlowwHand]

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
In my country the two main parties seem like two managerial factions of the same party. It's rare to be able to put a cigarette paper between them, and they keep accusing each other of nicking each other's policies.

That's what happens in a lot of democracies. They're all reading the same polls and trying to nick the most popular ideas for themselves. The natural result is they're all saying the same thing half the time instead of during the hard work of actually convincing voters why a less popular idea is actually the better idea.

[The Vagabond]

I don't see a big problem if two main parties present programs rather similar to each other on many issues. (It may not even be bad as it ensures stability for the country.) What is more important is that those at power get periodically changed (be it even by ones with the same program!).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
This is done in order to stimulate formation of big long-lasting parties. It's not right when "one-day" parties are formed just for an election and then wane as if they never existed. I am not quite happy about what is going on in Russian politics right now, but this measure seems to be justified to me. Besides, coalitions are not banned in the parliament itself. They are banned only in the sense of being counted as a single party for the election purposes.

A distinction without difference. Especially since Putin has insured no other party, except possibly a tiny Communist Party, will get into Parliament. The media and financial controls along with the outright repression has seen to that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
In my country the two main parties seem like two managerial factions of the same party. It's rare to be able to put a cigarette paper between them, and they keep accusing each other of nicking each other's policies.

You can do a mathematical analysis to show why thats likely to happen in a first past the post system. The first past the post system gives incentive to vote for one of two parties, and the drive to win then causes both to move toward the center of the electorate (assuming a single dimension issue range). By moving to the center, the left party keeps its left votes, but increases the number of center votes, and the corresponding effect happens for the right party, till they meet at or near the center.

The classic economic analysis is of two food vendors, on a beach, who start at opposite ends, but both end up in or near the middle.

Now in economics you can relax the assumptions, get multiple entries, as long as there is a return to getting only a piece of the market, rather than the plurality. Again, not first past the post. You have a strong 3rd party, cause the move to the center is by constituency, and you have constituencies that are different from the national mainstream, and local candidates for MP cant veer to far from their national party position.

In the US, with no party discipline in the national legislature, with the Exec elected seperately, and with historically weak national party structures (though thats changed some in the last 3 decades or so) its QUITE easy for a local candidate to distance themselves dramatically from the national party, so its much harder for a 3rd party to emerge.


All of which is to say, that there are advantages and disadvantages to different democratic systems, parliamentary vs presidential, First past the post vs proportional representation, etc. Which has zero to do with whats happening in Russia, which, its becoming clearer every day, is a march in the direction of authoritarianism.

Its not just the electoral law changes. Its the control of the broadcast media. Its the assasinations of journalists, and just the other day of a Yabloko politician. Its the exclusion of OSCE observers. Its pressure on govt workers to vote, to avoid an embarassing turnout.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond



Again, what Nikonov means by uniting is just formation of one big party by the liberals, in contrast to just forming pre-electoral coalitions.

but if they could form a pre-electoral coalition, they could get into parliament, which is precisely what they are complaining about, and what he says they could manage if they united.

Im not sure why its the states business how parties are organized. In Israel, as an example, its routine for small parties (and, in the past, large parties) to form pre-electoral coalitions, while retaining distinct identities and party organizations. This is even more important as Israel has raised the threshold for representation.

Yabloko and Union of Right Forces seem to have different ideological bases, and this has been true since they were formed. Naturally they want to maintain their independence. And even more so, they would want to remain seperate from Kasparov. But why shouldnt they be able to form a pre-electoral coalition? If the grouping is TOO disparate, presumably it will alienate their voters.

It really does look like the combo of a higher threshold, and the ban on pre-electoral coalitions, is done precisely to keep the liberals out of parliament.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


This is done in order to stimulate formation of big long-lasting parties. It's not right when "one-day" parties are formed just for an election and then wane as if they never existed.

It's not "right"? How about letting the voters decide what is right?

I am not quite happy about what is going on in Russian politics right now, but this measure seems to be justified to me.

Every people have the government they deserve. I forgot who said it but it is the truth. Russians don't seem to mind this, so they get it. Fair enough.

Besides, coalitions are not banned in the parliament itself. They are banned only in the sense of being counted as a single party for the election purposes.

Let me hear how do you justify that?

[The Vagabond]

All right, guys. I agree that in this particular situation it's really a pity that pre-electorial coalitions cannot be formed. But I still believe that this is the right decision in the long term. It's goal is to stimulate formation of big serious ever-lasting responsible parties.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by VetLegion


It's not "right"? How about letting the voters decide what is right?

Voters to decide? The voters must be given on the basis of what to decide. Remember that it's first of all Republic, and only then a democracy. Voters must be given a fair and responsible system to chose their representatives. One-day coalitions is one of the greatest deceits the voters can get.

Every people have the government they deserve. I forgot who said it but it is the truth. Russians don't seem to mind this, so they get it. Fair enough.

Very true. I agree.

Let me hear how do you justify that?

Just see above and my previous post.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
All right, guys. I agree that in this particular situation it's really a pity that pre-electorial coalitions cannot be formed. But I still believe that this is the right decision in the long term. It's goal is to stimulate formation of big serious ever-lasting responsible parties.

And is there any concievable reason why there should exist "ever-lasting" parties?

Jeez. Voters can decide to whom to give their votes. But in Russia, the voters are considered too dumb to do that

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Im not sure why its the states business how parties are organized. In Israel, as an example, its routine for small parties (and, in the past, large parties) to form pre-electoral coalitions, while retaining distinct identities and party organizations. This is even more important as Israel has raised the threshold for representation.

Its the state's business how its political system is organized. Israel has its own special features, and Russia its own. Russia's own experience with pre-electoral coalitions is negative (at least on the federal level).

Yabloko and Union of Right Forces seem to have different ideological bases, and this has been true since they were formed. Naturally they want to maintain their independence. And even more so, they would want to remain seperate from Kasparov. But why shouldnt they be able to form a pre-electoral coalition? If the grouping is TOO disparate, presumably it will alienate their voters.

It really does look like the combo of a higher threshold, and the ban on pre-electoral coalitions, is done precisely to keep the liberals out of parliament.

Yes, in the present situation it may look exactly like this. It's a pity that Yabloko and URF cannot form a coalition. Perhaps this is a price to pay to make things right in the long run.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by VetLegion


And is there any concievable reason why there should exist "ever-lasting" parties?

"Ever-lasting" was just a metaphor.

Jeez. Voters can decide to whom to give their votes. But in Russia, the voters are considered too dumb to do that

Voters must make their decisions within a well adjusted system called a republic. What you insist upon smells more like a pseudo-democratic populism. You absolutize one part of the process (the voters) and disregard another part (the system). What you say looks nice. If it was just as responsible...