Two party politics ... or not?

[WhiteCrowUK]

I studied 20th Century History at A-level. One of the big things about the period I was studying was about the rise of extreme politics, and why it happened where it did, and not in other places.

There seems to be roughly two forms of political systems used in democratic societies, "two party systems" and "coalition governments".

Do you identify with one system or another in your own government, or do you feel yours is something different? Do you feel it is the best way to achieve democracy and reflect the desires of the populace on the whole?

The following are some of my thoughts to get you thinking ...

The two party system. There are only really two parties which are major forces in the system. They pretty much agree at conference a whole platform of what they want to offer the electorate, and one party tends to be voted in.

One of the problems with such a systems is often as the percieved "lesser of two evils" gets elected, over perhaps anything people particularly want. Another problem can be a tendancy towards "status quo", in that there tends to not be any radical changes, as the politics tend to be about "winning a middle ground". This can tend to lead to some dissillusionment about the process. And with the emphasis on "middle group", it can be said such systems tend not to be truely representative.

However the "status quo" is also a bit of an advantage. There tends not to be anything radical that changes. Such systems dont tend to lead to totalitarian regimes, and tend to tick along routinely unless there is some drastic crisis.

The coalition government. There are as many parties as ice cream flavours. Each party has a different raft of manifestoes, and you pick the party which best matches your political beliefs.

However the problem then tends to be that no one party tends to have enough of a majority to form a government. So parties have to trade off against each other to form a coalition.

Now the advantage of this is that some of what you vote for is likely to get put into practise.

The downside is no-one tends to lead with particular authority, as it can be pulled away by a breakdown of party ties. Also rather than electing a government with a manefesto, you've elected a government with a manefesto which is constantly being bartered with to maintain the coalition.

Sadly such systems do tend to breakdown, and when they do people often look for extremist and totalitarian governments to fill the vacuum (Hitler and Mussolini were actually elected because of the limits of such systems.

[Darth Cluich]

The other problem with coalition governments is that, in some countries, they break down quite frequently. Italy, for instance, once had nine different governments in a four or five year span. It's difficult to get anything done when the players arre constantly in flux.

Of course, if, like me, you don't want the government to get anything done, then it's a pretty good system. ;)

[WhiteCrowUK]

Of course, if, like me, you don't want the government to get anything done, then it's a pretty good system. ;)

Its interesting that from history its the coalition government, where power tends to get watered down, which tend to lead to the totalitarian states.

I have of course also missed "Communist democracy" - which tends to be one member, one vote, one party ... such a democratic system is popular with people like Saddam Hussain, where you can either vote for him, or "dissappear" off the electoral register for good.

[Darth Cluich]

I have of course also missed "Communist democracy" - which tends to be one member, one vote, one party ... such a democratic system is popular with people like Saddam Hussain, where you can either vote for him, or "dissappear" off the electoral register for good.

All of those traits make it not a democracy, though.

[WhiteCrowUK]

All of those traits make it not a democracy, though.

Did you not pick up on the irony?

I dont really like the Monarchy or the Lords in our political system, but they are there to kind of guard against the radical changes of law which would allow us to slip towards extreme politics.

I do kind of like the idea of coalitions though. This is in part because I've felt that governments built on "landslide elections" in our Parliament tend to be quite arrogant, and I feel less accountable to the people who voted them in.

Personally I feel our Prime Minister spends a few months every few years making promises, and the rest of his term screwing us over. And unlike the American system, we don't get rid of him after 2 terms (alas).

Campaigning has already begun for the UKs next election - but unlike the American system, this could happen at any time ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4180029.stm

[Darth Cluich]

Did you not pick up on the irony?

Oh, I got it alright. ;)


Personally I feel our Prime Minister spends a few months every few years making promises, and the rest of his term screwing us over. And unlike the American system, we don't get rid of him after 2 terms (alas).

Campaigning has already begun for the UKs next election - but unlike the American system, this could happen at any time ...


I'm also well aware of how the British system works (confidence votes and whatnot, yadda yadda yadda). Perhaps, as a Briton yourself, though, you'd care to explain it to the other members, most of whom are from the US?

[WhiteCrowUK]

I'm also well aware of how the British system works (confidence votes and whatnot, yadda yadda yadda). Perhaps, as a Briton yourself, though, you'd care to explain it to the other members, most of whom are from the US?

Well what is there to say, starting to explain any political system is somewhat difficult.

However we dont have separate elections for our representative and leader like in the US. We vote Members of Parliament (MPs) into the House of Commons. These MPs tend to be allied to the Conservatives or Labour, although we have some other parties as well (but these have much smaller representation than these two parties).

The leader of the party with the majority of seat in the House of Commons gets to form a government. Although for instance in World War II our government was formed from representatives from all parties.

To get a new law through basically you need to get a majority vote in the House of Commons.

However, we have a safety system, called the House of Lords. This is made up of appointed elders, used to be people of title and retired MPs. It tends to be the main stay of the Conservative party.

The House of Lords has the ability to block any new law for about 4 years (its more complicated than that, but that will do for now). After that the government can force a law through. But the main thing is that the House of Lords can delay a law until after another election - this I believe is our safety value of democracy in this country, because it means a government with a majority in the House of Commons cannot just force through whatever it wishes.

The Queen herself has some minor power over Parliament, she can dissolve it, and she has to approove any Government which is formed. Also at the beginning of a Parliamentary session she basically has a speach which outlines the Government of the days plans for the coming year.

[Darth Cluich]

Thanks, WC. That's a pretty good overview, I think. Maybe some people around here will actually learn something now. ;)

[Buddha Monkey]

You mean the Royal House isn't as toothless as it's made to seem here in the Good Old* USA?

But, onto the topic of this thread. Problem with the two party system is that they will not encompass all the ideals that are in that country. I find myself outside of the two major party's here. My ideals are to much in the center for that (try having a debate with someone that doesn't think that there isn't more then Dem's and GOP's in the States, and you see my problem).

However, as has been beaten to death all ready, the coalition government seem's a little to good to be true, and has been proven to many times to be to good to be true.

Hell, One Member, One Vote doesn't even work.

What we need is a form of government that take's humans out of the equation (think's about a government run by computers.)

*Ok, so it's not good or old. Had to use it

[WhiteCrowUK]

You mean the Royal House isn't as toothless as it's made to seem here in the Good Old* USA?

We did have this king once who dissolved Parliament and we didnt like it, so we went to a civil war. He was King Charles, and we ended up beheading our own monarch over it.

Since then the Royal Family quietened down considerably! ;)

[Darth Cluich]

Of course it helps that when Parliament wanted to install the monarchy again, they chose who would get the throne (i.e., William and Mary of Orange).

But on another point raised here...uh...take humans out of the equation? I hafta say, that's ridiculous. For all people's faults, they still govern people better than any other alternative option.

[WhiteCrowUK]

What we need is a form of government that take's humans out of the equation (think's about a government run by computers.)

Just a couple of comments here - following on from what Cluich said as well. Well first off, we are nowhere near the technology yet.

The main thing about "Government by computers" is a simple, who would program it?

In "I, Robot" last year there was a good case, that computers would try and save us from our worst tendancies. If such a computers goals were "preserve mankind", I'm afraid all you're SUV's would have to go! ;)

However is it more likely that a computer would be programmed by some corperation, and surprise surprise, would look after those interests first and foremost over any other?

Anyway, away from the Sci-Fi, I think the most important thing in any democratic Government is that there is sufficient due process that the head can be found accountable. [How would you do this with computers?]

[Darth Cluich]

Okay, this is now veering horribly offtopic. Not that I didn't have a slight hand in it, but let's get it back on topic, folks. Thanks.