Let's abolish all political parties!

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, we do have a multi-party system here. It's just that none of them are taken as seriously as the DNC and the GOP are.

Not that those two are taken seriously by everyone, either ...

Like you said: Britian, like the USA, generally has two big parties (though now it has two big parties and one large small parties).And it has alot of little no consequence parties.

But continental European countries like France and the Netherlands have dozens and scores of political parties.

In the AngloAmerican system two(or sometimes three) big permanent edifices confront each other. But in europe, as I understand it, the political parties are like a bunch of little bricks strewn on the ground. On election year these little bricks jump up and form ad hoc big edices- that oonfront each other- to get the head of state elected as learders of coalition governments. And the bricks dont always join with the same other bricks each time- so you get differing big edifices each time. The small parties change alliances from time to time and form differing coalitions. The small parties are permanent and the big alliances that our equivalent to Republican and Democratic party are adhoc.

It has its appeal.

But why are they not taken seriously? They're not taken seriously because nobody votes for them.

Why does nobody note for them? Because people think of them as a "wasted vote".

In the last NZ election, this was my experience: I don't like National. I think that Labour is okay. I really like the Greens. But the Greens are a much smaller party than Labour or National.

So, what did I do? I voted for the Greens. And this wasn't a wasted vote. By voting for the Greens, I wasn't helping National to win. This is because National doesn't just have to get more votes than Labour to win. They need to form a sufficiently large coalition.

The end result? The Greens are getting more and more of a share of the vote for the last three elections. Eventually, they might be so large that they are a necessary component of a coalition, and then some of their policies will get done.

The New Zealand system is vastly different from the US system. Both have their merits but the US system favors a two party make up.

No, few people vote for them because few people take them seriously.


True; even though there is no such thing as a "wasted vote" - only "winning votes" and "losing votes".


There is not a single party in all the world that I agree with 100%.


So you actually voted against another party.


Eventually ... maybe ...

But if there were more parties, then there is more of a chance that you would mostly agree with one of them.



No. By voting for the Greens, I was voting for the Greens. I was not voting against National. This is why the system works.

If the Greens had got enough votes, then either National would have been forced to build a coalition with the Greens, or Labour would have been forced to build a coalition with the Greens. It doesn't matter which one. Either way, some of the Greens' policies would get through.



I don't claim to know what will happen. My point is, it is possible in PR for a small party to actually gain momentum. Many small parties have been part of coalitions in the history of PR politics. At this exact moment, National is governing with the Maori Party as a coalition partner. The Maori Party is five times smaller than the Greens, but it has a voice. Because the Maori Party is in coalition, they have recently forced National to make a concession on a certain issue.

Why should the people have so much power when 45% of them believe in the Biblical account of creation, cannot name key foreign leaders or believe other such idiocy?

Democracy works great in small, well educated countries like Switzerland, South Korea, Denmark and New Zealand, as most of the people are capable of making acceptable decisions, but it works less well in huge, less educated countries like India, South Africa (even since Apartheid ended) or the USA. Compare the PRC with the ROI, for example.

Perhaps the closest to what I have in mind in terms of a political system is hugely successful cosmopolitan Singapore's illiberal mixed democracy-meritocracy.

Chicken and egg! How does a country become more educated if its citizens are not politically enfranchised?

People believe stupid things everywhere. The USA may be full of creationists, but South Korea is full of people who believe in "fan death", and South Korea is one of your positive examples! In the end, these beliefs do not have much to do with politics. Even creationists deserve to have a voice in politics, but not as creationists.

That is not not only ingracious, but ignorant. No one prays for peace like the soldier. We are ones who risk our lives, suffer the wounds and pay the price. It is we who clean up the messes of both parties. It is the polticians that order us, not the other way around. However, I would certainly agree with the US banning you from office. In fact, I think you need to be drafted. It would make an adult out of you.

-Longshanks

I beg thee - - please do tell, what is fan death?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I've seen action 29 times. Did it because I was ordered to do it - not because I liked it. The only idiots I see are the ones who hate the military - cure for that would be to put them in the first attack wave.

Sorry, I got a bit testy there.

Hey -- I'm on board with this idea, 100%. Political parties drive the fabric of civic society towards the lowest common denominator -- which is, apparently, sex scandals and demographic pandering. Not to mention hyperbole and sensationalism.

I'm on board, as long as we get rid of all religions, too.

Democracy works well in small, well-informed groups. It gets less effective as the group gets larger. The biggest problem is that an intelligent, interested voter who studies the issues and weighs up the alternatives has exactly the same power as some idiot who just picks a party because they use his favourite colour, or because he's been raised to think "these are the good guys", or even just at random. And the idiot population is WAY bigger.

The system would work much better if you had to earn your vote. You'd be required to take an active interest in all aspects of politics, and your vote would need to be supported by a reasoned argument. Unfortunately no government will ever pitch such an idea, because the 99% of voters that don't actually use their vote sensibly anyway would object to losing the power they don't really have.



I say get rid of all current religions, and replace with a new, state mandated one that is based on learning and knowledge. The lowliest acolytes would praise science, their understanding limited and largely magical thinking. To be fair, this is how most of the world views technology anyway. They don't know how a television works. They just know you press a button and magic happens. I like the idea of canonising such big names as Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Archimedes...

Getting rid of political parties really wouldn't do anything. People would still separate themselves ideologically and form coalitions against shared "opponents". Take a look at non-partisan offices, they're usually still quite partisan.