Quote: Original post by SiCrane
1) the fact that you try to use examples of proportional representation governments as somehow being an example of the viability of third parties in completely different electoral system

The UK does not use proportional representation. MPs are voted into office by a first past the post system in their individual constituencies. The UK still manages to have 3 major parties in parliament and a number of seats held by minor parties. Australia does not elect its House of Representatives by proportional representation, though the Senate is elected that way. Japan splits the seats between first past the post voting in constituencies and a proportional representation system, with the majority of seats elected by constituencies. All these countries have different electoral systems from the US but none are true proportional representation systems.

Quote: Original post by Krokhin
Afaik american politologists found (long time ago) after special research that the most effective form of power is dictator with group of consultants.It reminds the conclusion of PC program calculating the food allowance that vinegar is the best food for astronauts-light weight and a lot of calories...
A lot of parties is anarchy,no one -dictature,democracy must be somewhere in the middle.Speaking more precisely,in another corner of this triangle.

I don't know about dictators. It hasn't worked out well for you Russians ;) The East Asian system, OTOH, has been much more successful and is considerably anti-democratic in many regards, even in nominal democracies like Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. The PRC has been able to balance one-party corruption and cronyism with its fear of overthrow. Its mandate is economic growth and consequently, is run as something of a meritocracy at higher levels.

How can the Western democratic system compete with Eastern authoritarianism and top-down politics? It's time for a radical re-think of our political system. We need to eliminate political parties but simply banning them within the current representative framework is not sufficient. The whole concept of representative democracy (where representatives serve geographical constituencies) has to go. Perhaps election timetables should be scrapped altogether as well. People should nominate candidates to do the job and have the freedom to recall candidates much more frequently. The new system should be oriented around issues and actual political representation rather than the geographical system we have now.

Quote: Original post by mattnewport
All these countries have different electoral systems from the US but none are true proportional representation systems.

Whatever a "true" proportional representation system is, I never said all those countries were examples of it. If you looked at the link I used for proportional representation systems you'll notice that it lists several different varieties of proportional representation including partial proporptional representation systems. Including the systems used by Australia and Japan.

Quote: Original post by SiCrane

Quote: Original post by mattnewport
All these countries have different electoral systems from the US but none are true proportional representation systems.

Whatever a "true" proportional representation system is, I never said all those countries were examples of it. If you looked at the link I used for proportional representation systems you'll notice that it lists several different varieties of proportional representation including partial proporptional representation systems. Including the systems used by Australia and Japan.

Japan has had effective one party rule since WWII, although it is possible the minority party will win the next elections. So much for that system.

Quote: Original post by Krokhin
Afaik american politologists found (long time ago) after special research that the most effective form of power is dictator with group of consultants.It reminds the conclusion of PC program calculating the food allowance that vinegar is the best food for astronauts-light weight and a lot of calories...

It reminds me of something that might be found in Pravda or the Onion.

Quote: Original post by Krokhin
A lot of parties is anarchy,no one -dictature,democracy must be somewhere in the middle.Speaking more precisely,in another corner of this triangle.

It seems to me that 5 to 7 parties are optimal: far left, center left, center, center right, far right - and a couple extras to cover the gaps.



As we've discussed before, the logic of 'first past the post' makes a two party system inevitable. It also tends towards centrists, but when centrists are predominantly people who don't pay attention to public affairs, that means it tends towards cluelessness. But not complete cluelessness. Politics is about power and people who have power tend to do whatever they can to hold onto it. Republicans and Democrats collude to exclude third party upstarts and independents by writing laws that raise barriers to entry. Ask Nader. Ask Perot. Ask Anderson.

At any rate, the least that can be done is to register to vote as a member of a third party or as an independent, that is, as "decline to state". Here's a Directory of U.S. Political Parties. There's quite a lot of political diversity here but most of those parties are very fringe. Libertarian National Socialist Green Party? WTF? What blocks people from registering with third parties is the same thing that blocks them from switching from Republican to Democrat and vice versa. To the extent they see the people in the other party as others, switching means changing yourself into an other. And psychologically that is a very difficult thing to do. It's a lot easier to get people to register "decline to state". In that case they aren't swapping brand labels, they are merely removing their brand label. And they can thump their chest afterward and pretend they are strong proud and independent. Individualist! They can also forget about participating in primary elections, so they get to be lazy too. How convenient for the corporations!

Quote: Original post by trzy
I don't know about dictators. It hasn't worked out well for you Russians ;) The East Asian system, OTOH, has been much more successful and is considerably anti-democratic in many regards, even in nominal democracies like Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. The PRC has been able to balance one-party corruption and cronyism with its fear of overthrow. Its mandate is economic growth and consequently, is run as something of a meritocracy at higher levels.

I didn't realize you were such a fan of one party rule. Another country with decades of one party rule is Mexico. As you like to point out, sometimes it's the culture not the institutional structure.

Quote: Original post by trzy
How can the Western democratic system compete with Eastern authoritarianism and top-down politics? It's time for a radical re-think of our political system. We need to eliminate political parties but simply banning them within the current representative framework is not sufficient. The whole concept of representative democracy (where representatives serve geographical constituencies) has to go. Perhaps election timetables should be scrapped altogether as well. People should nominate candidates to do the job and have the freedom to recall candidates much more frequently. The new system should be oriented around issues and actual political representation rather than the geographical system we have now.

Are you saying that in order to compete with authoritarianism we should become authoritarian? That's nuts. The solution to the problems of democracy is more democracy not less democracy. Representation isn't the problem. Geographical districting isn't the problem. Election timetables aren't the problem. The problem is that corporations are taking over and imposing their anti-democratic model onto everything as manifested in your proposals. We're not competing well because it's not in the interest of transnational corporations for us to compete well. We're just a cash cow for them to loot.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by trzy
...

I didn't realize you were such a fan of one party rule. Another country with decades of one party rule is Mexico. As you like to point out, sometimes it's the culture not the institutional structure.

Quote: Original post by trzy
...

Are you saying that in order to compete with authoritarianism we should become authoritarian? That's nuts. The solution to the problems of democracy is more democracy not less democracy. Representation isn't the problem. Geographical districting isn't the problem. Election timetables aren't the problem. The problem is that corporations are taking over and imposing their anti-democratic model onto everything as manifested in your proposals. We're not competing well because it's not in the interest of transnational corporations for us to compete well. We're just a cash cow for them to loot.

I think you are totally misrepresenting (or just misunderstanding) what trzy was saying. That said, I would need a more solid idea of what he is proposing before forming an opinion on it.

Quote: Original post by rip-off
I think you are totally misrepresenting (or just misunderstanding) what trzy was saying. That said, I would need a more solid idea of what he is proposing before forming an opinion on it.

I started off by asking a question of what he was proposing. Then disagreed with his attack on representative democracy based on geographical districts. Then I attacked what I see as the root of the problem and how his attacks play right into that problem. That's pretty straightforward. At any rate, he has ample opportunity to clarify what he was saying and in the process show that I misrepresented his proposal if that's what he wants to do.

Quote: Original post by rip-off
I get the impression that some Americans believe that a vote not cast for the two main parties is a vote wasted. This is not the case.

I used to believe that (it wasn't wasted), but the Bush years changed my mind. Now I believe that without some form of instant runoff the main effect of voting third-party is as a spoiler for your choice of least-of-evils among the primary two candidates. The only time I'll vote third-party now is when I honestly don't care who wins that particular race, or I'm so sure that my choice between the primaries will win that I'm ok with "sending a message" that I'd like things to steer a bit differently.

I don't know if I've wised up or just gotten cynical.

Quote: Original post by Anon Mike
Now I believe that without some form of instant runoff the main effect of voting third-party is as a spoiler for your choice of least-of-evils among the primary two candidates.

By waiting for the final round, that's the only choice you have left.


The 2012 national elections are nearing completion. The core platforms were in place before the 2008 elections. The major players are already posturing for position. Most of those major players already have their plans completed but are still taking input in final adjustments. Campaigning will begin in earnest in about 10 months (sadly), and their individual plans are basically final. If you haven't been involved yet, all you can do is help spread your word before the primaries.

If you want to have a (small) voice in the 2012 national elections, you are probably too late, even if you got involved in politics today. Today is the time to get ready for the 2016 national elections.


For local elections in 2010, most of the basic decisions are already made. If you start getting involved at caucus meetings today you will find that the bulk of the campaigns are already written.


Anything on your local 2009 ballot (odd year elections are usually tax related and vacancy-fillings) is probably already finalized or in the very final steps before publication.

Quote: I don't know if I've wised up or just gotten cynical.

Just cynical. If you had "wised up" you would either be an active participant in the process or actively decided to not vote so those who really do follow the process don't have to worry about your statistical noise.