We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Parties
| 61 | 7066 |
Do you think that Congress should be dominated by only two parties? In the British Parliament, no single party holds the majority, therefore each and every party has to compromise with each other to hold a majority, that every person affiliated to a party "wins."
An example would like this:
Republicans: 70
Libertarians: 70
Green Party: 70
Democrats: 70
Socialists: 70
Communists: 70
Anarchists: 70
Tea Party: 70
It would be like the Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party, and Anarchists work together to propose or pass a bill, or the Democrats, Green Party, Socialists, and Communists work together to propose or pass a bill. In each scenario, they will have to work together to get things done, making it more fair. That's what they do in Britain, so it is not a radical idea. Actually, I think they do it in every government where there is a Parliament.
- 61 Replies
I completely disagree with the OP. I don't see how forcing parties to be equal in size will benefit anyone.
Republicans: 70
Libertarians: 70
Green Party: 70
Democrats: 70
Socialists: 70
Communists: 70
Anarchists: 70
Tea Party: 70
Here's an incredibly huge problem with making sure each party is the same size. Most people aren't going to be communist or anarchist. In fact, if you're going to have a party system, the size of the party should represent the number of people who support that party. If barely anyone in the country supports a party, then that party should not have equal say in laws.
Not only that, but you can't have a little communism here, a little socialism there, and a little corporatism there. That simply wouldn't work.
I personally think we should just eliminate party systems. Far to often people will side with someone based solely on them being affiliated with the same party.
It's hard to eliminate the party system. I agree that we should vote on people purely on their views instead of the party they are affiliated with - however, the party system is used to give everyone an idea as to what their stance on politics are.
I'm open to having a partyless system, but I'm not sure how we would achieve this.
There are pros and cons with both systems. A two party Presidential system is very stable. The balance of power often shifts from one party to another and governments rarely dissolve. A winning party doesn't have to compromise and can get things done whether people like it or not. It's efficient. But not everyone is represented. About 1/3 of Americans consider themselves "independent," yet 1/3 candidates are not independent. They are almost always from one of the two major parties.
A system of equal representation is rather weak, yet everyone is heard. The balance of power rests in many political parties. Thus it's rare for one party to have total power. They must compromise and work with the other parties. This creates moderate solutions and keeps the leader in check. The main problem is that many governments under proportional representation last mere months before new elections are called. If one party leaves the coalition, the government often has to resign and call new elections. Sometimes parties won't even form a coalition. Belgium had an election in June 2010, and they have not been able to form a coalition since then. They've been without a sitting government for 8+ months now!
Look at the image below. Not one party gained 20% of the vote since 1987. This makes the coalition very weak.
of course a multy party system has bigger and smaler parties, like:
christian democrats: 21
socialists (light version):30
socialists (heavy version):15
liberals:31
nationalists:24
greens:10
christian party (light):5
politic center party:10
animal party:2
christian party: (heavy):2
. (current dutch situation. I tried to translate the party's name or place in the political spectrum.)
everybody can start a party, so yep, we have an animal party.
NonameC68,
If you actually understood it, I am suggesting that no party will hold a majority. If you read any other posts, you would know that there would only be probably five, like and Britain, and they would each have similar stances.
The party system eliminated would be fine, but human nature dictates that people like being part of groups. That's why organized beliefs (religion) forms and parties form.
There are pros and cons with both systems. A two party Presidential system is very stable. The balance of power often shifts from one party to another and governments rarely dissolve. A winning party doesn't have to compromise and can get things done whether people like it or not. It's efficient. But not everyone is represented. About 1/3 of Americans consider themselves "independent," yet 1/3 candidates are not independent. They are almost always from one of the two major parties.
A system of equal representation is rather weak, yet everyone is heard. The balance of power rests in many political parties. Thus it's rare for one party to have total power. They must compromise and work with the other parties. This creates moderate solutions and keeps the leader in check. The main problem is that many governments under proportional representation last mere months before new elections are called. If one party leaves the coalition, the government often has to resign and call new elections. Sometimes parties won't even form a coalition. Belgium had an election in June 2010, and they have not been able to form a coalition since then. They've been without a sitting government for 8+ months now!
Look at the image below. Not one party gained 20% of the vote since 1987. This makes the coalition very weak.
Best post so far. This post reminds me of how I'm supposed to write essays.
Anyway, yes, a two party system is efficient. At the same time, you are sacrificing equal representation.
A multiple party system offers equal representation, but at the same time, you are sacrificing efficiency.
There is a trade off between the two. Now, how do we make a system that is both efficient AND offers equal representation?
I believe Belgium has a Parliament where the Executive Branch is connected to the Legislative Branch. Whenever the coalition of parties holds the majority, the prime minister or president changes.
Now, in our system, it isn't. If the Republicans hold the majority, there could still be a Democratic president.
Now, to handle efficiency, there still is a problem. Now, I am not so sure why in Belgium it is so difficult to hold a majority of more than 50%, but there system will be a bit different. The coalitions need at least 50% of the parties to vote, now that will be difficult. If we have parties' interests included in the bill, and then we have each INDIVIDUAL delegator to vote on it, we might have a majority.
If there cannot be more than 60% in favour, and there is no compromise between each side, then what can be done is the Judicial Branch decides it. This is my "radical" solution to the problem. Of course there will have to be balancing act in this process. If the President determines that it will be impossible to get Congress to agree and pass the law, the Supreme Court may do that. The Supreme Court can turn the request down if it chooses to.
Now, this is just an egg of an idea. Please scrutinize this as much as possible. I know that the Supreme Court's only responsibility is to determine if a law is Constitutional, but if they have the ability to impeach, then they COULD have the job to settle Congress' disputes.
This could also be bad since it may not be what the people want, but if they vote for the president, and the president elects the Justices, then they are kind of choosing the Justices themselves but through a middle man, easing the pressures of the Justices for reelection.
Another "radical" idea is to have a change of Justices every sixteen years. That way somebody who has been on the seat since Nixon who still thinks he was innocent, wouldn't be a part of ideals of the current nation.
So to sum it up:
Congress will be divided into parties so that no single party can hold a majority, making equal representation more visible. If Congress cannot form a majority in favour of a bill, then the president may ask the Supreme Court (only once) to decide what the final decision on the bill will be. Justices only serve for sixteen years (four presidential terms). If the Supreme Court says no, then the decision is final UNTIL those four presidential terms are over (Justices cannot be elected more than once for the Supreme Court).
So that is how it would work. All three branches are relayed to make a law final. This would solve the problem of efficiency and equal representation in the lawmaking process, as well as having some positive side affects. It would help the Supreme Court reflect the more recent views on old cases.
I don't believe the part with the Judicial Branch would go through based on Article III section 2 of the Constitution, as the Judicial Branch can only effect laws if there is a question of the constitutionality. However, the other parts are pretty good. It would be rather hard to pull off at this point though as the two sides never get along, even if there were interests of both sides on there.
There is a trade off between the two. Now, how do we make a system that is both efficient AND offers equal representation?
It's very difficult. There's a reason why dictatorships are the most efficient and quick acting governments. There is no opposition and plans go through right away. This can lead to quick development and progress (like in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia). Of course there's the trade off of oppression, purging, death squads, secret police, etc. Not only that, you can get crappy rulers like Mugabe in Zimbabwe who drive the country backwards.
The more parties there are the less efficient things are because you must compromise. Compromise takes time. Everyone will want a piece of legislation altered to fit their needs before they vote for it. Not only that, in a proportional rep system, the elected officials are MUCH more likely to vote on personal opinion rather than party lines. So if you want the vote from everyone in the coalition, you have to satisfy those who disagree with whatever bill you are trying to pass.
For instance in Britain where they passed a new bill that made a huge cut to education funding, the Liberal party (part of the ruling coalition) was generally opposed. So the Conservative party (the leaders of the coalition) had to put in a ton of extra stipulations to get Liberal support. They increased funding of grants and made it part of the law that people only had to pay back their loans once they were making about 20,000 pounds (about $30,000) a year. There were dozens of other tax breaks and write offs in the bill as well. The compromise took months. Without the compromise, the bill never would have passed, and the government probably would have split and called for new elections.
I honestly don't think it's possible to have max efficiency with max representation. They aren't 100% correlated, but they are correlated nonetheless.
I don't believe the part with the Judicial Branch would go through based on Article III section 2 of the Constitution, as the Judicial Branch can only effect laws if there is a question of the constitutionality. However, the other parts are pretty good. It would be rather hard to pull off at this point though as the two sides never get along, even if there were interests of both sides on there.
I realize that this will probably never happen in a million Brazilian years, but I think it is a good idea. Well yes, but the Judicial Branch has been granted the powers over whether to decide if a president can be impeached. Now I realize that it isn't the same, but they really have no other powers. Congress has too many powers, and if Congress can't do things, there should be a check.
thelistman, I think I'm in love with you; two good posts in a row.
It's very difficult. There's a reason why dictatorships are the most efficient and quick acting governments. There is no opposition and plans go through right away. This can lead to quick development and progress (like in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia). Of course there's the trade off of oppression, purging, death squads, secret police, etc. Not only that, you can get crappy rulers like Mugabe in Zimbabwe who drive the country backwards.
True.
The more parties there are the less efficient things are because you must compromise. Compromise takes time. Everyone will want a piece of legislation altered to fit their needs before they vote for it. Not only that, in a proportional rep system, the elected officials are MUCH more likely to vote on personal opinion rather than party lines. So if you want the vote from everyone in the coalition, you have to satisfy those who disagree with whatever bill you are trying to pass.
True, that is why I said it is essential that legislators vote in their favour, not the party's favour. If the part wants compromise but some of the individual legislators, don't then there should still be a vote. Very valid point. If everyone wasn't so partisan and was favour of what they truly wanted and not what the party itself wants, then it would be ideal.
That's where one problem comes up. Partisanship. Well, if neither side can compromise or receive the majority, then (in my proposed solution) the president may ask the Supreme Court to draw the verdict.
For instance in Britain where they passed a new bill that made a huge cut to education funding, the Liberal party (part of the ruling coalition) was generally opposed. So the Conservative party (the leaders of the coalition) had to put in a ton of extra stipulations to get Liberal support. They increased funding of grants and made it part of the law that people only had to pay back their loans once they were making about 20,000 pounds (about $30,000) a year. There were dozens of other tax breaks and write offs in the bill as well. The compromise took months. Without the compromise, the bill never would have passed, and the government probably would have split and called for new elections.
This is an example of how it might work. It includes benefits for all involved in the coalition, but it takes time. The only thing is, this is again Parliament. The elections would only take place if the Liberal Party dropped out of the coalition, leaving no majority in Parliament. This is where the president asks the Supreme Court.
I honestly don't think it's possible to have max efficiency with max representation. They aren't 100% correlated, but they are correlated nonetheless.
Obviously, no machine is 100% efficient as the input can never be equal to or more than the output. What I am proposing, is that the bill that just cannot be voted on, will eventually go to the Supreme Court. If the president does not want the bill to go there, then Congress would have to get 2/3 to get it the Supreme Court. Then, they could be the final hand in the process. The revised and complicated plan would go to the Supreme Court to vote on. They could say a final no, a final yes, or send it back to Congress on a condition. An example of such a condition would be like, there has to be tax break here and here. Something like that. Basically, the Supreme Court can do anything with the bill. Thus making them the even more Supreme law of the Land.
If you actually understood it, I am suggesting that no party will hold a majority. If you read any other posts, you would know that there would only be probably five, like and Britain, and they would each have similar stances.
I do understand what you're saying.
We can't force parties to be the same size. If 60% of the country supports the democratic party, 35% support the republican party, and 5% support the communist party, then there's no reason why the communist party should have as much of a say as the other two parties.
There's no point in electing representatives if the parties are going to be forced into being the same size.
You're also assuming that the best way to pass a bill is for everyone to meet in the middle. Let's use this logic to create a new national health care bill.
If party A wants national health care, and party B doesn't want national health care, in what ways could you meet in the middle? The compromise may be that national health care is optional. Of course, there may be flaws with this logic. How about less coverage for everyone? Party A gets their health care, yet they don't get as much of it because Party B doesn't want it at all.
Well, you still have problems. Party B didn't want health care at all, and Party A complains that there isn't enough money going into the health care plan.
Some people want a little of this and a little of that, some people only want this, and others only want that. The solution to satisfy the majority of wants is not to meet in the middle.
I believe Belgium has a Parliament where the Executive Branch is connected to the Legislative Branch. Whenever the coalition of parties holds the majority, the prime minister or president changes.
oww, bad example. in belgium, you have the problem that the two parts (french speaking, dutch speaking,) have their own parties, and the parties are throwing mud to the other part of the country in eleection time, the same parties have to work toghether after the election. that's one of the reason why the coalition is not formed for seven months already.
If party A wants national health care, and party B doesn't want national health care, in what ways could you meet in the middle? The compromise may be that national health care is optional. Of course, there may be flaws with this logic. How about less coverage for everyone? Party A gets their health care, yet they don't get as much of it because Party B doesn't want it at all.
Well, you still have problems. Party B didn't want health care at all, and Party A complains that there isn't enough money going into the health care plan.
Some people want a little of this and a little of that, some people only want this, and others only want that. The solution to satisfy the majority of wants is not to meet in the middle.
sorry for the double post, but did you ever hear of COMPROMISES?
we call it 'oldersysteem.'
you talk so long that you get a solution with wich everybody can live, and do this.
sorry for the double post, but did you ever hear of COMPROMISES?
Compromise. That's pretty much what I described.
You're also assuming that the best way to pass a bill is for everyone to meet in the middle.
Real life example, I do not support national health care. I don't want to have any part of it. I don't want the care that comes from national health care, I don't want to spend any of my money on national health care (or have it taken from me in the form of a tax). Where's the compromise?
We can't force parties to be the same size. If 60% of the country supports the democratic party, 35% support the republican party, and 5% support the communist party, then there's no reason why the communist party should have as much of a say as the other two parties.
There's no point in electing representatives if the parties are going to be forced into being the same size.
You're also assuming that the best way to pass a bill is for everyone to meet in the middle. Let's use this logic to create a new national health care bill.
If party A wants national health care, and party B doesn't want national health care, in what ways could you meet in the middle? The compromise may be that national health care is optional. Of course, there may be flaws with this logic. How about less coverage for everyone? Party A gets their health care, yet they don't get as much of it because Party B doesn't want it at all.
Well, you still have problems. Party B didn't want health care at all, and Party A complains that there isn't enough money going into the health care plan.
Some people want a little of this and a little of that, some people only want this, and others only want that. The solution to satisfy the majority of wants is not to meet in the middle.
You still don't. Google how British Parliament works.
Noname, to clarify:
There is a liberal party, socialist party, and democratic party. Combined, they all hold 317 people. That is on coalition. On the other, there are the conservative party, and the libertarian party, they all hold 218 people. This is the second coalition.
The first coalition holds the majority. All they have to do is make it so that they pass healthcare reform. The liberal party wants universal healthcare. The socialist and democratic party don't want universal healthcare, but rather healthcare that covers people who do not earn over $20 000. Without the liberal party's votes, the first coalition does not hold the majority. Now, how does the first coalition get the liberal party's votes? By compromising.
This is what they will do:
The first coalition will make a compromise that after 15 years of their plan (the $20 000 plan), universal healthcare will be implemented.
The liberal party finally agrees (with some more conditions), and the first coalition receives the majority of the votes.
The first coalition does not have to compromise **** with the second one.
This could work. That way everyone gets a part of the bill and every voice is brought out.
You must be logged in to post a reply!