AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Parties

61 8623
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

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
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

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.


Please clarify what you're trying to explain by telling me all of this.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Please clarify what you're trying to explain by telling me all of this.


I tried all I can. Let me see if I clarify even more.

There are two coalitions. One coalition has 300 people. The other has 200 people. Each coalition is divided into three parties. Each party has 100 people.

In the first coalition, the one that holds 300 people, there is trouble. A bill proposed by the first coalition involves healthcare. It involves having universal healthcare. One party in the first coalition, which holds 100 people, wants a sunset provision added or else it will not vote on it. The first coalition does not hold the majority without those 100 people, so it needs to compromise. It will have to compromise and then they cannot motion forward with the law.

The second coalition, since it didn't not have the majority, has no say in the decision of the bill.
waluigi
offline
waluigi
1,946 posts
Shepherd

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.


I'd still call that compromise my friend. That last sentence in your explanation adds more conditions for the liberal party to agree. That is still compromise I believe.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Please clarify what you're trying to explain by telling me all of this.


I tried all I can. Let me see if I clarify even more.

There are two coalitions. One coalition has 300 people. The other has 200 people. Each coalition is divided into three parties. Each party has 100 people.

In the first coalition, the one that holds 300 people, there is trouble. A bill proposed by the first coalition involves healthcare. It involves having universal healthcare. One party in the first coalition, which holds 100 people, wants a sunset provision added or else it will not vote on it. The first coalition does not hold the majority without those 100 people, so it needs to compromise. It will have to compromise and then they can motion forward with the law.

The second coalition, since it didn't not have the majority, has no say in the decision of the bill.

Of course, every party won't have 100 people. One will have 73, another 36, and one 156. I am just telling you the basic idea.

I'd still call that compromise my friend. That last sentence in your explanation adds more conditions for the liberal party to agree. That is still compromise I believe.


It is compromise, but only between the parties in a coalition. Not with the second. Sometimes there are more than one coalition, and sometimes two coalitions will need to unite to hold the majority. If they will not unite, that's where my radical ideas comes in.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

An example would like this:

Republicans: 70
Libertarians: 70
Green Party: 70
Democrats: 70
Socialists: 70
Communists: 70
Anarchists: 70
Tea Party: 70


I was assuming you wanted all the parties to be the same size, which is why I was confused.

The second coalition, since it didn't not have the majority, has no say in the decision of the bill.


I'm confused, I thought the idea was to allow all the parties to have more of a say.

Are you trying to suggest ways in which it's easier for the government to pass laws, or harder?
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Lol, you can't have a government composed of the radical left and the extreme right.

harryoconnor
offline
harryoconnor
77 posts
Peasant

The problem with American politics is it all revolves around money and only two parties have the huge amounts of money needed to have any chance of winning. The last congress and presidential elections cost 1.8 billion just for advertising. Small parties have a fraction of the amount to spend so they dont get votes. In countries like the UK we have a cap on the amount any party can spend in an election so it comes down to ideals not money for votes.

skarl
offline
skarl
250 posts
Nomad

the netherlands is having coalitons for ages (in fact, couldn't find a legitimate government NOT having a coaliton =P)

everybody round here seems to think that a coalition either can't make real decisions, or even is always a complete disaster. but as far as I see if I look outside, I see happy people, a running economy, and some parties that are really different, but take desisions together.

the green party actually just made the majority for a police mission to afghanistan. although I heard a lot of people saying that they are never gonna vote that party agian, they can at least move on to another party, because there are more than two.

Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

I was assuming you wanted all the parties to be the same size, which is why I was confused.


I was just using those numbers as an example.

The second coalition, since it didn't not have the majority, has no say in the decision of the bill.

[quote]I'm confused, I thought the idea was to allow all the parties to have more of a say.

Are you trying to suggest ways in which it's easier for the government to pass laws, or harder?
[/quote]

Well, yes and no.

http://i.imgur.com/F5sFk.png

This is not completely accurate, but it will suffice.

Anyway, instead of only having two opinions in the spectrum, you have 5. You do not have the extremists, but the moderates. If a coalition has the majority, it needs to compromise in the party.

Instead of having to compromise with the other side of the spectrum, they only have to compromise with one side of the spectrum. See? It will be just as efficient (if not more) as the system we have now, but it will include more representation of the people.

Lol, you can't have a government composed of the radical left and the extreme right.


Of course you can't. I am talking about moderates.

The problem with American politics is it all revolves around money and only two parties have the huge amounts of money needed to have any chance of winning. The last congress and presidential elections cost 1.8 billion just for advertising. Small parties have a fraction of the amount to spend so they dont get votes. In countries like the UK we have a cap on the amount any party can spend in an election so it comes down to ideals not money for votes.
[quote]

So then we need a cap to it.
skarl
offline
skarl
250 posts
Nomad

center often has coalitions with both left and right. and, actually, in many countries the nationalists are considered to be more right-winged than the liberatians.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

It sounds like there would be less say by all the parties as a whole, which means less people get a say. However, there is more action actually taken.

The problem with this is that it's supposed to be hard to pass new bills, not easy.

It will be just as efficient (if not more) as the system we have now, but it will include more representation of the people.


Only of the people involved with their coalition. There's this mentality that any action is better than no action, therefore the person who preaches the most change will often get votes. It's better to take no action than to make problems worse.

My issue with this system is that it gives the state an easier time of acquiring more power.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

It sounds like there would be less say by all the parties as a whole, which means less people get a say. However, there is more action actually taken.


How? Instead of only one party in charge of passing laws, you have three parties.

The problem with this is that it's supposed to be hard to pass new bills, not easy.


Passing bills are never easy.

Only of the people involved with their coalition.


Yes, because the majority of people voted for that coalition to be in power.

There's this mentality that any action is better than no action, therefore the person who preaches the most change will often get votes. It's better to take no action than to make problems worse.


I disagree. You have a laissez-faire sort of view, so obviously you wouldn't want a very efficient government. This is not a personal attack, but I am just saying that you wouldn't want an efficient government because you already stated you are a Libertarian.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

The most popular ones are two which are
democrats and
republicans. and I dont chose either


Again, this is why people need more parties.
harryoconnor
offline
harryoconnor
77 posts
Peasant

Why not take a step futher and scrap all parties? Congress members could vote how they, not there parties wanted them to. I would not vote for party A or party B that have the same views on most issues but for an individual that shares my views.

Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Why not take a step futher and scrap all parties? Congress members could vote how they, not there parties wanted them to. I would not vote for party A or party B that have the same views on most issues but for an individual that shares my views.


I just don't see that happening. Everyone wants to belong to a group/party.
Showing 46-60 of 61