Some number stuff on Iraq and Bush - Page 5

August · 03-23-06, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Quote:

Originally Posted by Type XXIII

The main problem in American politics is the polarization that occurs when there are only two viable parties.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. Back home in Australia we have always only had two viable parties being the Labour Party and the Liberals (actually conservative). In the case of the USA the reason for the polarization there I think has more to do with the style of politics, gutter politics IMO, by both sides that has basically split the country right down the middle. Either you are red or blue. There is no middle ground it seems. You only have to look at US News Channels to view the absolute vindictive, spitefull and hate filled nature of US politics today. I think voters deserve a hell of a lot better than this.

I think that is precisely because there are only two viable parties plus, as he mentioned, the 'first past the post' principle.

Here in Canada we have right now 4 major parties, and even though federal elections tend to come down to 2 parties (Liberals or Conservatives) the other 2 (the NDP and the Bloc) act as a check because they do win seats in the government - not enough to form the government, but enough to act as a check on it and prevent the black and white, or red and blue, we see in American politics.

It's not as red and blue as people would have you believe. Third party candidates have had a significant effect on 4 Presidential elections in my life time alone.

scandium · 03-23-06, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

It's not as red and blue as people would have you believe. Third party candidates have had a significant effect on 4 Presidential elections in my life time alone.

Only during the election though, which only affects how the campaigns are run and influences who wins the race. Once the election is over so is the 3rd party influence. Best case scenario you get both parties controlling different levels of government where they have to work together to get a consensus. Worst case scenario you get what we see in the US now where one party controls all 3 levels of government (congress, the senate, and the executive branch) and the 49% of the electorate represented by the losing side are completely disenfranchised.

August · 03-23-06, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

It's not as red and blue as people would have you believe. Third party candidates have had a significant effect on 4 Presidential elections in my life time alone.

Only during the election though, which only affects how the campaigns are run and influences who wins the race. Once the election is over so is the 3rd party influence. Best case scenario you get both parties controlling different levels of government where they have to work together to get a consensus. Worst case scenario you get what we see in the US now where one party controls all 3 levels of government (congress, the senate, and the executive branch) and the 49% of the electorate represented by the losing side are completely disenfranchised.

And with more parties you get even higher percentages of disenfranchised voters. I can't see any value in electing a president who only gets a third or quarter of the vote.

scandium · 03-23-06, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

And with more parties you get even higher percentages of disenfranchised voters. I can't see any value in electing a president who only gets a third or quarter of the vote.

Actually in parlimentary systems like we have here in Canada, we don't elect our leaders directly; rather, we elect members of the party they head and the party that wins the most seats becomes the government. Its leader then, who is also an elected member of parliment and won his seat in the same election, becomes Prime Minister. The party with the second most seats becomes the official opposition. That's just an aside.

I would say that because we have more than 2 parties that hold seats in government, that voter disenfranchisement is less of an issue because the ruling party often needs votes from the other parties in order to get a sufficient majority to pass legislation. This forces some degree of consenus since the legislation must have a broad enough appeal (beyond that of the majority party) to garner sufficient votes from its own members and attract enough from 1 or more other parties. Therefore even if the party you voted for isn't in power, they aren't neutered by the lack of it but still have some influence, especially if the elected party tries to pass radical legislation which can lead to the other parties putting their differences aside to defeat the government in a vote of no confidence (this doesn't happen often because of the risk of antagonizing the voters who elected the majority government).

The Avon Lady · 03-24-06, 01:59 AM

We've got more parties in Israel than in Florida spring break season.

Iceman · 03-24-06, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

We've got more parties in Israel than in Florida spring break season.

Lol AL

...Where there is no vision the people perish...it is nice to have diversity but a Union, a Team, needs to put aside the differences ..get behind the coach and the captain of the team and play to win....period...it doesn't work any other way....after a losing season...get another coach or capin...maybe walking the plank for people would be a good incentive.

or I like...A city divided against itself cannot stand....same for a world.

03-24-06, 01:59 AM	#65
The Avon Lady Über Mom Join Date: May 2005 Location: Jerusalem, Israel Posts: 6,147 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	We've got more parties in Israel than in Florida spring break season. __________________ "Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women." - Houari Boumedienne, President of Algeria, Speech before the UN, 1974