^
Your father was clearly a very astute political analyst, SRG !
__________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
Except in this country it does not happen. This isn't the UK. We don't have a parliamentary system and though i couldn't get into the specifics of exactly how British politics works i know enough to know it's pretty different from our own system .....
When it does get considered, let's say by the green party or something, it gets shot down as a Trojan horse for the other side. It does often inadvertantly help the opposition. So that's where the lesser of two evils comes in. The two parties can always appeal to the fear of their rivals to discourage any splintering. So in essence the answer to your question of why not is linked to the description i was giving before.
|
Me too, I don't understand much about how the US and the UK sytems work, where they are the same, and where they are different. One thing that has always struck me though: in the US, there is always talk about how much money candidates are raising for their campaigns. In England, that is never mentioned afaik; campaign costs don't seem to be an issue either for Brit candidates, and perhaps that's why they feel free to branch out and risk losing an election: they aren't losing billions of dollars at the same time.
Screaming Lord Such, leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party is an extreme example of our multi-party political system:-
Quote:
He founded the Official Monster Raving Loony Party in 1983 and fought the Bermondsey by-election. In his career he contested over 40 parliamentary elections. He was recognisable at election counts by his flamboyant clothes and top hat. In the mid 1980s, the deposit paid by candidates was raised from £150 to £500; this did little to deter Such. He achieved his highest poll and vote share at Rotherham in 1994 with 1,114 votes and a 4.2 per cent vote share.
At the Bootle by-election in May 1990, he secured more votes than the candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), led by former Foreign Secretary David Owen. Within days the SDP dissolved itself. In 1993, when the British National Party gained its first local councillor, Sutch pointed out that the Official Monster Raving Loony Party already had six.
[source:wikipedia]
|
Connected to the above is why I bolded your bit about "shot down", which I don't understand. Who shoots down an independent candidate, and how?
Quote:
The Democrats rely mainly on fear of Republicans to get elected and if you ask them why not go third party they will tell you straight up that only one of the two parties can win so they are really the only game in town....
what you are missing is that the point of the choice is supposed to be that we rely on the people to determine what the right choice is. It assumes the right answer is actually up for debate.
|
I have to think about those ideas before I can come up with a proper answer, but your first sentence is true for every election ever held anywhere in the world. Nobody runs on a message of "Vote for us even though the other guys are better." The other parties are always villians, it's just the accuracy and venom with which they are denounced that varies.
Quote:
|
if the one party state was literally the same Democratic party same agendas but they never had to negotiate with the GOP you think they would not be more effective? Wasn't your big gripe that we haven't granted them enough power?
|
With respect, I think you are mis-representing what I said, or at least what I meant. I'd like to see the Dems get more voter support within the democratic process, not let them stomp on democracy in a power grab.
Quote:
|
What I'm describing is functionally no different than the government that would emerge if the Democrats just so happened to consistently win every election and every seat... At that point the distinction between one party always winning and a one party state seems pretty nebulous.
|
This is also puzzling to me, jwb. The democratic ideal is that electors have the effect of monitoring the conduct of the party in power, and if necessary, removing them at the next election. Sometimes one party will have a run of election victories that keep them in power for a decade or more, but things can and do change - and that is drastically different from a one-party state, in which, frequently, the state screws the general populace and the general populace have no recourse at the ballot box. Isn't that Politics 101?!