So the cease-fire brokered by rostasi is over already! (Joking of course)
Thanks for your long, detailed answer, and especially thanks for googling all that stuff about our campaign rules. The bottom line seems to be that UK regulation keeps expenses down and allows a more affordable playing field for third parties to join in the fight.
I've never heard of Duveger's Law, or thought much about the ramifications of a first-past-the-post system. In England arguments are routinely made about how proportional representation would be better, but as you say, any party brought to power under the existing system is not interested in changing what, for them, is a winning formula. Hence why proportional representation is a recurring rallying cry of the losers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
But in addition to that, the lesser of two evils logic that naturally follows from a winner take all voting system also will by definition lead to party consolidation.
|
I must admit that you lost me here. Does a winner-take-all system lead to a lesser of two evils approach? My inclination is to think that, on the assumption that politicians are usually a devious, self-interested bunch, any vote, under any electoral system is likely to be a lesser of two or more evils. Everybody knows that going into the voting booth, don't they? (Except, presumably, hardcore Trump cultists, whose voting choice is between pin-up idol that they decorate their possessions with vs blood-drinking pedophiles)
Quote:
|
The deeper point is the general trend is that our system tends to weed out third parties as a simple function of the fact that if you can't win outright, you get 0 representation just for running. That is the dynamic that actually creates the incentive to compromise and vote for one of the two parties even if there might be a lesser known option that you more closely align with.
|
Yep, I agree with your "deeper point" that third parties tend to get weeded out, though perhaps we don't agree on the exact causes of that process. Voters have an attitude of "they can't win, so it's a waste of my vote", but as for being discouraged by the two existing parties, that's a sword that cuts both ways: If Liz Chaney led a GOP splinter party, she would be mercilessly attacked by a GOP, panicked about her splitting their vote, but in similar measure she would be praised by the Dems as being a voice of sanity.
Quote:
you get 0 representation just for running.
Even if you bring %20-30 voters on board... You get nothing if you don't win outright. That puts smaller parties at such a significant disadvantage that they might as well not exist.
|
Here I must reveal my ignorance about how elections work, or my confusion about what type or part of the election system you are talking about. While the bold bit is true for any one candidate, they must get a majority to get a seat, at a national level, the losing party do get a representation. That's where divided Senates and Houses come from.
Quote:
|
What I'm saying is that as long as the Democrats have a monopoly on "beating the bad guys" that gives them a pretty low bar they can set for themselves instead of appealing more to their own ambition to get stuff done. It instills a certain level of complacency.This is exemplified perfectly by how you couldn't understand why i don't consider them saviors of democracy for just showing up and being an option other than the fascists.
|
I think this is a difference of opinion that can't be resolved, jwb: is the glass half empty or half full? What you call a low bar, I would call an essential structural element of their party platform: defending democracy. And who has set the bar so low? Surely, that's the GOP, who somehow are unable to reach it. As i've suggested elsewhere, you seem to be grumbling about the Dems for a situation instigated by the GOP.
Quote:
|
I wasnt accusing you of holding that position pal i was trying to lead you to it.
|
HaHa! That's a good answer
Quote:
|
Can you answer the question just for curiosity's sake? You don't think the Dems would be more effective at attaining their agenda if they didn't have to constantly contend with the GOP?
|
Yes, absolutely, they would be more effective.
Quote:
|
Let's say hypothetically instead of a power grab they just happened to win every election and every seat consistently... Would that not be your ideal situation or do you still think we're better off with a mixed government intrinsically?
|
If they consistently won every seat and every election, that would be very worrying to me. It might be efficient in terms of implementing their policies but I feel instinctively that every party needs some kind of counter-balance that helps keep it in check, so I think I'm going with "Yes, we are intrinsically better off with a mixed government".
For me, this debate is very interesting, but a little time consuming. If you don't mind I'm going to take a break and will talk about the rest of your post a little later, ok?