So how many parties do you think a govermnent should normally have?? In the US we have 2 main parties, others have many more. China has one, so the spectrum is quite varied.
later,
epic
later,
epic
How many political parties should there be?
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
Ill chime in soon enough, just waiting for others to put their thoughts down first. Im a great supporter of just having 2 parties, and dont attribute this to apathy. 
later,
epic
later,
epic
I knew someone would ask for that option. Not sure how many people want to go to a "benevolent leader" or "complete anarchy".Evildeus said:None?
later,
epic
zidane1strife
Banned
I think the first thing that has to be done, is to get intelligent educated voters in, IMHO, ones that wouldn't be as vulnerable or gullible as the current electoral mass. They, might even organize, bringing their own candidates in, if need be, and give them a winning chance.
Now, we'd have intelligent voters and candidates, if need be a supporting ruling/decision system, non-elected, but somewhat under the control of the elected candidates, with some guidelines, could be used.
Now, we'd have intelligent voters and candidates, if need be a supporting ruling/decision system, non-elected, but somewhat under the control of the elected candidates, with some guidelines, could be used.
Hmm ... the poll lacks the alternatives 4, 5 and 6. I voted "as many as possible", though that's not quite what I actually think, but I want more than three. Maybe 5 is about right. We got seven parties in Sweden, and I think one or two less wouldn't hurt. Sometimes there are just too many opinions. And the four parties on the right-wing side tend to compete more with each other than with the left-wingers.
Why artificially fix the number? Polticial parties are like animal species, and the principles of natural selection in the same way they do in the natural world.
If there's an unoccupied niche in the political spectrum, a new party will spring up to occupy it, or an existing party will adapt to occupy it. If the putative new party fails to win a relevant body of support within the voting population, it will die or be consumed by a larger party.
So the number of parties in a country tells you basically how many distinct groups of people there are who can't get on with each other
If there's an unoccupied niche in the political spectrum, a new party will spring up to occupy it, or an existing party will adapt to occupy it. If the putative new party fails to win a relevant body of support within the voting population, it will die or be consumed by a larger party.
So the number of parties in a country tells you basically how many distinct groups of people there are who can't get on with each other
kyleb said:as many as possible, one for each person.
i'm sick of all the people who obviously don't think about things themselves and simply tow their party line.
Why do you assume that someone who is in or leading a party is towing to the party line? Are they not setting the party line (for leaders)? What about challenges to leadership, what about taking the party in new directions to win votes?
No thats far too complex, the black and white "all parties suck" is much easier to swallow.
pax said:
It has nothing to do with apathy it has to do with how our political system is set up. The parties in power are not going to change anything anyway b/c they don't want to lose the power they have.
Basically our system is broken, it was made like this so that change would be slow the idea was that if change is slow than the government won't swing back and forth like a crazy pendulum doing all sorts of stupid things, but slowly move in the right direction. Well they got the slow part right anyway.
I think the concept of political parties and the bicameral parliament is a sound one ... but I think the chamber with short term members (house of commons/congress/second chamber/whatever) should have a fully proportional representation (at a national level).
The voters will then decide the appropriate amount of parties, as opposed to the people who choose the voting districts.
The voters will then decide the appropriate amount of parties, as opposed to the people who choose the voting districts.
kyleb said:well when you ask people why they support something, and they can't give a rational explantation, obviously they didn't reach the conclusion on their own.
Really? So every single person must have a completley original idea, and not be confined by a persuiasion of any sorts, nor should they agree with members of their own party and in some instances cabinet?
Wait a second, do you think maybe JUST maybe the people around them agree with them, and got to where they are because of what the believe?
You obviously didnt reach the conclusion the internet was real on your own, and in all likleyhood you were probably told so, then, through experience you came to agree with the notion. By your argument that is flawed because it is not a unique perspective. Do you not see how foolish it is to think that way? Agreement isnt evil.
indio said:
Here in Finland we have one party with 6 or so flavors. 3 of them pretty close to 20% each. Even though they should represent "left" "center" and "right" wings, their politics are so boringly similar that I never managed to utter a vote for any of them. I might have voted for the "green" minor party if I didn't get the taste of communism out of that party too
sytaylor said:kyleb said:well when you ask people why they support something, and they can't give a rational explantation, obviously they didn't reach the conclusion on their own.
Really? So every single person must have a completley original idea, and not be confined by a persuiasion of any sorts, nor should they agree with members of their own party and in some instances cabinet?
Wait a second, do you think maybe JUST maybe the people around them agree with them, and got to where they are because of what the believe?
You obviously didnt reach the conclusion the internet was real on your own, and in all likleyhood you were probably told so, then, through experience you came to agree with the notion. By your argument that is flawed because it is not a unique perspective. Do you not see how foolish it is to think that way? Agreement isnt evil.
way to completly miss my point and argue agaisnt something i never even suggested.
