Two Party System

[Raveen]

QUOTE (Camaro @ Aug 8 2012, 02:53 PM) The two main US parties encompass 3rd parties.

Republican's, for instance, are made up of about 5-15% Libertarians... people who disagree with Social Conservatives and war, but agree with Fiscal Conservatism. I am sure that there are also Libertarians who are members of the Democratic party as well, who value liberal social positions more and are willing to put up with Democrat's less than conservative fiscal position (not that Republicans are really any better in this regard).

The make-up of these two parties is constantly changing over time because of this.

That is the idea of the "big tent" party.

Our two parties are like the [coalitions] in other countries.

I took that quote from the Creationism thread because it's OT there but led me to some interesting thoughts on the inherent flaw in the thinking.

In a multi-party system the electorate's views are represented by the proportions of each party in the final parliament. The ruling group is then made up of a subset of the parties that can work together and achieve a majority. The compromise required to do this should end up with a view that reflects a middle ground supported by the electorate.

In a two party, broad church approach the compromise is made by party members. However the party members don't reflect the electorate, they reflect approximately half (depending on the current balance of electoral power and vagaries of the voting system) of the electorate. So you end up with two semi-radical compromises that you have to choose between rather than one moderate (relative to the electorate as a whole) one.

Firstly Cam is wrong when he suggests that this is equivalent, it demonstrably isn't. Secondly it's a system that contrives against co-operation and moderate politics as if you fall between the parties you have nowhere to go.

Finally it's going to cause trouble when you elect different parts of government from different parties as they're hell bent on blocking each other wherever possible (which is fine if the status quo is working well and a total cock up if it isn't).

[Mastametz]

Our system sucks. Neither Cam nor I will argue that.

[Elzam_]

Marx predicted this would happen. Look in the Communist Manifesto.

[Adept]

In the UK the Tories (conservatives) managed to convince people that changing the status quo would be bad. No proportional vote, no alternative vote... just two party system business as usual

[JimmyNighthawk]

QUOTE (Elzam V. Branstein @ Aug 29 2012, 11:46 AM) Communist Manifesto

[HSharp]

To be honest I'm not a fan of any party system. What I would like to see in the UK is independent MPs who can truly represent their constituents in parliament as opposed to being in a party and doing what the party says. I would also like constituents be able to vote out MPs if they have no confidence in them, either in voting or petition.

For positions on Cabinet MPs will vote on who for what post including PM.

Now this system will already be met by naysayers who will say that nothing will get done as everyone will be for different interests but if that is the way the country feels (as MPs will actually be representatives of their constituents rather then making their constituents unofficial members of their party) then there might be a reason why there is mixed opposition on certain issues so the proposal should be re-assessed or re-worked to make it feasible for the public to accept.

The government is supposed to work for us, not us for it yet they are Big Brother who watch us, protect us and keep us ignorant of what they do.

[madpeople]

Abolish American parties all together? all elected officials act independently, president is voted for by all Americans.

QUOTE (HSharp @ Aug 29 2012, 11:21 AM) To be honest I'm not a fan of any party system. What I would like to see in the UK is independent MPs who can truly represent their constituents in parliament as opposed to being in a party and doing what the party says. I would also like constituents be able to vote out MPs if they have no confidence in them, either in voting or petition.

My most excellent local MP Tim Farron represents local issues in parliament and is a member of the Lib Dems - which isn't a whipped party so he can vote how he wants.
Are American parties whipped?
QUOTE Now this system will already be met by naysayers who will say that nothing will get done as everyone will be for different interests but if that is the way the country feels (as MPs will actually be representatives of their constituents rather then making their constituents unofficial members of their party) then there might be a reason why there is mixed opposition on certain issues so the proposal should be re-assessed or re-worked to make it feasible for the public to accept.[/quote]
I recently thought it would be an interesting idea to get an additional 20% more MPs in the commons, but they don't get voted in, but rather get there through sortition.
Is the number of MPs fixed by the number of physical seats in the commons? we could probably bring in some extra chairs in the middle if everyone happens to turn up.

[Raveen]

QUOTE (madpeople @ Aug 29 2012, 12:13 PM) My most excellent local MP Tim Farron represents local issues in parliament and is a member of the Lib Dems - which isn't a whipped party so he can vote how he wants.

Wrong. All the main UK parties are whipped, the Lib Dems particularly so in coalition (otherwise none of the MPs would vote for Tory policies and the whole thing would fall apart).

QUOTE (madpeople @ Aug 29 2012, 12:13 PM) I recently thought it would be an interesting idea to get an additional 20% more MPs in the commons, but they don't get voted in, but rather get there through sortition.
Is the number of MPs fixed by the number of physical seats in the commons? we could probably bring in some extra chairs in the middle if everyone happens to turn up.

The number of MPs is flexible although the chamber is at it's limit at the moment if everyone turns up (very rare occurrence). Adding MPs is never popular though as they are expensive and currently the Tories want to reduce the number of MPs to help cut costs (and shift electoral balance into their favour by gerrymandering). Added to which, if jury duty is unpopular then being an MP for however long is surely going to be worse?

I do like the idea behind it though.

[raumvogel]

For some reason Jimmy has taken on the task of re-posting Elzam's comments in the largest size possible!

[madpeople]

QUOTE (Raveen @ Aug 29 2012, 01:29 PM) Wrong. All the main UK parties are whipped, the Lib Dems particularly so in coalition (otherwise none of the MPs would vote for Tory policies and the whole thing would fall apart).

Unexpected, I thought that they were a democratic party which didn't use whips - I seem to remember the Tories wanted something, but the lib dems said "we'll have to have a vote on this first", then then decided to go with what the tories wanted. Seems they do have a whip, though perhaps it isn't used as much as other parties, or for certain things? Perhaps I should ask Tim next time he's in town while I'm at home.

QUOTE The number of MPs is flexible although the chamber is at it's limit at the moment if everyone turns up (very rare occurrence). Adding MPs is never popular though as they are expensive and currently the Tories want to reduce the number of MPs to help cut costs (and shift electoral balance into their favour by gerrymandering).[/quote]
I should have said limited by, rather than fixed. Can we add more now given that there aren't enough physical seats to fit them in if they all turned up? Would people object to adding some temporary benches in the middle? there wouldn't be over two sword lengths apart between the MPs, but I don't think any of them have drawn any swords recently so it probably doesn't matter.
QUOTE Added to which, if jury duty is unpopular then being an MP for however long is surely going to be worse?

I do like the idea behind it though.[/quote]
Jury duty disrupts your life, you only get to claim lost wages from the court and benefits you directly in no way.
Becoming a randomly chosen MP gives you a well paid job for up to 5 years (less if you replace a sorted MP who resigned or otherwise ceased to be an MP). You get to have a say in running the country, and it looks good on your CV provided you don't make a mess of it.
Maybe those climbing the corporate ladder may not like the pay decrease, but they often seek power and MPs can often get good jobs post MPness.