Free Allegiance Forums

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Aug 29 2012, 04:13 AM) 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.

Flawed logic. With two broad parties, both parties have to hold views that are so broad that the parties become barely distinguishable. In fact, if you ask many americans what the problem is with the parties, they will tell you that they are both the same.

Case in point: what has obama done with his last 4 years in office that mccain would have done so differently?

The two parties vary on social/moral/religious issues just so people feel like there is a distinguishable difference between the two
but as far as the most important things go (the national budget/debt, war, general economic issues, health care) they will do the same thing since they're bought out by the same piles of money

now watch Bill Clinton poke Fox News at 2:59
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY...feature=related

The problem with America's party system are the Democratic and Republican whips that keep their membership in lock step voting.

Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Sep 1 2012, 01:30 AM) now watch Bill Clinton poke Fox News at 2:59
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY...feature=related

I actually like Chris Wallace. I think he adds credibility to Fox News. He does ask Conservative politicians testing questions as well.

But Bill Clinton is the greatest statesman that I can name from my own lifetime.

You would all love the current state of Tasmanian state politics . Population roughly 500 000 .
25 seats on offer .
Labor ( Left ) - 10
Liberal ( Right ) - 10
Greens ( Lean to the right ) - 5
Currently a Labor / Green coalition . Nothing gets done . State is broke . No jobs .
Keep on woodchipping 1000 yr old forests .
They now want to raise the number of seats back to the original 35 .
Need more politicians .

turtlefist wrote:QUOTE (turtlefist @ Sep 2 2012, 12:08 PM) Currently a Labor / Green coalition . Nothing gets done . State is broke . No jobs .
Keep on woodchipping 1000 yr old forests .

What the $#@!... what sort of a green party do you guys have anyway???

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Sep 2 2012, 03:33 AM) What the $#@!... what sort of a green party do you guys have anyway???

Green parties are primarily about protecting the Environment, their policies have the potential to mesh nicely with a right-leaning Libertarianish party assuming the Green's have a liberal social policy and a conservative fiscal policy and the dominating Right-Libertarians believe strongly in property rights (i.e. air and water are a right of others that cannot be polluted).

I don't see where the headbanging comes from? Even our Green party has taken a pledge to essentially be fiscal conservatives if elected (not raising the debt).

What should a Green party be to you?

I'll just say that Italy does not have a two party system, although Berlusconi certainly polarized it in "with me or against me." Sort of. And that "Sort of" is cause of all political instability in the last 15+ years.

The more parties are there, the harder it is for any one party to stand out as the winner and have enough voting share to govern - and make the tough calls when it is tough calls time. No party wants to be that party that increased taxes (see: Monti, who had to put his own face on them taxes to bail us out from certain bankruptcy) or introduced that other unpopular law.

Even when you factor in that multiple parties can group together, forming effectively a binary choice on election day, as time passes groups can change, senators can untangle themselves from parties and eventually the government collapses. Early elections ensue and no one manages to stay in charge for long enough to make a difference (you aren't going to win the elections after your government collapsed, after all).

Eventually, the main focus becomes keeping all the representatives happy, rather than keeping all the represented happy. Much grinding of teeth ensues.

So yeah, more than two parties isn't a guarantee of a good, representative govern. Only a good, representative emperor will do that. In theory.

Democracy sucks, but what else is out there?

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Sep 2 2012, 09:31 PM) I don't see where the headbanging comes from? Even our Green party has taken a pledge to essentially be fiscal conservatives if elected (not raising the debt).

What should a Green party be to you?

Did you miss the comment about woodchipping 1000 year old forests Camaro? I'm fine with our green party being a part of our Conservative led coalition government since they demanded and got the seat of the minister of Environment.

If ancient forests are being raped while a Green Party is in government, then something is terribly wrong.


badp... A representative emperor? Whatever you were smoking, throw it away

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Sep 2 2012, 11:47 AM) Did you miss the comment about woodchipping 1000 year old forests Camaro? I'm fine with our green party being a part of our Conservative led coalition government since they demanded and got the seat of the minister of Environment.

If ancient forests are being raped while a Green Party is in government, then something is terribly wrong.


badp... A representative emperor? Whatever you were smoking, throw it away

We may not know the entire story Adept, perhaps the Greens demand that the forest be replanted... sustainability and whatnot. It may just be a compromise position.

Turtle, is the forest being replanted after being chipped?