Multi-party systems have their own issues. For example, whatever a party says they will do if you vote for them is worth nothing after the election. They have to find coalition partners and everything is up for negotiation.
It’s not worth nothing, they will implement parts of their agenda proportional to the number of MPs they bring. Usually by order of importance for them. They more people vote for them, the bigger percentage of the agenda will get implemented, up to a 100% if they win an outright majority.
Two-party systems have their own issues. For example, whatever a party says they will do if you vote for them is worth nothing after the election. They have no reason to negotiate and do whatever the hell they feel like, regardless of what they said they will do.
I think this is the better source and has a more thorough argumentations for and against both two- and multi-party systems (I think around lecture 8-10). But I can’t expect a common lemmy troll to watch something like this
I’m not watching an 1h 10m lecture which may or may not have relevant content. Now who’s the common Lemmy troll?
Can you narrow this down to a time signature please?
I would like to state however, I live in a country within a country. I live within both a (basically) two-party system (Westminster, UK) and a multi-party system (Holyrood, Scotland). I can see first hand which of these systems a) runs most competently b) runs most democratically. In both scenarios it’s the multi-party proportionally representative Scottish Holyrood system.
In a rare moment of defying electoral maths we even had a majority government in 2011 in Holyrood, which meant they no longer had to worry about negotiating with smaller parties. Guess what happened? They got bumped down to a minority government the next election because of dissatisfaction with their governance. When one party has ultimate control they are beholden to nobody, the power goes to their heads, and it’s difficult to say with a straight face that they’re therefore even democratic.
Multi-party systems create cooperation rather than the division that two-party systems thrive on. The point, after all, of all of this politicking, is to agree how to run a shared country. Cooperation therefore is a far better way of living than constant division and attack.
Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in America we’re witnessing right now. Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in Britain where both major parties are collapsing in on themselves (one already has). It’s a shite way to run a country, never ending attack, attack, attack of those who have a slightly different opinion on how things should be run.
Switching from two-party systems to multi-party systems is not going to solve your problems. Likewise, switching from multi-party to two-party won’t either. If you took the time to watch the lecture you would understand that.
There seems to be this naive believe here on lemmy that the two-party system in places like the UK or US is what causes all the trouble and lack of representation. Having lived in multi-party and basically one-party systems I can tell you that this does not make politics more representative.
As long as the general public ™ has no believable leverage that politicians need to take into account while billionaires buy all the media, give politicians exit options and do all sorts of other things, there will never be money for schools or hospitals and always an urgent need to reduce regulations/taxes for companies. No matter if you have 1, 2, or 5 parties.
That’s true, but at least some of them are less likely to be beholden to the wealthy, which actually gives the public a chance at choosing better. With the US two-party system, there’s little such opportunity.
Eh, better to exploit the existing system than wish it was different. Wish in one hand, etc. The system is what it is. Electorally speaking, we have no choice but to operate within it until we can actually change it.
That’s why a two party system is stupid. Democrats are not trying to be “good”, just the lesser evil.
There is no government that is not the “lesser evil”. That is why it exists in the first place.
Multi-party systems have their own issues. For example, whatever a party says they will do if you vote for them is worth nothing after the election. They have to find coalition partners and everything is up for negotiation.
It’s not worth nothing, they will implement parts of their agenda proportional to the number of MPs they bring. Usually by order of importance for them. They more people vote for them, the bigger percentage of the agenda will get implemented, up to a 100% if they win an outright majority.
Lol no that’s not what happens :D I don’t know on which planet you follow politics
Earth
Which party in the government is forcing Labour to do zionism and transphobia?
Labour, I guess? They are not in a coalition afaik, but I’m not that interested in UK politics. Unless you mean Australia, then even less.
Two-party systems have their own issues. For example, whatever a party says they will do if you vote for them is worth nothing after the election. They have no reason to negotiate and do whatever the hell they feel like, regardless of what they said they will do.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
I think this is the better source and has a more thorough argumentations for and against both two- and multi-party systems (I think around lecture 8-10). But I can’t expect a common lemmy troll to watch something like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDqvzFY72mg&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyViG2ar68jkgEi4y6doNZy&index=1
Here we go, I knew I had posted it already here on lemmy a while ago because this crap comes up again and again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3-VlQu3iRM
I’m not watching an 1h 10m lecture which may or may not have relevant content. Now who’s the common Lemmy troll?
Can you narrow this down to a time signature please?
I would like to state however, I live in a country within a country. I live within both a (basically) two-party system (Westminster, UK) and a multi-party system (Holyrood, Scotland). I can see first hand which of these systems a) runs most competently b) runs most democratically. In both scenarios it’s the multi-party proportionally representative Scottish Holyrood system.
In a rare moment of defying electoral maths we even had a majority government in 2011 in Holyrood, which meant they no longer had to worry about negotiating with smaller parties. Guess what happened? They got bumped down to a minority government the next election because of dissatisfaction with their governance. When one party has ultimate control they are beholden to nobody, the power goes to their heads, and it’s difficult to say with a straight face that they’re therefore even democratic.
Multi-party systems create cooperation rather than the division that two-party systems thrive on. The point, after all, of all of this politicking, is to agree how to run a shared country. Cooperation therefore is a far better way of living than constant division and attack.
Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in America we’re witnessing right now. Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in Britain where both major parties are collapsing in on themselves (one already has). It’s a shite way to run a country, never ending attack, attack, attack of those who have a slightly different opinion on how things should be run.
Switching from two-party systems to multi-party systems is not going to solve your problems. Likewise, switching from multi-party to two-party won’t either. If you took the time to watch the lecture you would understand that.
There seems to be this naive believe here on lemmy that the two-party system in places like the UK or US is what causes all the trouble and lack of representation. Having lived in multi-party and basically one-party systems I can tell you that this does not make politics more representative.
As long as the general public ™ has no believable leverage that politicians need to take into account while billionaires buy all the media, give politicians exit options and do all sorts of other things, there will never be money for schools or hospitals and always an urgent need to reduce regulations/taxes for companies. No matter if you have 1, 2, or 5 parties.
That’s true, but at least some of them are less likely to be beholden to the wealthy, which actually gives the public a chance at choosing better. With the US two-party system, there’s little such opportunity.
Eh, better to exploit the existing system than wish it was different. Wish in one hand, etc. The system is what it is. Electorally speaking, we have no choice but to operate within it until we can actually change it.