Look at What Happens to Peaceful Protesters in the States

[troy2000]

I think that on the whole I prefer our two-party system to a multi-party system, where the electorate is basically splintered into a messy pile of competing special interests. I've watched what happens in such situations, where attempts by the winning party to achieve a majority coalition wind up with it kissing the heinies of narrowly-focused parties with an ax to grind.

In theory, such consensus building happens in a two-party system before the general elections, ensuring that whoever wins the party nomination can go on to appeal to voters nationwide -- and if successful can enter office with enough political support to govern, instead of being paralyzed while attempting to put together a majority after the election.

To put it simply, the primary system is supposed to ensure that in the long run, whoever wins the nomination is potentially acceptable to the entire country-- rather than just to his own party's fanatic base.

Does it always work flawlessly? Obviously not. For example, I'd say the Republican Party lately has become almost dysfunctional. It can't get anything done at all in Washington, unless it kowtows to the most extremist elements of its base.

But problems like that are self-correcting in the long run. A party that can't get past that sort of bondage to narrow ideology, and appeal to the general populace instead, starts losing elections....

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I think that on the whole I prefer our two-party system to a multi-party system, where the electorate is basically splintered into a messy pile of competing special interests. I've watched what happens in such situations, where attempts by the winning party to achieve a majority coalition wind up with it kissing the heinies of narrowly-focused parties with an ax to grind.

In theory, such consensus building happens in a two-party system before the general elections, ensuring that whoever wins the party nomination can go on to appeal to voters nationwide -- and if successful can enter office with enough political support to govern, instead of being paralyzed while attempting to put together a majority after the election.

In put it simply, the primary system is supposed to ensure that in the long run, whoever wins the nomination is potentially acceptable to the entire country-- rather than just to his own party's fanatic base.

Does it always work flawlessly? Obviously not. For example, I'd say the Republican Party lately has become almost dysfunctional. It can't get anything done at all in Washington, unless it kowtows to the most extremist elements of its base.

But problems like that are self-correcting in the long run. A party that can't get past that sort of bondage to narrow ideology, and appeal to the general populace instead, starts losing elections....

I can see your point regarding competing interests. It's an old probelm.
Of course, it all depends on how well and how much the various interests are
willing to compromise.

The fact is though, like us you do have a multi-party system. It's just that
currently there are only two parties in the hunt. Here the Greens have
made inroads because the two major parties have the same position on
many issues, and they have been increasingly influenced by religious groups.

There is an interesting (sometimes candid, sometimes serious) look at
the religiosity of Obama and the Republican candidates by Penn Jillette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE

I particularly like his ideas on court cases and the only possible outcomes.

[Ad Hoc]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I think that on the whole I prefer our two-party system to a multi-party system, where the electorate is basically splintered into a messy pile of competing special interests.

The problem with this is that is that it forces people to accept a simple black and white choice. People are not like that. That system also does not allow for changes in mind set and growth in a new direction in a short time frame. Those “in power” and control of however the “head” is selected, can be so far off the general consensus, yet easily block any attempt to change from “their view” of what the party should be. Resistance to change can be easy.

A multi party system allows everyone to vote for a party (not a person preferably) that aligns closest to their own beliefs and values. If said party never gets elected and only garners say 10% of the vote at best, then so what?...it is reflection that not everyone agrees with their manifesto.

If another party you despise, gets say 60% and is elected…so what? Just means the majority prefers their way, which is different to your own expectations.

That is the essence of democracy. Choice and freedom to choose. Giving a choice ..whether popularist or not. You want your voice heard…!!!

The “numbers” are irrelevant, 10% or 60%. What is important is the freedom to select a party that is best aligned to your own beliefs, rather than being coerced into a binary choice. That just breeds dissatisfaction, from the outset. Any failing to meet expectations, which is very easy when making such gross compromises, occurs quickly and often, and leads to dissatisfaction and eventually resentment.

Choosing a party whom aligns with your beliefs, but is not in power is far better than being coerced into selecting a party who you generally do not agree with but have little choice. At least in the former you’re satisfied you have found a voice and an outlet for your beliefs of what you wish to see; except that you’re just dissatisfied that no one else agrees with you. Bummer..life sucks! ...but at least you do have the option to campaign on that platform, albeit being a small one....for now!

But, with the later, you’re unhappy and generally dissatisfied to begin with and do not see your voice ever being heard. The “majority” has drowned your voice to begin with and always shall.

I know which I prefer.

[masrapido]

Originally Posted by Ad Hoc

The problem with this is that is that it forces people to accept a simple black and white choice. People are not like that. That system also does not allow for changes in mind set and growth in a new direction in a short time frame. Those “in power” and control of however the “head” is selected, can be so far off the general consensus, yet easily block any attempt to change from “their view” of what the party should be. Resistance to change can be easy.

A multi party system allows everyone to vote for a party (not a person preferably) that aligns closest to their own beliefs and values. If said party never gets elected and only garners say 10% of the vote at best, then so what?...it is reflection that not everyone agrees with their manifesto.

If another party you despise, gets say 60% and is elected…so what? Just means the majority prefers their way, which is different to your own expectations.

That is the essence of democracy. Choice and freedom to choose. Giving a choice ..whether popularist or not. You want your voice heard…!!!

The “numbers” are irrelevant, 10% or 60%. What is important is the freedom to select a party that is best aligned to your own beliefs, rather than being coerced into a binary choice. That just breeds dissatisfaction, from the outset. Any failing to meet expectations, which is very easy when making such gross compromises, occurs quickly and often, and leads to dissatisfaction and eventually resentment.

Choosing a party whom aligns with your beliefs, but is not in power is far better than being coerced into selecting a party who you generally do not agree with but have little choice. At least in the former you’re satisfied you have found a voice and an outlet for your beliefs of what you wish to see; except that you’re just dissatisfied that no one else agrees with you. Bummer..life sucks! ...but at least you do have the option to campaign on that platform, albeit being a small one....for now!

But, with the later, you’re unhappy and generally dissatisfied to begin with and do not see your voice ever being heard. The “majority” has drowned your voice to begin with and always shall.

I know which I prefer.

Perfectly explained. Two-party system only caters for two opinions represented by two entities which may even be ideologically close.

As hysterical as it is, Italian way is the only true way. The more the merrier. More of different opinions, and different parts of society, are represented in the parliament, which gives them voice and control over things.

Two parties consolidate and concentrate the power. They never represent the society as a whole. That's not democracy, that's a farce. It only opens the way for power-addicted multibillioners who control everything.

As we can all see on a daily basis.

Now is Iran's turn to be bombed into submission.

Well, that may not work out that way easily.

Pity more people are not coming out on the streets of the usa to blow away the current dictatorial system away, before it creates another WW.

[BPL]

It's scary how many crazies there are in the world.

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by BPL

It's scary how many crazies there are in the world.

It's not that scary: crazy terrorists don't kill many people each year.
It's time we had a Global War on Ladders, though, IMO.

[masrapido]

Let BPL name a few so that we can accuse him of being on a first name basis with them...!!!

[Boston]

well here's a guy who's about to loose his job

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1w_RZ5vnys

this ones got the audio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pQkK...eature=related