this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
253 points (69.1% liked)

memes

10296 readers
1702 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
253
Two Party System. Why. (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by balderdash9 to c/[email protected]
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

EDIT: To the people downvoting this post because democrats > republicans: you’re missing the point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They've already made more compromises than a smaller party typically would have to since they're trying to cater to so many people. Of course they still have to do compromises like the mentioned senate, house, presidential thing that we don't really have, but that's more not really a two/multi party thing.

That, by itself, is not a good thing, since that would essentially mean that there is no strong opposition. I am of opinion that strong opposition is always needed. It keeps party in power "more honest". This is again advantage of the two party system, as I mentioned before.

It's a strange idea that +50% seats in two party system good but bad in multi-party system. It doesn't mean there's no strong opposition when there's more than one opposition party...

Also two party system is no guarantee for a strong opposition. You can easily have a situation where one clearly dominates. Strong opposition is not a guarantee or unique to two party system at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They’ve already made more compromises than a smaller party typically would have to since they’re trying to cater to so many people. Of course they still have to do compromises like the mentioned senate, house, presidential thing that we don’t really have, but that’s more not really a two/multi party thing.

For the purpose of our discussion, it nearly does not matter how they come up with the platform before you vote. What matters is what happens after your choice. Whether your choice can be overwritten by necessity to create coalition. The voter becomes more removed from the policy of the ruling coalition than from the party in two party system.

It’s a strange idea that +50% seats in two party system good but bad in multi-party system.

What is good and bad is not 51% seats, but the 49% of opposition. In situation when you have multi-party system and 51% are in hands of one party, it does not mean that you have 49% of strong opposition! Most likely you have like 20% and the rest are in-between to be opposed or not opposed. Opposition is not united in this case and can do nothing. It is weak. Not so for two party system. 51% is barely majority.

Also two party system is no guarantee for a strong opposition. You can easily have a situation where one clearly dominates.

I agree with that in principle, but in practice, if one party starts taking 80% of votes, the other will adjust. On top of this, this situation is no different from 80% case in multi-party system so it is not what differentiate one from another.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Your vote can be overridden no matter what. There's nothing saving you from that. Party platforms in any kind of system aren't very good promises on what will happen.

I'm not sure if it was just a poor choice of words but there's no necessity to compromise to form a coalition. A party can decide not to participate or come to the conclusion that they aren't able to form an effective coalition (if the biggest party).

Opposition is not united in this case and can do nothing

And what, you think in two party system the opposition party can just take down the government from minority position? Of course the opposition can rally against the government and hope their lines break. Which is something that can be more likely when it's a coalition. But it being a single or multi party doesn't matter. If government lines hold, there's nothing to be done other than rallying against them and waiting for the next elections.

Most likely you have like 20% and the rest are in-between to be opposed or not opposed

In my experience that is not at all the case, rather parties supporting the standing government outside of it is a rarity. Such party will most likely suffer from unpopular decisions of the government and not benefit from the possibility of being in opposition. It's rarely a smart position to be in.

Not to mention in multi-party system, it's not just sitting government vs opposition that are fighting, but the parties within the coalition and parties in the opposition are competing. And after elections, some government parties might end up joining the new government formed by opposition parties and so on. The whole point is that it's not just two opposing sides, this or that, but multitude of ideologies and platforms that are competing.

I agree with that in principle, but in practice, if one party starts taking 80% of votes, the other will adjust. On top of this, this situation is no different from 80% case in multi-party system so it is not what differentiate one from another.

I'm surprised. I thought the idea that two party system meant a strong opposition was one of your main points.