OT - VOTE!!! - (US Citizens)

[DM_Matt]

For a really good example of how a system that allows many small parties doesn't work, look at Israel.

In Israel, they do have two major parties, one on the left and on on the right, but they have a proportional-representation scheme that makes it very easy for small, and, almost by definition, extreme, parties to gain seats in the Kinesset (parliament). Thus, in order to get a majority coalition, whichever major party which is in power needs, depending on which one it is, to pick up many of the far-right or far-left small parties in order to have a majority. these small parties can enforce their extreme will on their patrons by threatening to leave the coalition and force new elections.

Recently, the Unity Coalition, which included both major parties in order to create solidarity and unity in wartime, collapsed. Prime Minister Sharon entered talks with some of the ultra-nationalist parties to try to gain a majority without having to call new elections. In the end, he did call elections, but only because the loyalty of his party is split between him and Former Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will be challenging him in the party primary, and Netanyahu leveraged his popularity to force elections.

Thus, allowing too many small parties in, which are usually small because they have an extreme message not widely supported, will give such groups the ability to make or break party majorities and foist there extreme views on everyone else.

In short, hooray for the two-moderate-party system!!!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Unbelievable! Here in Alabama, we are repeating the Bush/Gore fiasco of 2000. We currently have two governors claiming to have won the election. I'm glad I didn't vote for either of them. Greedy bastards.

 

[kenjib]

Re: Nope....

There is no cause-effect relationship between most-dollars-spent and who-wins. The current gubernatorial race in Texas alone shows as much. The loser spent considerably more money than the winner, and yet is still the loser.

You're right. I meant it more as a bar to entry than as a direct correlation. Sorry about that. In Texas, even though one spent considerably more than the other, they BOTH spent considerably more than any of the other candidates, right? You need a certain amount to get visibility, and except for exceptional circumstances it's a pretty large amount. The biggest spender doesn't always win, but the winner is a big spender nonetheless.

 

[Mark Chance]

Most Certainly...

You're right. I meant it more as a bar to entry than as a direct correlation. Sorry about that. In Texas, even though one spent considerably more than the other, they BOTH spent considerably more than any of the other candidates, right? You need a certain amount to get visibility, and except for exceptional circumstances it's a pretty large amount. The biggest spender doesn't always win, but the winner is a big spender nonetheless.

Now this is certainly accurate. I imagine (and thus could be wrong) that the large amounts of cash necessary to wage a viable campaign, successful or otherwise, are due primarily to the high costs of advertising.

 

[Mistwell]

For a really good example of how a system that allows many small parties doesn't work, look at Israel.

In Israel, they do have two major parties, one on the left and on on the right, but they have a proportional-representation scheme that makes it very easy for small, and, almost by definition, extreme, parties to gain seats in the Kinesset (parliament). Thus, in order to get a majority coalition, whichever major party which is in power needs, depending on which one it is, to pick up many of the far-right or far-left small parties in order to have a majority. these small parties can enforce their extreme will on their patrons by threatening to leave the coalition and force new elections.

Recently, the Unity Coalition, which included both major parties in order to create solidarity and unity in wartime, collapsed. Prime Minister Sharon entered talks with some of the ultra-nationalist parties to try to gain a majority without having to call new elections. In the end, he did call elections, but only because the loyalty of his party is split between him and Former Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will be challenging him in the party primary, and Netanyahu leveraged his popularity to force elections.

Thus, allowing too many small parties in, which are usually small because they have an extreme message not widely supported, will give such groups the ability to make or break party majorities and foist there extreme views on everyone else.

In short, hooray for the two-moderate-party system!!!

Italy is another good example, from what I remember in one of my old Political Science classes. I recall they elected a porn star to their "house of representatives" equivalent, as an accident/joke resulting from their dozens-of-parties systen.

 

[Mistwell]

Re: Most Certainly...

Now this is certainly accurate. I imagine (and thus could be wrong) that the large amounts of cash necessary to wage a viable campaign, successful or otherwise, are due primarily to the high costs of advertising.

Personally I am in favor of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provides for equal federal funding of the two candidates in federal (non Primary) elections who gain the most votes in the Primary election (and funding to the winning candidates of the other parties that ran in the Primary proportional to the percentage of votes they received in the Primary). This would be coupled with a limitation on free speech in the form of election advertising limits. The candidates can freely do as much public speaking and travel as the can afford from their personal funds or campaign / party funds, but all political ads about any candidate must come from a candidates advertising budget, and that budget is limited to the federal funding given them (no personal funds, campaign funds, party funds, or private citizen funds can be used for political advertising concerning a candidare after the Primary). Primaries would still work as they do right now (no limits).

 

[Bagpuss]

And this political thread hasn't been closed because?

 

[Piratecat]

Because it was interesting, rational, and didn't deal with specific candidates or philosophies. Now that Election Day is over, though, it's served its purpose.

Thanks again, everyone!