Advantages: Efficiency; little if any controversy in the country/region; no election years or mud-throwing; no filibustering
Disadvantages: Quelling of dissent; usually a lack of personal freedoms and democratic elections; not always truly governed by the people
Seems to me the scales are pretty balanced! What if we had several one-party states, with each party in its own country having a different platform, then the people who agreed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
Where's the evidence that a one-party system is efficient? If a country is ruled by people who don't have to submit themselves to an electorate, they will probably be supremely inefficient, having no motive to do their jobs professionally. The saving grace of a two-party system, even one where the parties have relatively similar ideologies, is that members of the governing party are forced to respond at least partly to the pressure of public opinion out of fear of losing their jobs.
If people just moved to the country they felt politically comfortable in, you'd end up with a lot of different countries in each of which everyone thought broadly the same. This is a recipe for extremism, since when people only meet or talk to people with the same opinions as themselves, they tend to have their own opinions reinforced and boosted. The different countries would likely end of holding sharply divergent ideologies, and thus be deeply suspicious of each other, so wars would probably be even more frequent than they are today.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI agree with Churchill. In theory, the paths would be completely open for a few weeks. Skip the technicalities for now ... I know I don't say that too often, but still. 😉
What happens when one country decides to prevent anyone from migrating?
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried"
- Winston Churchill.
Originally posted by TeinosukeBoth good points.
Where's the evidence that a one-party system is efficient? If a country is ruled by people who don't have to submit themselves to an electorate, they will probably be supremely inefficient, having no motive to do their jobs professionally. The saving grace of a two-party system, even one where the parties have relatively similar ideologies, is that members ...[text shortened]... y suspicious of each other, so wars would probably be even more frequent than they are today.
Originally posted by scherzoWell it seems to do well in the States.
Advantages: Efficiency; little if any controversy in the country/region; no election years or mud-throwing; no filibustering
Disadvantages: Quelling of dissent; usually a lack of personal freedoms and democratic elections; not always truly governed by the people
Seems to me the scales are pretty balanced! What if we had several one-party states, with e ...[text shortened]... eed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
Originally posted by TeinosukeIsn't this what people do now? People with "blue state" views move to blue states or the blue parts within a red state -- and people with "red state" views do the opposite. And people with a very specific, intense interest in one thing usually hang out with others that share that interest.
If people just moved to the country they felt politically comfortable in, you'd end up with a lot of different countries in each of which everyone thought broadly the same. This is a recipe for extremism, since when people only meet or talk to people with the same opinions as themselves, they tend to have their own opinions reinforced and boosted.
And you end up with the political version of "wars" -- culture wars, ideological wars, party wars, factional wars within the parties -- where each side has this exagerrated, distorted view of what their opponents think.
Originally posted by scherzoHow does it necessarily do that? I think if we assume a kind of assumed case that the leaders do care about the people then sure it could.. but I"m not sure it's a definite logical result that it would in all cases.
One more asset: it leads to periods of public well-being.
Also, would it lead to more and/or longer periods of public well-being? We do have periods of public well-being now.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnHave you ever heard of the Era of Good Feelings? There was a reason it was called that.
How does it necessarily do that? I think if we assume a kind of assumed case that the leaders do care about the people then sure it could.. but I"m not sure it's a definite logical result that it would in all cases.
Also, would it lead to more and/or longer periods of public well-being? We do have periods of public well-being now.