Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 11 Jun '09 20:21
    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?
  2. 11 Jun '09 21:31
    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.
  3. 11 Jun '09 22:44
    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.
  4. 11 Jun '09 23:17
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    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.
    I 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.
  5. 11 Jun '09 23:17
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    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.
    Both good points.
  6. 12 Jun '09 02:05
    Originally posted by scherzo
    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?
    Well it seems to do well in the States.
  7. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    12 Jun '09 09:33
    0-party system!

  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Jun '09 11:38
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    0-party system!
    The "O" stands for 'oligarchy'.
  9. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    12 Jun '09 11:56
    Originally posted by FMF
    The "O" stands for 'oligarchy'.
    It's a zero not an O.

    Oligarchy (polyarchy) is what we already have.
  10. 12 Jun '09 12:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Teinosuke

    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.
    Isn'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.

    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.
  11. 12 Jun '09 13:16
    One more asset: it leads to periods of public well-being.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Jun '09 14:43
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    It's a zero not an O.
    Yes. I knew. Sorry for doing something that necessitated you to cramp my style.
  13. 12 Jun '09 14:54
    Originally posted by scherzo
    One more asset: it leads to periods of public well-being.
    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.
  14. 12 Jun '09 15:47
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    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.
    Have you ever heard of the Era of Good Feelings? There was a reason it was called that.
  15. 12 Jun '09 15:53
    In a one-party system, there is no natural limitation on government expenses, which does exist in multi-party democracies due to electoral pressure. As a result, corruption and bureaucracy are rampant, which is exactly the case in all dictatorships around the world.