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

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Aug '10 03:45
    I took this oppurtunity to get one last American thread in before the RHP anti-American thread month of August. I just sneeked it in at the buzzer!!

    My question is, considering the number of partisan posters on this forum who attack only one side of the political spectrum and not the other, would it be better to only have one political party? If not, what good has come from the party that you oppose?
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    01 Aug '10 04:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    My question is, considering the number of partisan posters on this forum who attack only one side of the political spectrum and not the other, would it be better to only have one political party? If not, what good has come from the party that you oppose?
    What is the real world significance of the number of partisan posters on this forum? And even if we were to accept that the 'sample' had some relevance or significance, with fierce partisanship representing both "left" and "right" here day in day out, and with deep ideological polarizing disagreements common, what on Earth would the purpose be of debating whether it would be better to have only one political party?
  3. 01 Aug '10 07:39
    Originally posted by whodey
    My question is, considering the number of partisan posters on this forum who attack only one side of the political spectrum and not the other, would it be better to only have one political party? If not, what good has come from the party that you oppose?
    I have lived in a one party state, and it has both advantages and disadvantages. The mistake was to keep the whole 'party' idea. I think a zero party system would be way better than a one party system. Communists too like to keep the party idea because it essentially allows them to keep people out of politics (by keeping them out of the party) and also makes it easier to accuse people of being enemies of the state by saying they are not party members or are against the party or are members of an illegal party etc.

    I would tend to support a system of government that is much more decentralized for the majority of issues and where local politics does not involve parties at all. Local politicians should be elected purely on merit, not because of what party they belong to.

    I do not know of any zero party democratic states, so I don't know how well it would work in practice.
  4. 01 Aug '10 07:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    I took this oppurtunity to get one last American thread in before the RHP anti-American thread month of August. I just sneeked it in at the buzzer!!

    My question is, considering the number of partisan posters on this forum who attack only one side of the political spectrum and not the other, would it be better to only have one political party? If not, what good has come from the party that you oppose?
    The Netherlands currently has 10 parties represented in parliament and most people still think in terms of "left" and "right".
  5. 01 Aug '10 08:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The Netherlands currently has 10 parties represented in parliament and most people still think in terms of "left" and "right".
    But that is only in Western countries. Here in Africa, we don't have 'left' and 'right'. We only have 'those in power' and 'the opposition'.
  6. 01 Aug '10 08:21
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But that is only in Western countries. Here in Africa, we don't have 'left' and 'right'. We only have 'those in power' and 'the opposition'.
    Yes, I think a division between two camps is easiest for most people to understand. It takes some effort to understand the complexity of the real world.
  7. 01 Aug '10 09:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I took this oppurtunity to get one last American thread in before the RHP anti-American thread month of August. I just sneeked it in at the buzzer!!

    My question is, considering the number of partisan posters on this forum who attack only one side of the political spectrum and not the other, would it be better to only have one political party? If not, what good has come from the party that you oppose?
    The recent examples of one-Party States. Fascist and Communist, hardly suggest that it would be desirable to emulate them.
  8. 01 Aug '10 09:13
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yes, I think a division between two camps is easiest for most people to understand. It takes some effort to understand the complexity of the real world.
    I don't think its a lack of understanding so much as the fact that the party system tends to encourage two camps. Here in South Africa, in the last election there were a number of parties, but many people voted for a party they were not in favor of, because of the party system. For example, here in the Western Cape a number of people voted for the ANC in order to try and keep the DA out of power. If it wasn't for the DA, they would have voted for COPE.
    The same happens in Zambia, where if you don't like the ruling party you have to vote for the second biggest or your vote is essentially wasted.
  9. 01 Aug '10 09:17
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I don't think its a lack of understanding so much as the fact that the party system tends to encourage two camps. Here in South Africa, in the last election there were a number of parties, but many people voted for a party they were not in favor of, because of the party system. For example, here in the Western Cape a number of people voted for the ANC in ...[text shortened]... the ruling party you have to vote for the second biggest or your vote is essentially wasted.
    This sort of consideration follows from a FPTP system, but in proportional representation people still think in terms of two camps.
  10. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    01 Aug '10 10:14
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I don't think its a lack of understanding so much as the fact that the party system tends to encourage two camps. Here in South Africa, in the last election there were a number of parties, but many people voted for a party they were not in favor of, because of the party system. For example, here in the Western Cape a number of people voted for the ANC in ...[text shortened]... the ruling party you have to vote for the second biggest or your vote is essentially wasted.
    That's the only reason a lot of people vote for the Democratic Party in the US. A vote for the Green Party is wasted at best and helps Republicans get elected at worst.
  11. Donation bbarr
    Chief Justice
    01 Aug '10 10:28
    Originally posted by rwingett
    That's the only reason a lot of people vote for the Democratic Party in the US. A vote for the Green Party is wasted at best and helps Republicans get elected at worst.
    A Green Party vote is only wasted if the sole reason to vote is to help cause the election of a candidate. But if that's right, then any single vote is a waste, since any single vote will be within the margin of error of the final vote tally. If you think of voting as a civic responsibility, or as an avenue to express your political commitments, or as an act of defiance, then even third-party votes aren't wasted.
  12. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    01 Aug '10 11:34
    Originally posted by bbarr
    A Green Party vote is only wasted if the sole reason to vote is to help cause the election of a candidate. But if that's right, then any single vote is a waste, since any single vote will be within the margin of error of the final vote tally. If you think of voting as a civic responsibility, or as an avenue to express your political commitments, or as an act of defiance, then even third-party votes aren't wasted.
    Well, getting a winning candidate is the inevitable byproduct of an election, regardless of the rationale for one's vote. The defiance of Nader's supporters served the ultimate purpose of getting Bush elected. All the misery that trailed in his wake is traceable, in part, to their 'political commitments.' That is the sad reality of third party politics in a 'winner-take-all' electoral system.
  13. 01 Aug '10 11:56
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Well, getting a winning candidate is the inevitable byproduct of an election, regardless of the rationale for one's vote. The defiance of Nader's supporters served the ultimate purpose of getting Bush elected. All the misery that trailed in his wake is traceable, in part, to their 'political commitments.' That is the sad reality of third party politics in a 'winner-take-all' electoral system.
    Have you heard of instant run off voting?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
  14. Donation bbarr
    Chief Justice
    01 Aug '10 12:51
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Well, getting a winning candidate is the inevitable byproduct of an election, regardless of the rationale for one's vote. The defiance of Nader's supporters served the ultimate purpose of getting Bush elected. All the misery that trailed in his wake is traceable, in part, to their 'political commitments.' That is the sad reality of third party politics in a 'winner-take-all' electoral system.
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
  15. 01 Aug '10 12:56
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Have you heard of instant run off voting?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
    It's certainly an improvement over FPTP.