Originally posted by EladarSo... Obama voters are uninformed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio
Classic. If Obama gets re-elected it will be because of people like this. 🙁
Then you are voting for Obama I take it?
Because you seem just as uninformed when you post a video like this with no statistics, articles, or "informed" commentary.
When I read your posts I get the feeling that you vote republican because you see the republican party as the more "intelligent" party and you have this burning desire to appear more intelligent than your IQ. Now is the part where you get defensive.
Get of your high horse and actually do some research instead of watching youtube and buying in to stereotypes.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe alternative would be proportional representation. As long as there can only be one representative from each constituency, a 2 (or 3, at most) party system is probably inevitable.
It's better than a one party system.😛
EDIT: of course, we have a two party system only because that is how people vote. The system doesn't require that result.
Originally posted by sh76It could happen if you reduced the size of voting districts. The.minute you get a large number of people being canvassed, you inevitably reduce choice down to one or two very loud voices.
The alternative would be proportional representation. As long as there can only be one representative from each constituency, a 2 (or 3, at most) party system is probably inevitable.
...imho...
Originally posted by kmax87The problem with that theory, at least in the US, is that while national districts are big, state legislative districts can be quite small and yet third party elected state legislators are rare.
It could happen if you reduced the size of voting districts. The.minute you get a large number of people being canvassed, you inevitably reduce choice down to one or two very loud voices.
...imho...
Originally posted by sh76This sounds like a chicken and egg problem. Does the national arena so successfully articulate the points of contention, that other minor parties have no real reason to exist? Is voting outside of the mainstream considered a wasted vote?
The problem with that theory, at least in the US, is that while national districts are big, state legislative districts can be quite small and yet third party elected state legislators are rare.
Any first-past-the-post system will result in a two or maybe three-party system. No1's insistence that a two-party system is the will of the people because they are voting in such a way is absurdly naive. In proportional representation, you would see more parties entering the political spectrum; for example Ron Paul could surely gather plenty of Congress seats with a Libertarian party.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf by "absurdly naive" you mean "factually accurate" you are correct.
Any first-past-the-post system will result in a two or maybe three-party system. No1's insistence that a two-party system is the will of the people because they are voting in such a way is absurdly naive. In proportional representation, you would see more parties entering the political spectrum; for example Ron Paul could surely gather plenty of Congress seats with a Libertarian party.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Any"? What about India? They have 37 parties represented in their Parliament plus 9 independents.http://keralaassembly.org/lok/sabha/tally2009.html
Any first-past-the-post system will result in a two or maybe three-party system. No1's insistence that a two-party system is the will of the people because they are voting in such a way is absurdly naive. In proportional representation, you would see more parties entering the political spectrum; for example Ron Paul could surely gather plenty of Congress seats with a Libertarian party.
Originally posted by no1marauderJudging from the 2009 electoral results, they seem to be pretty similar to the UK, with the third party gaining around 21% of the popular vote, but only 14.5% of seats. While there are other parties represented, most likely due to larger regional differences, politics seems to be dominated by the two largest parties.
"Any"? What about India? They have 37 parties represented in their Parliament plus 9 independents.http://keralaassembly.org/lok/sabha/tally2009.html
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPlease give your definition of a "two party system". You seem to be equating any system without proportional representation with a "two party system" making your assertion a tautology.
Judging from the 2009 electoral results, they seem to be pretty similar to the UK, with the third party gaining around 21% of the popular vote, but only 14.5% of seats. While there are other parties represented, most likely due to larger regional differences, politics seems to be dominated by the two largest parties.
According to the link I gave, the two biggest parties have about 60% of the seats in Parliament with 35 other parties and independents having 40%. Moreover, the largest third party has a little over 4% of the seats and it and five others have more than 3% of them. I frankly cannot see how that can reasonably be claimed to be a "two or at most three party system" by any standard definition.
Originally posted by no1marauderA system where two parties dominate political discourse.
Please give your definition of a "two party system". You seem to be equating any system without proportional representation with a "two party system" making your assertion a tautology.
According to the link I gave, the two biggest parties have about 60% of the seats in Parliament with 35 other parties and independents having 40%. Moreover, t ...[text shortened]... sonably be claimed to be a "two or at most three party system" by any standard definition.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's certainly an empty enough cup to pour whatever you please into it.
A system where two parties dominate political discourse.
Are their any nations with proportional representation that have results as diverse as India's in their national parliamentary elections? That is the top 3 parties controlling less than 65% of the seats and 37 parties plus independents having representation.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe three main parties controlling 65% of seats in a huge, diverse and populous country such as India is indicative of the skewing power of FPTP systems. Even in a tiny country such as Finland, which has nowhere near the regional, cultural and religious diversity of India, the three biggest parties control less than 50% of the seats in parliament (although there are "only" 9 parties represented).
That's certainly an empty enough cup to pour whatever you please into it.
Are their any nations with proportional representation that have results as diverse as India's in their national parliamentary elections? That is the top 3 parties controlling less than 65% of the seats and 37 parties plus independents having representation.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraRubbish. According to wiki, the top three parties in the Finnish election of April 17, 2011 captured 62.5% of the seats and the top 4 80%.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_parliamentary_election,_2011
The three main parties controlling 65% of seats in a huge, diverse and populous country such as India is indicative of the skewing power of FPTP systems. Even in a tiny country such as Finland, which has nowhere near the regional, cultural and religious diversity of India, the three biggest parties control less than 50% of the seats in parliament (although there are "only" 9 parties represented).
Hard to see how that proves your assertion that countries without proportional representative must necessarily evolve into two party systems. In the last parliamentary election in Norway, a country you like to point to in other threads, the top three parties won 80% of the seats.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_parliamentary_election,_2009
Comparing the results to India, your claim seems at odds with reality.