Originally posted by KazetNagorraA stable country would be the opposite of a failed state:
Define "stable".
A failed state has several attributes. Common indicators include a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; sharp economic decline.
Originally posted by generalissimoI guess the Dutch government is stable by that definition.
A stable country would be the opposite of a failed state:
A failed state has several attributes. Common indicators include a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; sharp economic decline.
Originally posted by bill718We are already a multi-party system ... its just the Greens, the Libertarians and the Communist Party of America rarely get more then a few percentage points of support, if that. Perot's third party effort probably has done best in that arena
I think America will become a multiparty country in time. It's just a matter of when.😏
Originally posted by SMSBear716Oddly, the fastest growing "party" isn't a party at all. Unaffiliated voters are on the rise.
We are already a multi-party system ... its just the Greens, the Libertarians and the Communist Party of America rarely get more then a few percentage points of support, if that. Perot's third party effort probably has done best in that arena
These stats are a little old, but...
In recent years affiliation among the Democratic Party declined 8% from 1988 to 2004 and affiliation among the Republican Party declined 2%, unaffiliated voters increased 9%, from 16% of the electorate to 25% of the electorate. Also 41% of college undergraduates are self-identified unaffiliated voters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaffiliated_voter
Originally posted by SMSBear716Having several parties does not give you a multi-party system. You need a system whereby multiple parties can gain representation from a vote within a single jurisdiction, i.e. proportional representation. What we have is a two party system with several fringe parties. The losing 49% of the electorate in every jurisdiction get no representation.
We are already a multi-party system ... its just the Greens, the Libertarians and the Communist Party of America rarely get more then a few percentage points of support, if that. Perot's third party effort probably has done best in that arena
Originally posted by SMSBear716The difference is that in a multi-party system, parties with a few percentage points of support actually have power and representation. Also, people tend to vote more for small parties because they realize they aren't simply throwing away their vote and are not forced to choose a lesser of two evils, but the lesser of twenty evils.
We are already a multi-party system ... its just the Greens, the Libertarians and the Communist Party of America rarely get more then a few percentage points of support, if that. Perot's third party effort probably has done best in that arena