371
submitted 2 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

The filing itself is here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 72 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

When only 2 parties take turns ruling the country, the checks and balances don't really work well when stressed. Because the party that needs to be checked, control half the apparatus, and can disrupt large parts of the other half.

Countries with maybe 10+ parties in parlament like many European countries have, will never have a single party with control of half the apparatus responsible for the checks and balances.

This is a huge reason first past the post is bad for democracy, apart from also not representing the population as fairly as is possible with numerous parties of influence.

This problem permeates throughout the entirety of the system, including the judicial, where judges belong to one or the other party, enabling an imbalance with total control for one party in for instance the supreme court.
With a multi party system, a single party would NOT be able to take control in the way we have seen happen in USA, which obviously shouldn't be possible, and also doesn't help to prevent corruption.

[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

I would love to be able to vote for a true leftist party in America. They will never allow it though.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 34 points 2 months ago

Four states don't use first-past-the-post for legislative elections. In particular:

  • Alaska - uses a top-4 primary + ranked choice general
  • Maine - uses ranked choice voting
  • California & Washington - use top-two primaries (note: CA can be top-3 if there is a tie for 2nd place)

If a third party wanted to succeed, they would put significant resources into winning legislative and congressional seats in those places. I don't see any of them actually doing that though.

[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Why don’t more states abandon first-past-the-post?

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Massachusetts tried last time and the ballot initiative failed.

Rcv is "new and scary" peoples resistance to change will always make them shit on things they dont understand. The only solution is to have more of us then there are of them.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There were ads running against it and the arguments were nonsense, but there was nothing from the pro side. It was like they expected* the electorate to just know that it was better and didn't think a campaign was needed.

*Expected, not requested

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 months ago

Mostly because the progressives didn't control them in the early 1900s, so they don't have legislature-bypassing initiatives, and even in states where you do have that, it's expensive to get one through.

[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

So disappointing. I feel like things will never change.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 months ago

Political change tends to be like that — nothing at all for a long period when you don't have the power to act, and sudden rapid change when you do.

[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

It feels like we’re on the cusp of something big happening, for better or for worse.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Something worse probably and I am an optimist.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

On the upside they could change for the worse. Maybe instead of fair elections the chang is a god king

[-] Schadrach 2 points 2 months ago

Because the parties with the power don't want to, because it might cost them power.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

They're not designed to win, they're designed to offset whoever they're turned against.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Probably not, they have a nice cozy arrangement where they share the power. To allow multiple parties would mean to give that up, and most likely neither side is really interested in that.

[-] user134450@feddit.org 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?
I learned in school – not sure if this part is entirely accurate but its an interesting idea anyway – that this situation was precisely why there is a ~5% of votes, lower barrier for parties sending representatives in many modern European democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_threshold

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?

No I didn't, that's very interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_political_parties

What I don't get is, how Hitler managed to take control with that many parties? He should not have been in a position with power to do that?

[-] user134450@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Trying to remember what i learned in history here, i hope i get at least most of it right:

  • the political institutions of the Weimar republic were not as balanced and protected from interference as in other democracies
  • many parties were against the existence of the Weimar Republic
  • they differed a little in what they wanted instead though, ranging from reintroducing the monarchy with a few republican elements, to full fledged socialism
  • the difference between the parties made finding compromises very difficult and often resulted in stalemates in the legislative, because of missing checks this did not affect the executive as much though
  • especially the monarchists liked the idea of heaving a leader that can overrule the parliament if needed and so it was easy for Hitler to get them to agree that they would all be better off with him breaking the stalemate so to speak. So they formed a coalition
  • see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harzburg_Front
  • Those parties also had no qualms with banning other parties just because they disagreed on something, which Hitler was very happy to do, starting with the communists and ending with a complete ban on forming political parties after every serious contender was eliminated
[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Thanks that's a very nice summary.

especially the monarchists liked the idea of heaving a leader that can overrule the parliament
I especially noticed this as probably the key practical part in how it was possible.

It's interesting because I've always considered multiple parties to be an important way to protect democracy.
But I guess that ultimately it depends on the people being willing to protect it.
Still having 10 parties represented, makes for a better chance that minority views are represented. And I still believe it helps against corruption and strengthen democracy relative to only 2 parties.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Same way trump won the primary in 2016, everyone was disunited and a focused minority could overrule them all.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

No it's not the same, Trump is obvious, that's because of the 2 party system, and first past the post.
And people moronically believed Trump was a vote against the political establishment, and for the minimal state.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I mean the GOP primary, the others divided the vote and let him walk away with it.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Sorry my bad, yes that's actually a good point. 👍

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
371 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2849 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS