[mattyb]

Prompted by this quote from Spheric in the "WTF are the Chinese up to" thread :

It's just that the electoral college system obscures the actual democratic process and favors a purely bipartisan solution, making representation of the actual political spectrum impossible by eliminating any chance of coalition government (and thus minority participation).

What IS the democratic process? What IS democracy?

Once you have your definitions, please then have a look at how the Government in the UK is voted in, and please explain why it (probably) doesn't fit your democratic model.

EDIT : No insult of Spheric or his post was intended in the making of this thread.

[Waragainstsleep]

This may or may not be relevant but I think the UK needs to ditch the party system somehow.

We have several hundred people elected to run the country and solve its problems and they spend more time slagging each other off and blaming each other for problems than they do actually sitting down and taking care of them. Most problems don't need some randomly assigned Lord to mount an inquiry, just talk it through without trying to blame or embarrass your opposite number and chances are you'll come up with some solutions that won't cost millions of pounds before you even try to implement them.

The party system gives the outgoing party an actually incentive to f**k the country up before they leave so they can blame it on their opponents the second they get into office (assuming they haven't already f**ked it up enough already). Look how everyone is blaming Obama for the economic crisis which was really set in motion by Bush and Blair and the like.

And then there is the ridiculous system of whoever is in charge basically assigning cabinet jobs to their mates instead of the people best qualified to actually do them. So a few thousand people voted you to be their MP therefore you must be totally qualified to be in charge of the armed forces. Or the NHS. Or an entire countries education. I struggle to think of anything less logical than this.

Each post should have a list of requirements and recommended or relevant qualifications and the MP who is the closest match should do the job.
I see the point in having 'an opposition' to keep the leadership in check, so the public should vote for the leader of parliament and then either vote for another person to be devil's advocate or just appoint the runner up as someone to keep the prime minister in check. That way you can just have two idiots calling each other names and cracking jokes at the others expense while everyone else works together to get things done.

[mattyb]

Glad to see that this has provoked some rigorous debate. No wonder I try and stay out of the Pol/War Lounge.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Glad to see that this has provoked some rigorous debate. No wonder I try and stay out of the Pol/War Lounge.

Oh come on Matty - you know that the only true form of democracy is "Democrats aiiieeeee!" and "Republicans aiiieeeee!".

Some years back I attempt to start a movement whereby political parties would be banned and all the monkeys had to stand as independents (much like WAS is suggesting). Nobody was interested (presumably because if there's no "teams" to root for, it actually takes some thinking about the policies rather than tie colour).

[Chongo]

The US is a republic. Some people believe that pure democracy is nothing more that organised mob rule.

[ebuddy]

This reminds me of the Denmark thread. You can eliminate all political parties, call them whatever you want, or add two dozen more political parties and none of it would make a hill of beans difference. They'll still break down into primary alliances because they're people with agendas, opinions, and a finite number of ideas to choose from.

Conclusion: If everyone would just be something other than human beings, we'd get somewhere. Next...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This reminds me of the Denmark thread. You can eliminate all political parties, call them whatever you want, or add two dozen more political parties and none of it would make a hill of beans difference. They'll still break down into primary alliances because they're people with agendas, opinions, and a finite number of ideas to choose from.

You're missing the point that in a correctly configured system without parties, there'd be no whips or lobbyists... ...and people would be able to vote for policies, not tie colour. So those who dislike abortion but are against capital punishment would be able to vote with a free conscience.

Your representatives shouldn't be people with agendas, opinions and a finite number of ideas to choose from - your representatives should be completely empty people with no agendas, no opinions and however many ideas their employers (you!) come out with to choose from.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're missing the point that in a correctly configured system without parties, there'd be no whips or lobbyists... ...and people would be able to vote for policies, not tie colour. So those who dislike abortion but are against capital punishment would be able to vote with a free conscience.

Your representatives shouldn't be people with agendas, opinions and a finite number of ideas to choose from - your representatives should be completely empty people with no agendas, no opinions and however many ideas their employers (you!) come out with to choose from.

I think its ok to have personal agendas, you are then free to pick the candidate who most closely matches your own set. Its when you vote for one person because of their ideals and they get overruled by their party ideals.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're missing the point that in a correctly configured system without parties, there'd be no whips or lobbyists... ...and people would be able to vote for policies, not tie colour.

Really? People with similar ideas wouldn't try to join forces to get their way? Your view is very short-sighted. You can eliminate parties in name only. They'll still exist, as we quickly discovered at the founding of the United States. Even if, as in your fantasy, members of Congress were empty pod people reflecting public opinion you would still have political parties trying to marshal popular opinion in one direction or another.

Your representatives shouldn't be people with agendas, opinions and a finite number of ideas to choose from - your representatives should be completely empty people with no agendas, no opinions and however many ideas their employers (you!) come out with to choose from.

What you are describing would be something akin to direct democracy, if we simply got rid of the representatives. Which is a fine point of view, but has little to do with representative democracy.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Really? People with similar agendas wouldn't try to join forces to get their way? Your view is very short-sighted. You can eliminate parties in name only. They'll still exist, as we quickly discovered at the founding of the United States.

THAT'S FUNNY! It's exactly how it works in some other countries. I can't help it if you fatties think it doesn't work because you're so superbly long-sighted, now can I?

You carry on with your delusions.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

THAT'S FUNNY! It's exactly how it works in some other countries. I can't help it if you fatties think it doesn't work because you're so superbly long-sighted, now can I?

Can you provide a specific example of a democratic country where groups of people do not organize politically around common interests?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Can you provide a specific example of a democratic country where groups of people do not organize politically around common interests?

Switzerland?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Can you provide a specific example of a democratic country where groups of people do not organize politically around common interests?

Can I? Yes.
Am I going to? No.

It's just not that hard dude. But you're so US-centric (and long-sighted :guffaw: ) that it's not worth talking to you about politics. You carry on in your own little Washington DC bubble.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Can I? Yes.
Am I going to? No.

It's just not that hard dude. But you're so US-centric (and long-sighted :guffaw: ) that it's not worth talking to you about politics. You carry on in your own little Washington DC bubble.

Your schtick is tiresome. Put up or shut up. You're the one always complaining that no one in here wants to have a real "conversation," yet whenever someone challenges your opinion you retreat to your standard "I'm not going to do your work for you" line and your petty anti-Americanisms. I'm honestly curious, because I don't understand how what you are describing can exist, given individuals' free association. Please, educate me.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Switzerland?

List of political parties in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Your schtick is tiresome. Put up or shut up. You're the one always complaining that no one in here wants to have a real "conversation," yet whenever someone challenges your opinion you retreat to your standard "I'm not going to do your work for you" line

So you managed to google for a list of political parties in Switzerland, but not this?

I mention a way of doing things, you immediately go on the offensive with "you're short-sighted". I put it to you that you're the short sighted one, combined with an arrogance that makes you think you somehow know what you're talking about. Who the f do you think you're talking to? Silly little boy.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm honestly curious, because I don't understand how what you are describing can exist, given individuals' free association.

It's real easy. Make a law prohibiting free association in representatives, and put in place checks and balances to make sure that the system is working correctly.

See, you can't get your head past your American way of doing things. You think I'm coming out with "petty anti-Americanisms" simply to distract, when in fact I'm saying right now that you're ill-equipped to deal with common sense and practical politics because you're an American living in DC. You automatically assume that because your idiotic country and its idiotic founders "found out" about something, the rest of the world can't do things differently. You can't see that, 'coz your head is up your own arse, wrapped in your flag.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

List of political parties in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most other countries have more than two options, on a federal level the USA doesn't. You named the Swiss, there appears to be four there that a person can choose from. Here we have shit and shittier. You have to hold your nose in the voting booth when you select one and the process makes you feel dirty for years.

Hell, even GB has three, four if you count the Greenies.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's real easy. Make a law prohibiting free association in representatives

I suspected it would be something like that. I count myself among most who probably think that is antithetical to the purpose of democratic government in the first place. It smacks of burning the village in order to save it.

Has this been tried somewhere with success?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So you managed to google for a list of political parties in Switzerland, but not this?

I mention a way of doing things, you immediately go on the offensive with "you're short-sighted". I put it to you that you're the short sighted one, combined with an arrogance that makes you think you somehow know what you're talking about. Who the f do you think you're talking to? Silly little boy.
...

See, you can't get your head past your American way of doing things. You think I'm coming out with "petty anti-Americanisms" simply to distract, when in fact I'm saying right now that you're ill-equipped to deal with common sense and practical politics because you're an American living in DC. You automatically assume that because your idiotic country and its idiotic founders "found out" about something, the rest of the world can't do things differently. You can't see that, 'coz your head is up your own arse, wrapped in your flag.

Who do I think I'm talking to? I think I'm a guy named SpaceMonkey talking to someone named Doofy on an internet message board. Are you really playing the "you're being mean" card here? Famous Uncle Doofy, renowned for his "I don't give a piss" attitude on all things internetz? Give me a break. That said, calling you "short-sighted" was not meant to ruffle your feathers in the way you are describing, and I apologize if you took it that way. If you called my opinion about something short-sighted, I would not take it to be a personal slight. Rather, it's a statement about where I found your view lacking because it ignored the long-term ramifications of what you are describing.

I mentioned the United States' history not to wrap myself in the flag ("guffaw") but because the notion of the evil of political parties was famously a part of this country's early history, and it's instructive to see how that turned out. I'm not having trouble getting my head past the "American way of doing things." I'm having trouble getting my head around the human nature way of doing things, hence my asking for your providing an alternative example.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Most other countries have more than two options, on a federal level the USA doesn't. You named the Swiss, there appears to be four there that a person can choose from. Here we have shit and shittier. You have to hold your nose in the voting booth when you select one and the process makes you feel dirty for years.

Hell, even GB has three, four if you count the Greenies.

I wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. move in that direction, although of course coalition governments have their own problems.

[Waragainstsleep]

Our political parties waste just as much time having a go at each other as yours, its just that if you ignore them for a decade or so there is a chance they'll completely trade places as far as policies go. Not much danger of your two doing that.

[Chongo]

I wonder how Obama or any POTUS would fare if he had to do a weekly "President's Questions" as does the UK's PM.

[Waragainstsleep]

Better than Bush would have.

[Chongo]

No teleprompters allowed. (or David Axelrod)

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

What IS the democratic process? What IS democracy?

The democratic process is a process where the largest most powerful special interest groups give tons of money to the people who agree to do favors for them regardless of how much harm it will do to the nation. The special interests give resources to the politicians to make sure their name is plastered everywhere. The special interests spend millions defaming all competition of their chosen one yet make sure mostly good stuff is said about their chosen one. Special interests create a culture of voters by telling everyone if they dont vote they are unpatriotic. Most people don't want to be political and dont know anything about politics so this creates a system where the special interests can easily brainwash and control the voting population of big stupid.

The system in the US, if it can be called a democracy is a huge failure. It might work better to have a some kind of hybrid between a republic and multiple monarchs system where the monarchs are unbribably rich. It makes little sense to me that 1 man (the president or whatever) can control so much when he's not an expert in many fields.

[el chupacabra]

eee

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

... it actually takes some thinking about the policies rather than tie colour).

This is the biggest reason for our political landscape: voters don't want to have to think about policies and candidates don't want to have to think up policies. It's far simpler for all involved to have polarized positions: voters don't have to think and candidates don't have to think.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This reminds me of the Denmark thread. You can eliminate all political parties, call them whatever you want, or add two dozen more political parties and none of it would make a hill of beans difference. They'll still break down into primary alliances because they're people with agendas, opinions, and a finite number of ideas to choose from.

Conclusion: If everyone would just be something other than human beings, we'd get somewhere. Next...

Exactly.

Politicians themselves must laugh at how naive people are to think that just changing the banner under which they align and operate for mostly SELF-INTEREST will change how they align and operate.

The best thing opposing parties serve is that one has a vested interest in exposing the wrongdoing of the other. It's the ONLY reason we even know half the shit the psychos are up to.

Other political systems just fool the people into thinking the same sort of self-interest-serving wasteful nonsense doesn't happen (as if human nature just changes itself magically based on borders) when the reality is it's just covered up and kept hidden to whatever extent there's no political gain in exposing it in an opposing party.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Can you provide a specific example of a democratic country where groups of people do not organize politically around common interests?

No because none of them are realistic models for any country with a population greater than a small community in Wyoming, an island dependency (which is awesome if you own a helicopter and don't mind an economy entirely dependent upon someone else's party-system), an absolute monarchy (of course, parties are banned in these along with freedom of religion, speech, etc.), or countries like Pakistan which are as you mention; a nation of alliances often referred to as parties because... they are.

I suppose you could say there are plenty of examples, but they all suck real bad at making an argument. Call 'em tribes and replace their coloured ties with headdresses if you want, they're still blocs of people bickering over competing interests because that's what people do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Exactly.
Politicians themselves must laugh at how naive people are to think that just changing the banner under which they align and operate for mostly SELF-INTEREST will change how they align and operate.

Thank you sir. Yeah, something akin to Ahmadinejad claiming there are no homosexuals in Iran. It seems no one's idea of nirvana actually exists, but it makes for a good argument as long as you avoid details.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This is the biggest reason for our political landscape: voters don't want to have to think about policies and candidates don't want to have to think up policies. It's far simpler for all involved to have polarized positions: voters don't have to think and candidates don't have to think.

Annnd this is the problem.

"My grandad voted Labour, and my dad voted Labour, so I'm going to vote Labour. We're a working class family so we vote Labour"... ...legacy voters.

And in my opinion, people who can't be arsed to think about policies shouldn't have a vote. It's precisely because of voters not thinking about policies that the world is in the financial mess it's in at the moment.

A democratic system with no parties can exist, with the appropriate laws and systems in place (ancient Greece, who invented democracy had no political parties. Democracy was supposed to be without parties). Like I said, you guys can't see it because you're trapped in the current way of doing things.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

A democratic system with no parties can exist, with the appropriate laws and systems in place (ancient Greece, who invented democracy had no political parties. Democracy was supposed to be without parties). Like I said, you guys can't see it because you're trapped in the current way of doing things.

I can see it. I aim for it every time I vote in an election, voting for the candidate rather than the party. I fear, however, that there will be much resistance from career politicians to move toward a No Party system and much apathy from voters on the topic.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're missing the point that in a correctly configured system without parties, there'd be no whips or lobbyists... ...and people would be able to vote for policies, not tie colour. So those who dislike abortion but are against capital punishment would be able to vote with a free conscience.

I'm just going right at the core of human nature Doofy. Ancient Greece is ancient for a reason. It's collective and culture was fractured by mountains and sea and would eventually grow from small communes into cities and alliances. If you're not growing, you're dying. Common interests combine people into larger communities that eventually face competing interests. For human nature there is strength in numbers and no entity worthy of a common defense would do without alliances.

Your representatives shouldn't be people with agendas, opinions and a finite number of ideas to choose from - your representatives should be completely empty people with no agendas, no opinions and however many ideas their employers (you!) come out with to choose from.

I think my representatives should simply be purveyors of a very tiny, very limited government because at the end of the day there is no such thing as a human being without agendas and opinions. The more power you grant them the less your ideas matter and the more their ideas are thrust upon you through late-night legislative sessions. In short, no community larger than a small county in Wyoming would be capable of voting exclusively for ideas without civil unrest. That's why the only models one could use to support this ideal are either ancient civilizations that would grow beyond their ability to maintain such a system, those regions wrought with civil unrest, island dependencies existing through handouts from someone else's party-system, or small communes the size of a town in Wyoming.

Then you're left with "correctly configured" which IMO could only mean genetically modified to be something other than mankind.

[Doofy]

You have a very negative take on this ebuddy.

It's human nature to kill someone who's slept with your wife or raped your child. But somehow we manage to have laws preventing that. Why not this?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You have a very negative take on this ebuddy.

Maybe so, but of course I'd see it as realistic.

It's human nature to kill someone who's slept with your wife or raped your child. But somehow we manage to have laws preventing that. Why not this?

Because time and again it has been proven that laws and policies don't apply to those in power. Parties and alliances are a symptom of a much larger phenomena that simply eliminating them won't address IMO. The power should be checked and limited first, the resultant policies will follow. Your first example isn't a situation that generally leads to murder and your latter example is considered much more horrific than a corrupt politician. Either way, I'd be willing to bet the mental state of the subject in these examples has far more bearing on their behaviors than laws crafted to engineer them. And then there are legal defenses for those with the improper mental state.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... they're still blocs of people bickering over competing interests because that's what people do.

I don't think doofy is saying to just make a law banning parties. Of course alliances will form on issues; that's not the problem. The system we have now isn't just a matter of allying on issues; it's superficially designed to appeal to the retarded mentality of the masses. i.e.. Which party do I choose if I want: lower taxes, less government, no federal subsidies, more personal responsibility, less regulation, more free market... but, less military, less focus on unnatural economic growth² , more environmental protection, more policing of large corporations (like oil), less policing of small business who can't possibly have as negative an impact as large corporations. Oh and all the funding we put into social programs I'd like to dedicate to quantum physics research. With that amount of money we could develop interstellar space travel in 5 minutes and have an infinite amount of planets to rape for their resources. There isn't a party for that. We have 2 parties; 2 sides to govern 300,000,000 people.

You see with our 2 "alliance" system we don't' get any choice to ally on various subjects. Instead we are forced to pick a side on issues based on who our alliance is with.

Perhaps it's time to have the next evolutionary stage of government rather than just sit around and say "that's the way it is and it can't be changed". It's not that hard. We can start by eliminating the d & R from the process making it harder for people to just pick an issue based on party. Then limit the amount of pages a bill can be so they can't hide things you disagree with in with the things you do agree with.

[mattyb]

I actually put forward Switzerland because of the referendums they have, not because of their political parties. Guess I wasn't being clear.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I don't think doofy is saying to just make a law banning parties. Of course alliances will form on issues; that's not the problem. The system we have now isn't just a matter of allying on issues; it's superficially designed to appeal to the retarded mentality of the masses.

Eesh, people think I'm cynical. They're just spoiled and distracted, el chupacabra. Not mentally retarded. They've grown quite comfortable under a fallaciously prosperous environment to be sure and this makes them less apt to vote for policies that would challenge their status quo. Chances are pretty good your own neighbor disagrees with at least half the ideas you've presented above. How would your preferred system manage the prevailing mentally retarded if not by ultimately controlling it anyway?

What you see in systems that are removed and forced to start from scratch is the next, most organized element in line stepping up. IMO there's way too much focus on symptoms that rinse and repeat with systems. Look, we can focus on removing the party platform or we can focus on the fundamental problem causing it; centralization on an increasingly large scale. You're right, alliances aren't the problem. In fact, most will forgive certain differences in representatives for what they view are larger issues. It wouldn't matter what you called them, didn't call them, or what policy came to you for a vote, they'd still have to administer your preferences. The larger their scale, the larger the issue, and the more at stake. If I have to vote for a red tie wearing, (R) who is under pressure from a large constituency to absolutely begin limiting the size and scope of government, so be it. If I can't get this, I'm sure as hell not going to get any closer to removing the party system. The root problem is the number of those under the system. The obligations move from family and community to national and massive. The examples I gave that come closest to resembling what is being proposed as the preferred model here are either very tiny, very remote, very dependent on another's system, or very unfree. I'll take very tiny for $500.

i.e.. Which party do I choose if I want: lower taxes, less government, no federal subsidies, more personal responsibility, less regulation, more free market... but, less military, less focus on unnatural economic growth² , more environmental protection, more policing of large corporations (like oil), less policing of small business who can't possibly have as negative an impact as large corporations.

Oh and all the funding we put into social programs I'd like to dedicate to quantum physics research. With that amount of money we could develop interstellar space travel in 5 minutes and have an infinite amount of planets to rape for their resources. There isn't a party for that. We have 2 parties; 2 sides to govern 300,000,000 people.

You see with our 2 "alliance" system we don't' get any choice to ally on various subjects. Instead we are forced to pick a side on issues based on who our alliance is with.

Perhaps it's time to have the next evolutionary stage of government rather than just sit around and say "that's the way it is and it can't be changed". It's not that hard. We can start by eliminating the d & R from the process making it harder for people to just pick an issue based on party. Then limit the amount of pages a bill can be so they can't hide things you disagree with in with the things you do agree with.

You mean, how do you get absolutely everything you want? You don't. Nobody does. This is an unfortunate byproduct of human nature. The reason this forum exists is because people disagree with you. The more this forum grows, the more people that will disagree with you. People who generally agree with you aren't going to let you get lambasted by those who don't and they may not engage you when they do disagree. Particularly when they're supporting what you consider greater issues. A party is born.

Forget Republicans or Democrats, you either want a larger forum or a more manageable forum.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mean, how do you get absolutely everything you want? You don't. Nobody does.

I didn't read it like that at all.

It's how do you voice everything that you want to voice without also having to voice positively for something you're against?

And yes, mentally retarded. Look who you're got as prez. And look who the opposition is going to run against him. Half of you will vote for an idiot... ...And the other half will vote for another idiot.

Is there any reason that the Swiss system (but without parties) wouldn't work?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And yes, mentally retarded. Look who you're got as prez. And look who the opposition is going to run against him. Half of you will vote for an idiot... ...And the other half will vote for another idiot.

Actually, *half* won't even vote at all!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I didn't read it like that at all.

It's how do you voice everything that you want to voice without also having to voice positively for something you're against?

I have no problem foregoing the lesser issues that likely won't arrive at my dinner table to arrive at what I consider are larger issues; what I maintain is the root cause. This would be no different than a system that manages policies exclusively. On scales as large as those we're discussing, the arbiters are necessary and the administrators inevitable. We have to shrink the scale before talk of anything else IMO. This is the only policy I'm willing to consider at my dinner table because I believe it is at the core of systemic folly.

And yes, mentally retarded. Look who you're got as prez. And look who the opposition is going to run against him. Half of you will vote for an idiot... ...And the other half will vote for another idiot.

I believe the most oppressive systems known to mankind were founded on the notion that the masses are mentally retarded and must be controlled. I think we simply have a government that is trying to do too much, for too many and that when left to our own devices to a greater degree, we could perform much more effectively.

Is there any reason that the Swiss system (but without parties) wouldn't work?

Why does Switzerland; a country with a population of just 7 million, have parties? Otherwise sure, but you have to whittle a large population down into smaller autonomous communes or cantons and relinquish the powers of the centralized authority. You also have to be flanked by party-systems that will assume a greater portion of your defense should someone else become interested in your prosperity and take up residence at their borders. In other words, Switzerland has managed to thrive in spite of a four-party system, but even in its geographically and historically unique situation; as the centralized authority continues to grow and as their society becomes increasingly dependent upon not only foreign commerce, but of their own centralized authority, it will succumb to the same problems as the party environments that flank it. Even under the swiss model, to garner the number of necessary signatures for the repeal of parliamentary-initiated policies in the short time allotted, you need organization en masse. A party is born.