What is everyones opinion on a Multi Party System?

I think our current Bi-Partisan system causes a lot of problems and groups too many different ideologies into two broad parties. Often times it turns the political landscape into a Black v White (Republican v Democrat) environment.

I think a Multi party system would also create more accountability of elected officials within there own party due to increased competition in elections.

6/19/2007 2:54:03 PM

Definitely for it, but don't see it happening

6/19/2007 2:54:58 PM

totally agree that it should be multi party.......I think campaign reform is long overdue at every level.

6/19/2007 3:00:56 PM

What is your favorite mechanism for enabling a multi-party system?

My favorite is an instant run-off system, where-by voters select their 1st and 2nd preference. I know it suffers a problem of sometimes the results not responding coherently to changes in preferences, but I still like it.

6/19/2007 3:01:16 PM

I also think bi-partisan politics tend to hurt moderate candidates

Quote :

"What is your favorite mechanism for enabling a multi-party system? "

I favor Proportional Representation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_Representation

I STRONGLY support this when it comes to voting for president even if the electoral college is not eliminated. I think the presidential candidate should receive the ratio of a states electoral votes v. a "all or nothing."

This would give the people more direct influence on the presidential election and would benefit both parties even in our two party system. Also, more people would actually show up to vote and participate in democracy that we like to say we value so high.
Just think about it:

There is no point of me waiting in line if I want to vote Democrat in a "Red State" like NC, MS, or OK. Republicans win by an overwhelming majority.
On the flip side Republicans would have less to worry with big states like NY and CA throwing in such a hard hit if the conservative candidates there had weight in the distribution of the electoral votes.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 3:11 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 3:12 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 3:13 PM. Reason : l]

6/19/2007 3:01:29 PM

what sort of reform? publicly-funded campaigns or what?

6/19/2007 3:01:33 PM

Quote :

"publicly-funded campaigns"

I think that would go a long way, yes. As it is now if you're not one of the 3 leading donation getters for one of the two main parties, you don't have a chance. And the donations are largely from special interest groups that expect something in return if their person gets elected.....starting off on the wrong foot even before getting elected.

I think party affiliations should be abolished for the purpose of classification for elections. All candidates could follow a process similar to that of how an independent gets his name on the ballot.....prove you have x amount of support, and you're in for a general election. top 2 or 3 from the general election into a runoff for the presidency. this way there is no need for primaries, so the general election could just take the place of primaries.

I'm also a big fan of the way the vice presidency used to be decided, simply the first loser of the presidential election is the vice president.

6/19/2007 3:16:46 PM

Sounds good. Let's try coalition governments for a while--how much worse could it be?

6/19/2007 3:17:24 PM

Quote :

""publicly-funded campaigns""

government-funded campaigns. all debates, etc on cspan. NO corporate donations allowed, NO special interest group donations allowed, NO religious donations allowed, ONLY personal contributions allowed (possibly, and even then, capped)

ads are only to involve the candidates themselves. they should be allowed to discredit their opponents but only with factual evidence.

each candidate gets EQUAL time to answer any and all questions in debates. each candidate gets a chance to answer EACH question

6/19/2007 5:54:40 PM

Limiting it to individuals could be nice, but how many people here have actually individually given to a campaign?
(a question asked here)
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=469264

That said I like the idea of making it more individuals than large special interest groups.

6/19/2007 6:33:36 PM

We need more options and better access for common citizens, who actually want to help and not more concerned with getting reelected, to run for office. Right now its just too damn expensive.

6/19/2007 9:09:04 PM

^ less than 50% of the common citizens take the time to vote. even less of those voters don't research. nearly all of them will only pay attention to the party they are affiliated with instead of tryin to get teh best candidate overall, they look for the best in their party

6/19/2007 11:26:29 PM

It could only be better than what we currently have.

6/19/2007 11:30:20 PM

Perhaps a hybrid approach like Japan where you have about two thirds of the Congress made up of districts and then the other third by proportional representation? I believe each individual casts two votes each election: one for a candidate and one for a party. The candidate vote goes for that district's candidate elected by plurality, and the party one goes towards the proportional pool.

So for example, North Carolina could have eight of their representatives elected by district (to maintain some local flavor in the delegation, perhaps forcing districts to contain whole counties to reduce gerrymandering) and then have the other five elected by proportional representation (I can see maybe two Republicans, two Democrats, and a Libertarian).

6/20/2007 2:14:43 AM

France has a good system. Anybody who followed the recent elections probably knows how it works.

6/20/2007 2:30:26 AM

^^ When did they come up with that? It is indeed creative.

6/20/2007 8:58:14 AM

^^^ Explicitly disallowed currently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_ticket

6/20/2007 9:30:19 AM

Quote :

"our current Bi-Partisan system causes a lot of problems and groups too many different ideologies into two broad parties."

Quote :

"a Multi party system would also create more accountability of elected officials within there own party"

Quote :

"campaign reform is long overdue at every level"

Quote :

"bi-partisan politics tend to hurt moderate candidates"

Quote :

"how much worse could [a multi party system] be"

Quote :

"[a multi party system] could only be better than what we currently have."

hear hear.


Not that I believe in "conspiracies", but if there are, isn't it quite obvious that the 2-party so-called "democracy" is a part of it, somehow.....at least passively?

Does anyone actually believe that our "democracy" is ANYTHING CLOSE to real democracy?
(whatever that is....)


Authorities of all kinds have always used the "two-faced" approach (good cop-bad cop, mom-dad, etc.) to create the illusion of fairness or democracy, when in fact, both apparently opposing sides really support the same general policy. This common policy never gets debated--it is immune from democracy. It is autocratic.



The most important political issues are the ones on which the "left" and the "right" both share the same position, whether in agreement or disagreement










As for fixes: I'm not sure what would be best, except to say that it should not be polarized at all.
(IOW, no runoffs aimed at reducing the field to only 2 candidates. Even 3 candidates is too few.)


I think that ranking is the most accurate way to vote, but it is difficult. (People are stupid.)

Ideally simple, and remarkably effective is the approval vote, where every voter simply indicates whether or not they approve of each candidate.

The most approved candidate, regardless of party, wins.
It's as close to perfect as you can get.
It would certainly reduce mudslinging.


Funding:
I am very much on the fence here.
The current system obviously needs to change, but publicly funded campaigns would inevitably create new problems, in some cases worse than ones it fixed.

Here's an idea I just now thought up:
A rising tide lifts all ships.
Get it?
It's the best from both worlds:
Instead of focusing on large lists of rules regarding who can donate what and under what circumstances, have a system where every candidate for a particular office puts their campaign moneys into THE SAME pool. All of the candidates for that particular office then equally share the money. This way, if one candidate gets millions from their rich buddies or brainwashed sheep, they must split it up amongst themselves and their opponents. (Somehow, it would need to take into consideration that candidates begin their campaigns on different dates…)

6/25/2007 7:35:26 AM

From that you would suffer a free-rider problem. It would quickly reach a point where no one was contributing anything; you might as well just ban all campaign spending.

6/25/2007 11:49:25 AM

multi party systems get less done than what we have currently.... that's their biggest draw back

6/26/2007 12:39:26 AM