Arachnivore said:
That's what the Electoral College is suposedly for. The Florida Supreme Court also reserves the right to apoint the president in extraneous situations. Jeez! why don't you learn a little about our electoral system before you go bashing it
To name the right of appointing presidents through courts in this case is a bit ridic.
Also, electoral college elections = direct elections. Semantics asides, it simple is.
Arachnivore said:
Isn't two "multiple"? I mean really, how many do you need? you're either for abortion or you're against it right? So just vote accordingly.
You have a twisted worldview there. Tell me, do you view aborting a rape victim child the same as aborting an unwanted 4th child in a normal marriage? Hmmm?
Johnny said:
I said performance first, mind you. I think voting for people based upon their individual merits rather then a silly party in a democratic system makes more sense then anything else.
Why? Personal merits are pretty fleeting compared to staunch party opinions. Reliability is stronger in party politics, I think, Bushy's recent stance on immigrants or Arabs ruling your ports being good examples of this.
Johhny-poo said:
The same happens in Rhineland models, so I don't know why we are arguing this. Do you think the SPD and Die Grüne would not have voted for the motion of confidence if Schroeder had asked them to? Same ddifference And Schroeder is as bad/worse then Bush.
I never said it didn't apply to Rhineland as much as it does the Electoral College, but that's neither here nor there. They're both pretty imperfect, and there are plenty of arguments against Rhinelandism.
Obligatory Russia remark said:
Yes, but Russians would really laugh at my pronounciation.
Ussiepussie! said:
No ccontrolled ideology for either party. Many different ideologies within each party. That is pretty much how it works, and how it should work, otherwise it would be back to the bad old pre-Progressive days, and those days WHERE undemocratic.
Where?
Explain to me, in a 10-page essay entitled "Political subtexts, a comparative study between the Rhineland and American Model" (subtitle; "pwning Kharn") what the essential difference between multiple parties and multiple ideologies within one party are? More on this later.
Glaskiepaskie! said:
That's certainly not the American system you are talking about right there.
e.g. "I'll talk to my congressman"?
Fireblade said:
Well the question I would ask in return is what is the purpose of democracy? I would ask how a consensus met between several political parties adequately represents the will of the people any more than a majoritarian system of government?
To your question, a question (cool, total Nameless One - Dak'kon vibe going on); do you think democracy is about representing the will of the people or the choice of the people?
One could argue democracy in America represents the will of the people in a kind of shoddy rough-hewn way.
And 2-party presidential elections aren't even the worst of it, from a choice point of view. I mean, seriously, what is the chance of a 3rd-party candidate becoming president anyway? Never happens! Well, it does in the Rhineland model, considering, because the dominant parties aren't always the same, but that's neither here nor there.
Rather.
2-party congressional/senate elections are a slap in the face of choice-driven democracies everywhere, though. The parties (Sieg Krieg!) determine the candidates, then all the voters can do is chose between one or the other.
Democracy? I think not. That's as silly as saying the US with its numerate ongoing human rights violations has any right to criticize the Human Rights Council.
Fireblade said:
Yet the point remains that politics precisely should be dynamic, representing viewpoints that change. You allow for parties to barter favor with one another; who in the end is accountable should the voters disagree with the government's policies? The blame gets spread in a whole mess among several parties, without precisely one party to identify as acting undemocratic.
Try being a bit more consistent, you're giving me a headache. There are two points in this paragraph that have little to do with one another.
Politics are by definition representing the viewpoint of the people, which generally tend to change. Sometimes the politicians are a bit more liberal than the people, sometimes a bit more conservative, but generally close enough to the viewpoint of the people. You see this in any democracy, even half-arsed ones like the USA, and moreso in Rhineland countries.
Or are you going to argue something like Pim Fortuin could have possibly happened in the USA? Hah! Don't make me laugh.
Secondly, I wish you people would drone up examples that sound more textbook than realistic. Practically, the Rhineland model does not operate through a lot of behind-closed-doors gathering with accountability going completely lost (though the European Union functions that way, but the EU is one of the most farcically undemocratic institutes of the world).
The entire government is responsible for general policy, so if the constituency disagrees with policies overall, generally the entire government gets punished (as can be seen in current polls in most Rhineland countries, where the popularity of the governments is pretty low, considering). If the problem is integration and this is the portfolio of one party (because, for all clarity, that's generally how it works, form a coalition and then divide portfolios), then that party specifically gets punished. Sometimes internal parties dissent, like on the recent Dutch decision to go to Afghanistan, and if it is a strong issue the government can tumble over it, which shows the people how the viewpoints differed and, importantly, that the party stood by its viewpoints (alternatively a party can just disagree, say so, take a punch in the face publically and slink off humiliated, like the small governmental party D66 on the Afghanistan issue. D66 is now projected to loose about 2/3 of their seats in the polls)
Fireblade said:
This one should be obvious. Fighting inside a party shakes up the party structure and allows factions to 'break ranks' and lend support to opposition parties on key issues? To maintain their power, the party has to either make concessions to those in its own ranks or else accept the resulting loss of influence.
And again, this differs from Rhineland models how? Y'know, generally, being in a government that dies from infighting doesn't do a party good in the people's eyes.
If you're going to keep calling your answers obvious, please make sure they're good answers.
Fireblade said:
The parties do not differ enough.
Thanks for the laugh. I'm not kidding or being snide. I laughed out loud when I read that.
Do you even realise what you're saying?
From a Rhineland perspective (and we follow American politics a LOT more closely than you follow Rhineland politics, this I can guarantee you), the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is close to nihil. Two of our current governmental parties (the VVD and CDA) have drawn closer together over the past years. They're considered twin sisters, yet they're still significantly more different than the Democrats from the Republicans.
Note, not necessarily more different than left-leaning hippy Democrats from conservative warmonger Republicans, but nor do they need to be, as those factions are replaced by actual parties with internal structure, reliability and clearly, seperately stated objections and philosophies.
Fireblade said:
How can they when the resulting government is a mash of posts appointed by percentages? Why should a particular post (Ministry of Education for example) go to one party and not the other? Which position is more influential to bargain for in return for forming a coalition?
I can tell you don't actually follow the politics of any Rhineland country. But that's ok. I mean, why would you? I don't follow the politics of Canada (just a random example) much either.
Generally, each party has a tendency to focus on certain subjects and show itself of strong support of it. Especially smaller parties that are stable or slinking. For instance, the governmental party D66 has always strongly pushed for Governmental Renewal, and that's the ministrial post they've held all through this cabinet (not a big ministrial post, though).
More importantly, inherent of the Rhineland model is a stronger seperation of powers, good ol' Trias Politica. In effect this means that there's a head of the party and head of the fraction in the Second Chamber and a bunch of ministers in parliament...completely seperate. Isn't that wonderful?
"That never works!" you say.
True, most of the time the two work together beautifully. No wonder, they're of the same political party and share the same views.
Rather.
The people in the Second Chamber represent the views of their party, though, and the minister represent the views of their party *within the parliament*. This essential difference can lead to enormous fissures between the two. Some random examples:
18/19 May 1999: Night of Wiegel. Hans Wiegel, prominent member of the First Chamber, votes down a proposition made by the government that included his own party (the VVD). The proposition came from the D66, and he simple disagreed with it from a party viewpoint. Result; government disbanded.
Up to 3 february 2006: Boris Dittrich, former leader of the D66, argues against sending Dutch troops to Afghanistan, a proposal brought forth from the government including his party (Minister of Defence was not from his party, though). Result; Boris Dittrich resigns as head of his party, party's popularity (what was left of it) crumbles.
11 november 1925: Night of Kersten. Kersten (SGP), from the 2nd chamber, proposed an amendment to stop financing the emissaries to the Pope from the state budget. The governmental party CHU agreed with the amendment (that's to say, the chamber members voted in favour of it, it was not in the hands of the ministers) causing the catholic part of the government to resign. Result; government disbanded.
13-14 oktober 1966: Night of Schmelzer. Schmelzer (KVP) was not completely happy about his party ruling in government with socialists (PvdA) and nor were a lot of his party members and constituents. When Toxopeus of the VVD proposed a "motion to disband" (or as we call it "a motion of mistrust", beautiful name), he originally did not agree, but backpressure from the KVP forced him to apply his own similiar motion, against his own ministers. With support from non-governmental parties VVD and CHU it gained a majority. Result; government sent packing.
And these are just the three most famous examples (plus a recent one), the constant interplay between parliament and 2nd chamber ensures that the party can still carry out the viewpoints it got voted in for.
See, 't does work.
Fireblade said:
You know, because professional politicians obviously are attuned to the will of the people and all that. Silly me, for considering a democracy as only belonging to those who spend the obvious care and concern to nobly sacrifice themselves for the public. Instead of, say, people who are voted in and such. That would generally be more of an oligarchy, Kharn.
*snurk*
Yes, because professional politicians, people who dedicate their lives to their profession, people who from day one, rather than whimsically, decided to take up that profession which they consider to better the people, are obviously less worthy to take up political robes. No, it's better if it's some cock-sure businessman or upshot celebrity like in your time-honoured system, they're obviously much more trustable to do it for completely pure reasons.
Reminds me of that silly "you can't trust judges to make just decisions"-argument.
Also, you're not making any sense. You're talking as if being a professional politician and being voted in by the public are mutually exclusive...
Huh?
If people don't like or trust professional politicians, they'll not vote for them. Grrrduh!
Fireblade said:
By being shut out of the political process entirely in a system precisely designed to stifle any sort of dissident opinion? When the votes of people don't really *matter* because their party is making deals with other parties? When there is no real change or transition from one government to the next??? Again, that was a pretty obvious answer.
Again, your argument makes no sense.
Are you actually arguing that in a multi-party system there is less room for a dissident opinion than in the USA? Are you completely nuts? Rhineland model countries actually have communist and semi-fascist parties that are of importance and are or have been in the 1st and 2nd chamber at times, the semi-fascist party of Pim Fortuin even being in the government at one point. Because guess what? That's democracy! We don't like them, but they have the same right to partake in our political process as any party and actually have a chance of making it.
Now explain to me, please, where exactly a radical opinion like neigh-fascist or neigh-communist has the ability to spread its wings without being stiffled in the heigher heirarchy of America's political pyramid?
Also, please stop repreating that retarded "votes don't matter because parties make deals!"-argument. That's not how it works. Let me try 'n explain it, there is no one opinion that has absolute majority in our countries, nor is there in the USA. Apparently you think that having two presidents and thus two opinions to choose between is vastly superior to voting for a party that will then represent your views in proporiationate strength to the best of its abilities.
See, not every view has as much strength, not at all, so why should every view be represented proportionally? If a view has little strength, people will vote to back it and the view will be expressed. On a large percentage of law-propositions, its these small party-views that tip the balance, as the socialist SP balances the scales against the bigger VVD and manages to pass that nice pro-healthcare amendment, or viceversa. This way a fan of parties together represent the opinion on a single subject from their voters, rather than one big lump of a part having to represent all the views on all subjects, which is impossible.
Remember, too, that laws get ratified by the Second Chamber in this country, which includes all parties.
Rather.
People express their views and this gets funelled through into politics. That's actual democracy. Your position that somehow the American system in which you're forced to choose a view that is not yours
but hey at least it gets represented without watering it down is the better one seems a bit ridiculous to me.
[quote"Fireblade"]Yet the people involved are beholden to the constituents and are elected on a set schedule of years. If politician A is not voting according to how people want him to vote, he is removed from office. He doesn't cut a deal to be elected back into the coalition in another post. The head of state is responsible to a regionally representative body of people. The next election year, such a person is removed from office. The 'stagnation' doesn't last very long in the grand scheme of things. [/quote]
Yes, internal shuffling inside the party is obviously superior to people leaving the party they're not happy with and moving to another because...?
Fireblade said:
I think I have answered that. I don't dislike the Rhineland model, but I have to call to question what precisely is democratic about consensual democracy when the government itself remains essentially unchanged year after year?
Rich!
Seriously, how much experience do you actually have with Rhineland democracies?
Let's take a look at some Rhineland model cabinets to see if reality agrees with your viewpoint. To spare you I'll only go back to WW II, the Latin numbers represent number of cabinets. If it is too long, just glance at the last two as they immediatelly make your view null and void;
Gerbrandy I, II, III war-time cabinets. They were in London during the war, not exactly relevant.
Schermerhorn/Drees I emergency post-war cabinet. Appointed "by Royal Order" for cleaning up bad leftovers and rebuilding. Only lasted 'till next elections in '46.
Beel I another demissionar cabinet until reforming the constitution ni '48
Drees/Van Schaik I Left-leaning centrist government until '51
Drees I, II, III "Father Drees" ruled the country for a long time and was in these four cabinets responsible for reconstructing our country, partially through constructing the welfare state. Left PvdA ruled with VVD and Christians for the first two and only with Christians for the latter two, until '58.
Beel II purely Christian cabinet ruled for a short time until '59
De Quay I was the first long-term cabinet since WW II to rule without the "socialist" PvdA. Though it almost quit after a year over a social housing program, it sat for a long time, mostly known for its agressive stance towards the New-Guinea/Indonesia issue. They removed many strong left points of Drees, including his fixed wages-policies, and introduced some alternative forms of welfare (including a general welfare insurance for everyone). Until '63.
Marijnen I Same parties as the previous cabinet and much its successor. Started the now-controversial policy of bringing in workers from foreign countries to fill in the gaps of our blooming economy. Continued slow-paced building of welfare state. Until '65.
Cals I This short-lived, strongly left cabinet was disbanded over the Night of Schmelzer. Until '66, one of our shortest-sitting cabinets.
Zijlstra I Dull, Christian centralist government suprised everyone by disbanding pretty fast. '67
De Jong I Swing back to the right from Cals I and Zijlstra I, leftists got punished for their habit of making governments crumble. De Jong himself was often accused of being old-fashoined, but is now considered one of the best prime-ministers since WW II (Drees generally being considered the best). Until '71.
Biesheuvel I, II Cabinet with tagged-on followup when one of its parties left (one of our few minority cabinets, Biesheuvel II). Thought the cabinet resembled De Jong in makeup its policies had adapted to the constituency, with two revolutionary new policies; one of the "idea of profit" which basically meant citizens had to pay more for the welfare state, the other one being a swing towards European rather than Atlantean international politics. Until '73.
Den Uyl I A hefty nod back to the left with the liberal D66 and PvdA having a big overweight in this cabinet. This is considered one of the most extraordinary post-war cabinets, partially because it relied on a difficult understanding between the liberals and Christians which often led to strongly polarised politics, partially because it heralded in a new era of "how to do politics" and especially how politicians relate to citizens, tearing down many of the overly formal barriers. Until '77.
Van Agt I II III Van Agt I was one of our most right-wing cabinets, though PvdA was originally negotiated with (in what is the longest negotiation for a government yet at 208 days), before the Christians (CDA) and neo-conservative VVD joined hands under Van Agt (former vice-prime-minister under Den Uyl). VVD then had to be replaced because they did not have enough seats, making Van Agt II CDA-PvdA-D66, Van Agt III was CDA-D66. The first one, both parties being of one mind, lasted the full 4 years, the second one crumbled on the budget, the third one much the same. Until '82.
Lubbers I II III Twice CDA-VVD followed by one CDA-PvdA, these cabinets ruled during some tough period and mostly responded with centrist, conservative answers, even under PvdA. Generally known as conservative cabinets. Until '94
Kok I II A revolutionary cabinet for being the first one, ever, not to have a "Christian party" (understand this term lighty, currently the Christian party is just the most centrist party, not very Christian overal) in it, but rather a joining of hands of the free-thinking, liberal D66, the conservative right-wing VVD and the left-wing socialist PvdA. A revolutionary, strongly progressive party known even internationally for completely reforming the Dutch state; privatisation of phones, trains and postal works, the building of the cursed Betuwelijn, the disaster in Srebenica, the "legalisation" of euthanasia. Criticized harshly afterwards from the left because of its spending thrift and from the right because of its ignoring both the Graying and the immigration problem. Until 2002.
Balkenende I II Balkenende I is the most short-lived cabinet in Dutch history (lasting about 4 months), it included the radical semi-fascist party of Pim Fortuyn. Though Fortuyn himself had some good ideas, with his death the integrity of the party was gone and through it carried on his popularity to become the second-biggest party in the country, its lack of leadership led to infighting which eventually made the other two government parties fed up, and Balkenende I was disbanded. Reelections left Fortuyn's party with a handful of seats and they were replaced in the government with filler-party D66, which has been in a ridiculously underpowered position in this and the last Kok cabinets. Cabinet is known for swinging around the Europe-faced politics more towards the US, for staring down (thanks to Fortuyn) and finding ramshod solutions for the Greying and the immigration problem and, mostly, for being the most tight-fisted cabinet since the war, breaking down the welfare state in ways former right cabinets wouldn't have dreamed of.
welsh said:
I knew it was Hume's fault! The bastard. I'LL KILL HIM!
Oh wait, that wasn't the entire sentence?
welsh said:
This happens in both multiparty democracies as well as authoritarian states- where the leader is not so constrained by political parties but does need to maintain a coalition big enough to defeat any one of his rivals while he also keeps his rivals divided.
Theoretically, sure, but such infighting is oft defeated by the simple concept of democracy. Divide and conquer generally doesn't go over well to the electorate. Don't believe me? Well, I just mentioned the D66, a party that excelled at pointless infighting since two elections back (strongest since '98). What have its electoral results been as a result? 1994 - 24, 1998 - 18, 2002 - 7, 2003 - 6. It's now at 2 seats in the polls.
