Our many Parties Vs the US/UK system of two big partys

Dub13

I dont want to get into to much detail,I have been thinking about this for a while.Now we by no means have the best system but I have to say I prefer the wider choice we have...I mean in real terms any one of many partys here could be in Gov anyone from FF,FG,PD,Labour,Greens,Ind and of course SF.

The point I am making is I like the way we have a wide choice than lets say the UK or the US were its ether Labour or the Conservatives ( I no the Lib Dem but they dont even no were they stand) or in the US its ether the Republican's or the Democrat's.It does not seam like they get a good choice they could never realy swing to the left or the right.What do you lot think.

BlitzKrieg

the problem most countries see with our system is the Wiemer example. Coalitions have always been considered weak and it was such democracies (like ours) that collapsed in both Italy and Germany under the heel of Fascism.


I agree i like coalitions, but Ireland seems to be an exception in that we get our coalitions to work. But in Parties ireland has always been an exception. We are the country with the least left/right agressions in europes history, and maybe even the world. While everyone else divided their parties on their social standings (liberal, conservative etc) We divided ours on history (Pro-treaty, anti-treaty, pro-unification, anti-unification) So while the rest of europe in 1930s were having communist, fascist street fights, we had pro-treaty (Cumann Na Ngadheal/Blueshirts) and anti-treaty (Fianna Fail/IRA) streetfights. And despite the common belief that the Blueshirts were Fascist they were'nt really, they just used the popular image of the time.

The mentality of history has stuck with irish politics, talk to people about sinn fein and its not their socialist policies that are discussed, but their links and history with the IRA. Fianna Fail is always looked in a positive light because of their links with Irish freedom and De Valera.


So Coalitions for some bizarre reason seems to work here. Also our voting system is very different to the British 'first past the pole' and allows smaller parties to gain power alot easier then in Britain. I'm not 100% on the American voting system but i'm pretty sure its the same as Britain.


On the British and American system. Well the American system is only 2 party which i agree looks stupid but the american public hold no demand for more choice in the party system (in all fairness there is no left or right in america, just centre right (center) ] and the media in america have made anything left out to be some sort of stalinist regime.

The idea though I THINK is that the two parties would gain different positions in the federal government, so even if there is a federal president there would be a group of democrats somewhere along the line to keep federals in check.



On England...the first past the pole and the fact that the british mentality of 'not wasting my vote' which i have seen alot of, denies any other party power apart from the major ones. I have seen too many studants simply shrug and state that to vote for a smaller party is throwing your vote away...

Dub13

You are right,I remember not long ago somebody from Labour was going on about Ireland being different he went on to say that in Ireland many people vote for the same parties that there father/grandfather voted for.The point he was trying to make was that the Irish Laour party has lost out on many so called "working class voters" due to this fact.I think he had a fair point,many working class areas still return some FF/FG TDs.

You can also see this in the North,which has some of the poorest areas in Europe yet has no real Left wing Parties.

BlitzKrieg

wow...that was the quickest and easiest post to get an agreement on...meh i must be getting better...

PBC_1966

Originally posted by BlitzKrieg
On England...the first past the pole and the fact that the british mentality of 'not wasting my vote' which i have seen alot of, denies any other party power apart from the major ones. I have seen too many studants simply shrug and state that to vote for a smaller party is throwing your vote away...

Yes, there are many people here who seem to take that stance. I guess it's something of a vicious circle: Many people will be reluctant to vote for one of the smaller parties until they see them getting a greater share of the votes, but that won't happen until more people vote for them.....

You can be sure I won't be voting either Conservative or Labour in a few days' time.

arcadegame2004

I also like our system, although I had some doubts in 1994 when Labour cynically crossed the floor to form a Rainbow Coalition Government with FG without us getting the chance to give our verdict in a General Election. If I were to change it, then maybe I would make it compulsory for a General Election to be called if a government loses a confidence-vote in the Dail. I still feel that what Labour did in 1994 was fundamentally undemocratic. I fully respect their right to decide as an autonomous political party whether to stay in a Coalition with another party/parties. But when a Government falls, the people should get the chance to immediately give their verdict on the issue.

Another problem I have with our system is the way in which the lower-preferences are not fully counted. Instead, a sample of them is taken. Hopefully, a future electronic-voting system will rectify that problem.

Otherwise, everything is hunkey-dorey. I like seeing FF forced to implement PD policies.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I also like our system, although I had some doubts in 1994 when Labour cynically crossed the floor to form a Rainbow Coalition Government with FG without us getting the chance to give our verdict in a General Election.

We did give our verdict in a general election. We don't vote for a government, we vote for individuals to fill seats. The elected individuals then form a government as they see fit.

If I were to change it, then maybe I would make it compulsory for a General Election to be called if a government loses a confidence-vote in the Dail.

Why? It would be unnecessary and expensive. If the sitting deputies can form a government, then let them.

I still feel that what Labour did in 1994 was fundamentally undemocratic.

Only if they were elected on the basis that they wouldn't form such a coalition.

I fully respect their right to decide as an autonomous political party whether to stay in a Coalition with another party/parties. But when a Government falls, the people should get the chance to immediately give their verdict on the issue.

Why?

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by OscarBravo
Why

Because the new Rainbow government derived its majority primarily because of by-elections since 1992. And you and I know that people often vote in by-elections for different motivations than in General Elections. They tend to vote as a protest against some local issue like hospitals etc. in by-elections. As such they are electing people not on the basis that the elected persons will become part of a Government.

As such, I feel that Labour abused its position in 1994 by forming a Government on the basis of a majority obtained only on the basis of FG and others opposing the FF-Labour Coalition, and possibly only on local-issues.

Only a General Election should determine the shape of a Government. Not by-elections.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Because the new Rainbow government derived its majority primarily because of by-elections since 1992. And you and I know that people often vote in by-elections for different motivations than in General Elections.

I'm not sure what you know, but I don't know what motivates other people to vote. Me? I vote for the candidate(s) I think are best qualified to do the job - whether it's a general- or a by-election.

They tend to vote as a protest against some local issue like hospitals etc. in by-elections.

Do you need reminding that people have been elected on local issues like TV deflectors in general elections?

As such they are electing people not on the basis that the elected persons will become part of a Government.

Once again, voting in an election is designed to fill a seat, not to create a government - whether it's a general- or a by-election.

As such, I feel that Labour abused its position in 1994 by forming a Government on the basis of a majority obtained only on the basis of FG and others opposing the FF-Labour Coalition, and possibly only on local-issues.

Labour formed a government on the basis of having (in coalition) a Dáil majority. That's how it works.

Only a General Election should determine the shape of a Government. Not by-elections.

So why have by-elections? What if the winning by-election candidate is a member of a governing party - should there be a mechanism for discounting the government's majority?

You're not making sense.

AngelofFire

A multiplicity of parties takes more people`s views in to consideration, In england they lump the electorate into two different categories, labour supporters and conservatives.In america its even worse they have to choose between a centre right party and a right of centre party Republicans and Democrats respectively.

The only thing that bothers me about the PR system is parties that are only supported by about 4% of the electorate can get into power e.g. the PDs and punch above their weight and force their profit before people policies on everybody.

Victor

Originally posted by BlitzKrieg
Well the American system is only 2 party

Well 2 parties that get 96% of the vote and about 9 others that get 4%.

bonkey

Originally posted by AngelofFire
The only thing that bothers me about the PR system is parties that are only supported by about 4% of the electorate can get into power e.g. the PDs and punch above their weight and force their profit before people policies on everybody.

But thats not a flaw of PR at all. Its a basic flaw in party-driven democracy.

Look at Irish history - when we had Irish representatives in the English government. Despite only holding a few seats, they held the balance of power between the two major parties, and thus had a say far beyond what their numbers demanded.

The English didn't use PR and still don't (if I'm not mistaken). One man, one vote.

The same could happen again in England if the Tories and Labour ever end up having approximately a stalemate in numbers in the future. Some small party is going to end up having so much clout it won't be funny.....so its not even a problem that the so-called "two party system" avoids.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I also like our system, although I had some doubts in 1994 when Labour cynically crossed the floor to form a Rainbow Coalition Government with FG without us getting the chance to give our verdict in a General Election.

Given the shenanigans Reynolds and the AG were involved in (see today's Phoenix Magazine noting the similarity of personnelle then in the Smyth case and now involved in the Curtin prosecution), I suspect a GE would have had a similar result.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I still feel that what Labour did in 1994 was fundamentally undemocratic.

But their mandate from the election of 1992 was to not be in government with FF. More importantly in 1994 (and the events leading thereto), FF didn't act like a government.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
If I were to change it, then maybe I would make it compulsory for a General Election to be called if a government loses a confidence-vote in the Dail....... But when a Government falls, the people should get the chance to immediately give their verdict on the issue.

This would have given us six elections in 1987-89.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Another problem I have with our system is the way in which the lower-preferences are not fully counted. Instead, a sample of them is taken. Hopefully, a future electronic-voting system will rectify that problem.

They fudged it with the system they were proposing and didn't plan to include this.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by AngelofFire
The only thing that bothers me about the PR system is parties that are only supported by about 4% of the electorate can get into power e.g. the PDs and punch above their weight and force their profit before people policies on everybody.

Well most new political parties tend to start off with low levels of support. If we had a system like the UK or the US then the feeling of a "wasted vote" being a vote for the smaller parties would come into play as the straight vote gives the seat to the party in the lead rather than apportionating seats proportionately. Had we had a straight-vote system in Ireland then FF would have ruled Ireland near permanently as they have almost always had at least 39% of the vote in the past 50 years. Are you advocating something like the German system where a 5% threshold must be passed to enter parliament? I am not in favour of this.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well most new political parties tend to start off with low levels of support.

In their first year, the PDs were polling 20-25%, they are now consistently in the 3-4% bracket.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Are you advocating something like the German system where a 5% threshold must be passed to enter parliament? I am not in favour of this.

I think the 5% only applies to the list part of the poll, not the direct constituency elections.

As best I understand it 50%(?) of MPs are elected on a FPTP basis in single seat constituencies. Then parties with more than 5% of the vote share the other 50% of seats to bring them as proportionately possible in line with their vote (a few years ago this caused a problem in that one party had more seats from the first round than it should have had proportionately, with the implication that directly elected MPs had to give up seats - I'm not sure how this worked out in the end).

chewy

so america isn't really a too party system officially

do the alternative parties do better at local level?

sceptre

Originally posted by chewy
so america isn't really a too party system officially

I can't think of a single (genuine) democracy that actually is a two party system officially (that's not me saying there isn't one, I just can't think of one). There are some smaller countries that do have just two parties though.

do the alternative parties do better at local level?

Yup. As far as I know there are a few city councils over there that the Greens control. They certainly get councillors elected across the country. I don't know how the other parties do (I only know about the Greens because of details highlighted during Nader's last run) but I assume the wacky parties (Natural Law, I'm looking at you amongst others) do just as well as they do here. I think the Socialist party controlled a city council somewhere at some stage but I can't remember where.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I still feel that what Labour did in 1994 was fundamentally undemocratic.

You'd like to dump Article 13.2.2 of our constitution then? Bottom line is that we don't elect a government. We elect representatives to our national parliament who form a government themselves through nominating a Taoiseach by a majority decision who appoints his own government. The current system prevents, for example, a party without an overall majority in government with the support of another party from calling an election while a majority of elected deputies disagree with that decision. The question is whether that can be considered a good thing or not. I tend to think that, under the current system of selecting a government, it is.

I have no idea what you're getting to with the candidates being elected through a by-election not being able to vote for a Taoiseach thing (as this is the result of "Only a General Election should determine the shape of a Government. Not by-elections."). I assume that you'd still allow someone elected through by-election to be part of a government, though this seems to be disallowed by what you've proposed as well. It still doesn't tally well with the reality that we elect representatives who elect a government rather than electing a government. To say nothing of habitual turncoats like Martin Cullen.

Dub13

It looks like there will be another Party in the UK with the UK Independence Party doing very well In the Euro elections.I think they got about 16 % of the vote.

Alsi I say Pat Cox on Sky News today and he said the anti Europe vote across Europe was about 10%...thats a lot,I wounder what the 10 new EU members think about that.

PBC_1966

There was a news program on BBC a few months ago talking about the number of people in Poland who were opposed to EU entry.

Who can blame them? They just recently escaped from the clutches of a communistic, undemocratic. dictatorial regime of the old iron curtain. Why on earth would they be so eager to jump right into another?

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by Dub13
I dont want to get into to much detail,I have been thinking about this for a while.Now we by no means have the best system but I have to say I prefer the wider choice we have...I mean in real terms any one of many partys here could be in Gov anyone from FF,FG,PD,Labour,Greens,Ind and of course SF.

The point I am making is I like the way we have a wide choice than lets say the UK or the US were its ether Labour or the Conservatives ( I no the Lib Dem but they dont even no were they stand) or in the US its ether the Republican's or the Democrat's.It does not seam like they get a good choice they could never realy swing to the left or the right.What do you lot think.

I disagree we do have a two party system in this country PD's and FF are one and the same Fine Gael is the only opposition and labour is just there so academics and lawyers can vote without guilt. Any country with a two party system seems to be doing far better economically than these muti coalition party countries.
Just look at the pathetic economy of Europe compared to say US UK even Ireland notice how most of the countries in 2 party are anglo saxon based like US UK or influenced by them like Ireland. Remember the multi party system is what could allow Sinn Fein future kingmakers what a disastrous result for democracy and this country.