EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 667
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 17 2017 18:41 Velr wrote: You can have a parlamentary system whiteout the need for a ruling coalition. You need an Executive and I prefer it to be independently, democratically legitimized from the Legislative. How much power it has is a different question, but I dislike having a paliament election and then the elected determining who is allowed to interprete and implement their decisions. Or what happens when the Executive is very powerful in such an intervined system: The Executive telling the parliament what to vote on. On February 17 2017 18:41 Velr wrote: You also don't need parties for it to work. How? On February 17 2017 18:55 opisska wrote: I honestly don't understand the appeal of the "majority-based" systems in any incarnation. Systems with proportional representation are just plain superior in governing a developed country. In the Czech Republic, people also sometimes bicker about how it is "inefficient" to always have a coalition based on compromise and that "nothing ever gets changed" - but isn't that really what we want from politics now? We aren't fighting a horrendous oppression or facing life threats - the current system just works and everyone has moreorless the same goals - prosperity, growth, quality of life etc... There really isn't that much room for sudden and large changes. Yeah, sure, you can discuss the details of the implementation, but everyone with a brain is on the same boat in the general picture of things and it actually reflects in the fact that the "left" and" right" governments do not differ that significantly. Thus there is room to focus on more nuanced things that "us vs. them" and this is best achieved in plurality where different parties have different focuses than in a two-sides system where you just have to take one whole package from the two and vote for it. I fully agree. I want strong, independent parliaments with as much "free play" as practically possible. But most people want leader figures that they can look up to, or blame. It is very simple to keep in touch with what 2-3 party leaders say, keeping in touch with what your parliament is doing is very hard. It's the basic problem, people want democracy, but they don't want to work for it. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On February 17 2017 16:13 LegalLord wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017 I just don't see a clear trend for where they went. Fillon clearly dropped but Le Pen gained very slightly and Macron didn't budge. On February 17 2017 15:12 LegalLord wrote: Where did the Fillon voters go? I see Fillon dropping in the polls but I see no clear trend in who gained from it. To abstention/null (2.5), Macron (2.5), Le Pen (0.5) and Dupont-Aignan (0.5). Numbers are from yesterday's big poll when compared with its former version the previous month. On February 17 2017 18:07 Big J wrote: I do not think this makes much of a difference, the problem is that you cannot really switch candidates at that stage properly. You create a scenario in which the public perceives the new frontrunner as a second tier candidate, and the corruption case as proven, which still sheds a bad light on your party. Additionally, the followes who think that Fillion is not guilty, or what he did is not a big thing, will be angry with the party, which may lead to internal trouble and these voters boycotting the new party candidate nevertheless. On the flip side, creating a parliamentary system that decides the executive system is quite a dirty type of democracy in my opinion. It becomes a party dictatorship. The parliament basically just becomes a chamber that does whatever the ruling party leaders decide. In my opinion there should always be at least two powerful and serperately elected organs in the decision making process. This... is exactly what we have in France right now, out of a presidential system. The irony when you remember that De Gaulle wanted the Vth Republic to break with the tyranny of parties... It's a structural design weakness with the representative system; députés are both representative of the nation and members of a party, but ultimately the party has much more coercitive power over the député than voters. The result is that députés routinely “forget” their mandate to follow the party line. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On February 17 2017 19:24 TheDwf wrote: To abstention/null (2.5), Macron (2.5), Le Pen (0.5) and Dupont-Aignan (0.5). Numbers are from yesterday's big poll when compared with its former version the previous month. This... is exactly what we have in France right now, out of a presidential system. The irony when you remember that De Gaulle wanted the Vth Republic to break with the tyranny of parties... It's a structural design weakness with the representative system; députés are both representative of the nation and members of a party, but ultimately the party has much more coercitive power over the député than voters. The result is that députés routinely “forget” their mandate to follow the party line. Isn't the problem actually a symptom of the presidential system, not the parliamentary one? The presidential system has strong propensity to put a single party into a focus, because the party that wins the president gets enormously strong and no small party has any real chance to talk to presidential elections, because you can't win "a little" - thus this naturally forces the system into the domination of 2, at best 3 major parties and that then reflects inevitably in the parliamentary elections, because those are done by the same voters, in the same social atmosphere and media coverage. The parliamentary system, where the government is appointed by the parliament, seems to leave more space for smaller parties and for a fragmented representation. Thus there is less likely to be a "ruling party", all governments need a coalition and while those can be basically required to act unified in some major topics, it opens much more room to debate about everything else. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22015 Posts
On February 17 2017 19:35 opisska wrote: Isn't the problem actually a symptom of the presidential system, not the parliamentary one? The presidential system has strong propensity to put a single party into a focus, because the party that wins the president gets enormously strong and no small party has any real chance to talk to presidential elections, because you can't win "a little" - thus this naturally forces the system into the domination of 2, at best 3 major parties and that then reflects inevitably in the parliamentary elections, because those are done by the same voters, in the same social atmosphere and media coverage. The parliamentary system, where the government is appointed by the parliament, seems to leave more space for smaller parties and for a fragmented representation. Thus there is less likely to be a "ruling party", all governments need a coalition and while those can be basically required to act unified in some major topics, it opens much more room to debate about everything else. Also while it looks like the parliament becomes a 'party dictatorship' this is far from the truth, in a coalition there is a lot of back stage talking and negotiation going on, the parties of a coalition help to keep each other in check because they have different viewpoints, ideologies and voting groups that they need to try and keep happy. You see the proposals that get pushed forward and pass comfortably (mostly) but you don't see the dozens of proposals that never make it past internal coalition talks. It also causes less 'us vs them' conflicts (like America is suffering from now) because parties like to keep their options of coalition partner open for future elections. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 17 2017 19:35 opisska wrote: Isn't the problem actually a symptom of the presidential system, not the parliamentary one? The presidential system has strong propensity to put a single party into a focus, because the party that wins the president gets enormously strong and no small party has any real chance to talk to presidential elections, because you can't win "a little" - thus this naturally forces the system into the domination of 2, at best 3 major parties and that then reflects inevitably in the parliamentary elections, because those are done by the same voters, in the same social atmosphere and media coverage. The parliamentary system, where the government is appointed by the parliament, seems to leave more space for smaller parties and for a fragmented representation. Thus there is less likely to be a "ruling party", all governments need a coalition and while those can be basically required to act unified in some major topics, it opens much more room to debate about everything else. I think the key component for why this is happening in most countries is the power of the parliament to assign and in particular to remove the members of the government through a majority vote. This effectively leads to government coalitions of parliamentary parties who split the government work and agree upon a majority program. The remaining members of parliament are powerless. If the US wouldn't have a FPTP elections, I'd call their system far superior. As it is, they are hardly a democracy. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22015 Posts
On February 17 2017 20:06 Big J wrote: I think the key component for why this is happening in most countries is the power of the parliament to assign and in particular to remove the members of the government through a majority vote. This effectively leads to government coalitions of parliamentary parties who split the government work and agree upon a majority program. The remaining members of parliament are powerless. If the US wouldn't have a FPTP elections, I'd call their system far superior. As it is, they are hardly a democracy. And it would still be a 2 party system for the most part because there can only be 1 winner for the Presidency. Smaller parties might scoop up a few congress seats but I doubt it would change the math much. Plus the party that wins the Presidency just forms a coalition with whoever is needed to get a majority in congress. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18166 Posts
On February 17 2017 20:06 Big J wrote: I think the key component for why this is happening in most countries is the power of the parliament to assign and in particular to remove the members of the government through a majority vote. This effectively leads to government coalitions of parliamentary parties who split the government work and agree upon a majority program. The remaining members of parliament are powerless. If the US wouldn't have a FPTP elections, I'd call their system far superior. As it is, they are hardly a democracy. Partially this is true, but opposition parties play an important role in most parliamentary democracies I can think of. It is almost always opposition parties that lead the debates criticizing wrongdoing by cabinet ministers, and if investigations show the ministry did in fact err, usually coalition parties will side with the opposition in pressuring their own party members to step down. This can cause a governmental crisis, or a simple readjustment where these members of cabinet are removed, but otherwise the trust in government is maintained. Moreover, their legislative tasks continue. They don't just sit in opposition for 4 years doing nothing. They propose new laws when they feel they can cobble together a coalition (usually because it isn't one of the points the governmental coalition cares enough about to hammer out in their coalition contract, and thus each party (or member of parliament) votes for what they want), and sometimes those laws have a large impact. Finally, by putting debates on the agenda they can influence public opinion, or at the very least call attention to points that the majority parties do not care about. This is not unique to parliamentary systems, but I think it is more pronounced, because the debate happens between parties rather than behind party doors. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On February 17 2017 20:42 Big J wrote: My point is less about parliamentary or presidential systems, which in essence only describes where the majority of power lies. My point is about having a system with an independent government and an independent parliament. But that is still the same point. For the government to be independent, is must be elected independently and not "report" to the parliament (in the sense of being removable at any time). So you essentially have the same two options - one when the government is installed by the parliament and one when it is somehow elected directly (presumably by electing its head or someone with a sole power to appoint it). Then there is the question about the exact distribution of "power" which can be varied regardless of the chosen election mechanism (regulated by how many things need legislative action), sure. But in principle, the "independent government" scenario will always create the same issue - that you elect it in a "all or nothing" scenario. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/15/danish-parliament-danes-not-become-minority-denmark/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/15/danish-parliament-adopts-declaration-barring-muslim-majority-neighborhoods/ Any Danes here who can expand on this? It is only being reported by far right media who I'm sure are overblowing its importance. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18166 Posts
On February 17 2017 20:42 Big J wrote: My point is less about parliamentary or presidential systems, which in essence only describes where the majority of power lies. My point is about having a system with an independent government and an independent parliament. But isn't that exactly the point? In a presidential system, there is 1 president who forms his government. While he could, in theory, draw his ministers from a coalition, in practice he simply appoints ministers from his own party (or outsider experts who nevertheless have the same vision for the country as the president and his party). This government has to work with a parliament that may be hostile, or not, depending on the balance of power in parliament. In France this has worked fairly well recently, whereas in the US, there were 6 years of gridlock. In a parliamentary system, the parties in parliament get together to find a coalition that is willing to govern together. This means they will *always* have a majority in parliament and thus do not have to worry about not getting things done, but the negotiation is done in government: having multiple governing together can cause friction, and only small parts of any party's program being executed. There are of course, mixes of the two: England has a first-past-the-post parliamentary system that systematically gives one party a majority in parliament, which means they have almost carte blanche to implement their vision (until the next elections come along, anyway). | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On February 17 2017 20:55 bardtown wrote: Parliament: Danes Should Not Become the Minority in Denmark http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/15/danish-parliament-danes-not-become-minority-denmark/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/15/danish-parliament-adopts-declaration-barring-muslim-majority-neighborhoods/ Any Danes here who can expand on this? It is only being reported by far right media who I'm sure are overblowing its importance. Nobody is going to take you seriously when you're using sources like that, yet 'serious' media doesn't report on this because it goes against their narrative. Catch 22. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On February 17 2017 21:11 DickMcFanny wrote: Nobody is going to take you seriously when you're using sources like that, yet 'serious' media doesn't report on this because it goes against their narrative. Catch 22. Yeah. Hence searching out a moderate voice who can tell me if there's any significance to it. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On February 17 2017 21:18 bardtown wrote: Yeah. Hence searching out a moderate voice who can tell me if there's any significance to it. There are no moderates. Once you're not part of the multi-cultural hype-train of Islam is great and whites are evil, you're a right wing fascist per definition. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On February 17 2017 21:25 TheDwf wrote: A nice conversation was going on, then Team Islamobsessed happened... If your intention was to give credence to the post above yours: well done! You can carry on your conversation, and I can ask my question. There's no need to be petty. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On February 17 2017 21:04 Acrofales wrote: But isn't that exactly the point? In a presidential system, there is 1 president who forms his government. While he could, in theory, draw his ministers from a coalition, in practice he simply appoints ministers from his own party (or outsider experts who nevertheless have the same vision for the country as the president and his party). This government has to work with a parliament that may be hostile, or not, depending on the balance of power in parliament. In France this has worked fairly well recently, whereas in the US, there were 6 years of gridlock. In a parliamentary system, the parties in parliament get together to find a coalition that is willing to govern together. This means they will *always* have a majority in parliament and thus do not have to worry about not getting things done, but the negotiation is done in government: having multiple governing together can cause friction, and only small parts of any party's program being executed. There are of course, mixes of the two: England has a first-past-the-post parliamentary system that systematically gives one party a majority in parliament, which means they have almost carte blanche to implement their vision (until the next elections come along, anyway). UK FPTP parliamentary system is a little more complex than that in practice. Due to the FPTP system, there are only 2 main parties at any one time, and as such, the winning party holds together disparate interests; in effect, it is already a coalition of sorts. There usually isn't a "vision" to implement, but more of several visions contrasting with the cabinet members, who attempt to push through their own individual policies. Traditionally, each MP are to vote with the conscience, not to conform with whatever the party leader desires. However at the same time the party will attempt to enforce party discipline. To vote against the party line is called rebelling against the party and defying the whip (an actual position!) and there has been many cases where by voting against the wishes of the party, legislation did not get passed. | ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
On February 17 2017 21:25 TheDwf wrote: A nice conversation was going on, then Team Islamobsessed happened... The spread of Islam in the west is an enormous issue. How dare you minimalism it. Hey, how does Paris look? Does it look like the capital of European culture or does it look like a trashcan? | ||
| ||
