|
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. |
On September 26 2017 00:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 00:15 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 00:06 RvB wrote:On September 25 2017 23:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 23:29 sc-darkness wrote:On September 25 2017 22:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 22:19 Sermokala wrote:
At least in parliament style democracy you can get your trump needs.out of your system and after a week or of everyone realising what you've done the real politicians can cone.in and say you need.another.election. After seeing and comparing both I'd say I'd rather have the Trumps than the European style party politics. What's wrong with European politics? Has a tendency to stifle any opinion outside of a pre-established political norm upheld by the political elite. By design of course, but that's an unfortunate design. On September 25 2017 23:35 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2017 23:29 sc-darkness wrote:On September 25 2017 22:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 22:19 Sermokala wrote:
At least in parliament style democracy you can get your trump needs.out of your system and after a week or of everyone realising what you've done the real politicians can cone.in and say you need.another.election. After seeing and comparing both I'd say I'd rather have the Trumps than the European style party politics. What's wrong with European politics? Not Pro-Russian enough for LL. Do you ever get tired of going around being an immature troll? Your posts are about what you could expect in quality from Yahoo news comments - neither productive nor insightful, but posted mostly just because it's necessary to say something. There's no one style of European system. They're very diverse. There have also been huge shifts. Think of Third way socialism, the emergence of the far right, Macron's win etc. That is true and it's one of the main problems of saying anything about "Europe" because it's quite diverse. But in this context perhaps what I should say is "Parliamentary system" which is relevant to a wide swathe of European politics. In a parliamentary system, you elect some parties to politick it out behind the scenes and develop their own alliances. In the US system, the coalitions are pre-built and you're voting for the final result of that prebuilt coalition. Oh it certainly isn't without its problems, but choosing the lead executive is much better than letting Congress do the same. The complete deadlock of the US system for the last 7 years and the current war within the Republican party kinda disproves your point.
You could go back a full 20 years and show how our congress has slowly become a tool of or opposition to the sitting president, rather than an independent branch. After Newt turned the House of Representatives against Bill Clinton, the system started to break down. The House traditionally fought with the Senate.
|
Because your "prebuilt" coalition is basically non existant right now and your leader instead of trying to fix it is busy tweeting at nfl-stars/clubs dividing people even more?
|
On September 26 2017 00:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 00:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 00:15 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 00:06 RvB wrote:On September 25 2017 23:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 23:29 sc-darkness wrote:On September 25 2017 22:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 22:19 Sermokala wrote:
At least in parliament style democracy you can get your trump needs.out of your system and after a week or of everyone realising what you've done the real politicians can cone.in and say you need.another.election. After seeing and comparing both I'd say I'd rather have the Trumps than the European style party politics. What's wrong with European politics? Has a tendency to stifle any opinion outside of a pre-established political norm upheld by the political elite. By design of course, but that's an unfortunate design. On September 25 2017 23:35 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2017 23:29 sc-darkness wrote:On September 25 2017 22:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 22:19 Sermokala wrote:
At least in parliament style democracy you can get your trump needs.out of your system and after a week or of everyone realising what you've done the real politicians can cone.in and say you need.another.election. After seeing and comparing both I'd say I'd rather have the Trumps than the European style party politics. What's wrong with European politics? Not Pro-Russian enough for LL. Do you ever get tired of going around being an immature troll? Your posts are about what you could expect in quality from Yahoo news comments - neither productive nor insightful, but posted mostly just because it's necessary to say something. There's no one style of European system. They're very diverse. There have also been huge shifts. Think of Third way socialism, the emergence of the far right, Macron's win etc. That is true and it's one of the main problems of saying anything about "Europe" because it's quite diverse. But in this context perhaps what I should say is "Parliamentary system" which is relevant to a wide swathe of European politics. In a parliamentary system, you elect some parties to politick it out behind the scenes and develop their own alliances. In the US system, the coalitions are pre-built and you're voting for the final result of that prebuilt coalition. Oh it certainly isn't without its problems, but choosing the lead executive is much better than letting Congress do the same. The complete deadlock of the US system for the last 7 years and the current war within the Republican party kinda disproves your point. How so? I could see why you might say so but be more specific.
Most parliamentary systems include mechanics to prevent deadlocks and force through new elections to break them.
Parliamentary systems allow for the population to better express their views. There are more parties so you don't have a conservative who doesn't believe in the Democrats economic liberalism but also doesn't support the stupidity that is Trump and is left without a party to vote for and give voice to his particular belief.
Less 'us vs them' mentality because of a more gradual scale of political sides.
Pre-defined coalitions pretend to be all well and jolly together but fracture when the actual deals need to be made in the middle of their term, because they believe in different things. A parliamentary system gets this out of the way when they form a government and set out their plan for the coming term.
|
2774 Posts
On September 25 2017 23:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 23:29 sc-darkness wrote:On September 25 2017 22:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 22:19 Sermokala wrote:
At least in parliament style democracy you can get your trump needs.out of your system and after a week or of everyone realising what you've done the real politicians can cone.in and say you need.another.election. After seeing and comparing both I'd say I'd rather have the Trumps than the European style party politics. What's wrong with European politics? Not Pro-Russian enough for LL.
I must admit; I chuckled.
|
On September 26 2017 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:
Most parliamentary systems include mechanics to prevent deadlocks and force through new elections to break them.
Not sure I like the idea of a schizophrenic shift in government whenever something goes wrong. Nor, with "I like my Congressman but hate Congress" syndrome, would it change anything.
On September 26 2017 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:
Parliamentary systems allow for the population to better express their views. There are more parties so you don't have a conservative who doesn't believe in the Democrats economic liberalism but also doesn't support the stupidity that is Trump and is left without a party to vote for and give voice to his particular belief.
Less 'us vs them' mentality because of a more gradual scale of political sides.
Oh, sure, you can express your views by voting for any idiot splinter faction you like - but unless they are necessary to form a coalition, they're just going to get tossed aside when that doesn't happen. So you can vote for whoever you like (same as in the US), it just won't mean jack shit when it comes time to get actual progress. It the AfD triples its representation, it's not really going to get anything passed, it's just going to force the other parties to contort themselves a bit more into ensuring that nothing AfD wants ever sees light.
On September 26 2017 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:
Pre-defined coalitions pretend to be all well and jolly together but fracture when the actual deals need to be made in the middle of their term, because they believe in different things. A parliamentary system gets this out of the way when they form a government and set out their plan for the coming term.
Not sure this is really true.
|
Uhm...
Grabbing votes due to people probably voting for a "splinter" made Merkel legalise gay marriage, end nuclear power and probably tons of other stuff you can look up yourself. Hell, you could argue that the SPD is in deep shit because Merkel stole all their good stuff (and fucking schröder).
Protest votes for parties that actually make it to parliament and/or single issue parties can have effects. No, they won't rule the country but they still serve a purpose.
|
On September 25 2017 23:56 Big J wrote:
What's Gauland's/Höcke's position on climate change and labor topics? Reading what Petry is writing it sounds like they could be the more reasonable of the lot.
Climate change doesn't exist or nothing needs to be done about it, it's the only party in that kind of camp. Split on labour policies. They started out as a highbrow econ-prof party and basically wanted to privatise most social security, eliminate min wage and so forth, but as their voterbase changed so did their platform and now they're still debating it I think. Same with pension, the non far-right people want to privatise it, the populists fear losing the base.
On September 26 2017 00:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 00:15 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 00:06 RvB wrote:On September 25 2017 23:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 23:29 sc-darkness wrote:On September 25 2017 22:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 22:19 Sermokala wrote:
At least in parliament style democracy you can get your trump needs.out of your system and after a week or of everyone realising what you've done the real politicians can cone.in and say you need.another.election. After seeing and comparing both I'd say I'd rather have the Trumps than the European style party politics. What's wrong with European politics? Has a tendency to stifle any opinion outside of a pre-established political norm upheld by the political elite. By design of course, but that's an unfortunate design. On September 25 2017 23:35 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2017 23:29 sc-darkness wrote:On September 25 2017 22:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2017 22:19 Sermokala wrote:
At least in parliament style democracy you can get your trump needs.out of your system and after a week or of everyone realising what you've done the real politicians can cone.in and say you need.another.election. After seeing and comparing both I'd say I'd rather have the Trumps than the European style party politics. What's wrong with European politics? Not Pro-Russian enough for LL. Do you ever get tired of going around being an immature troll? Your posts are about what you could expect in quality from Yahoo news comments - neither productive nor insightful, but posted mostly just because it's necessary to say something. There's no one style of European system. They're very diverse. There have also been huge shifts. Think of Third way socialism, the emergence of the far right, Macron's win etc. That is true and it's one of the main problems of saying anything about "Europe" because it's quite diverse. But in this context perhaps what I should say is "Parliamentary system" which is relevant to a wide swathe of European politics. In a parliamentary system, you elect some parties to politick it out behind the scenes and develop their own alliances. In the US system, the coalitions are pre-built and you're voting for the final result of that prebuilt coalition. Oh it certainly isn't without its problems, but choosing the lead executive is much better than letting Congress do the same. Surely there are better parties to throw votes at as a sign of discontent that the far right. I don't get those people, any message of discontent is drowned in a sea of "gone with foreigners". Does Germany not have some complete joke party to vote?
Protest voting is pretty awful in a functioning democracy. There's ways to participate in civil society. Join a townhall, or a movement, or join a party and fix the things you don't like. "My knee hurts so I'll vote for the nazis" or a joke party is not defensible, that's just destructive.
This move towards "fast-food" expectations of the political process has grown immensely over the last few years. People don't ask anymore how they can change something and participate, they just want personalities or parties to deliver and cater to them.
|
But Die Partei is very, very good.
And under all the bullshit/fun would probably do pretty ok for most "normal" leftists.
|
On September 25 2017 23:56 Big J wrote:
What's Gauland's/Höcke's position on climate change and labor topics? Reading what Petry is writing it sounds like they could be the more reasonable of the lot.
They effectively think it's a hoax. There is, unsurprisingly, no clear position on labor topics, though given Gauland's history in the (old) CDU I think he doesn't rate the safety net particularly highly.
Also, Petry is probably "more reasonable" since she intends to take part in actual policy discussion and not just, like some others from the AfD, who are interested in heckling and provoking. (Related: Analysis (in German) of how AfD politicians have conducted themselves in state parliaments.)
On September 26 2017 00:49 LegalLord wrote:[...] Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:
Pre-defined coalitions pretend to be all well and jolly together but fracture when the actual deals need to be made in the middle of their term, because they believe in different things. A parliamentary system gets this out of the way when they form a government and set out their plan for the coming term. Not sure this is really true.
It, more likely than not, is. E.g. German government coalitions sign a "Koalitionsvertrag" (literally translated: coalition contract), which - obviously - is not binding. Yet, they set the agenda for the coming years and try to enact the positions and changes advocated for in the "Koalitionsvertrag". Not perfect, but far better than Washington's perpetual gridlock and legislative inability.
Merkel also said today she wants a coalition formed by Christmas which is quite ambitious.
|
My objection is more along the lines of, that it's not like the US leadership doesn't have an agenda set. Sure, it's set more prominently by the executive rather than the legislature, but in the executive's absence it's not like Congress would just dick around aimlessly until the end of their term. They have an agenda that is just superseded by the president.
|
On September 26 2017 01:41 pretender58 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 23:56 Big J wrote:
What's Gauland's/Höcke's position on climate change and labor topics? Reading what Petry is writing it sounds like they could be the more reasonable of the lot. They effectively think it's a hoax. There is, unsurprisingly, no clear position on labor topics, though given Gauland's history in the (old) CDU I think he doesn't rate the safety net particularly highly. Also, Petry is probably "more reasonable" since she intends to take part in actual policy discussion and not just, like some others from the AfD, who are interested in heckling and provoking. (Related: Analysis (in German) of how AfD politicians have conducted themselves in state parliaments.)Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 00:49 LegalLord wrote:[...] On September 26 2017 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:
Pre-defined coalitions pretend to be all well and jolly together but fracture when the actual deals need to be made in the middle of their term, because they believe in different things. A parliamentary system gets this out of the way when they form a government and set out their plan for the coming term. Not sure this is really true. It, more likely than not, is. E.g. German government coalitions sign a "Koalitionsvertrag" (literally translated: coalition contract), which - obviously - is not binding. Yet, they set the agenda for the coming years and try to enact the positions and changes advocated for in the "Koalitionsvertrag". Not perfect, but far better than Washington's perpetual gridlock and legislative inability. Merkel also said today she wants a coalition formed by Christmas which is quite ambitious.
Exactly, same thing is done in the Netherlands. During the coalitions talks they hammer out of a rough guide for that the new government wants to accomplish over the next 4 years with regard to things like Immigration, healthcare, education ect.
To draw the analogy to the US. An ACA repeal would have definitely been discussed in such an accord and have prevented the 3? 4? fucks that have happened sofar.
When coalition talks fail its because these things are discussed and the parties are found to be to far apart to reach a consensus. Better to have this happen before a government is formed and look for other options instead rather then have it happen a few months in and going "well, guess we're stuck with each other for 3.5 years, better luck next time".
|
On September 26 2017 01:55 LegalLord wrote:
My objection is more along the lines of, that it's not like the US leadership doesn't have an agenda set. Sure, it's set more prominently by the executive rather than the legislature, but in the executive's absence it's not like Congress would just dick around aimlessly until the end of their term. They have an agenda that is just superseded by the president.
Really?
again, how is the last 7 years not the Republicans dicking around aimlessly until the end of their term?
You keep talking about how the system if envisioned as working, rather then the reality of how it has worked in recent history.
|
The current US leadership does not have and agenda set.
Neither are they leaders nor do they have a single piece of agenda but everyone had their own. Had because many of them are already out of the picture lmao
e: On September 26 2017 02:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 01:55 LegalLord wrote:
My objection is more along the lines of, that it's not like the US leadership doesn't have an agenda set. Sure, it's set more prominently by the executive rather than the legislature, but in the executive's absence it's not like Congress would just dick around aimlessly until the end of their term. They have an agenda that is just superseded by the president. Really? again, how is the last 7 years not the Republicans dicking around aimlessly until the end of their term? You keep talking about how the system if envisioned as working, rather then the reality of how it has worked in recent history.
reps arn't leading the country thoug. It's doneld trump and his aimless, multidirectional cohort.
|
On September 26 2017 00:54 Velr wrote:
Uhm...
Grabbing votes due to people probably voting for a "splinter" made Merkel legalise gay marriage, end nuclear power and probably tons of other stuff you can look up yourself. Hell, you could argue that the SPD is in deep shit because Merkel stole all their good stuff (and fucking schröder).
Protest votes for parties that actually make it to parliament and/or single issue parties can have effects. No, they won't rule the country but they still serve a purpose.
exactly. Small parties do influence politics. They don't get to be rambo deciding everything themselves but instead have to pick their fights and have to prioritize but they do influence the big parties as well as the overall landscape of politics.
Let's just look at Die Linke some years ago. They were basicly in the same position as the AfD is today. Noone was willing to make a coalition with them, everyone, from left (!) to right, said they refused talking to them and nowadays they're still around and people (have to) take them seriously.
Sure they haven't gotten into a coalition on a national level yet but I'm not even sure the SPD+Greens+Die Linke would be categorically dismissed as it used to be, assuming they had the votes to form such a coalition. In fact I'm quite sure they'd be up for that nowadays and Die Linke has gotten into multiple governments on the state level as well iirc?
So no, I also disagree with LL. If the AfD sticks around then they will influence politics for better or worse. Most certainly if they somehow manage to tripple their numbers and even if it's just a slight increase in 4 years.
|
On September 26 2017 01:55 LegalLord wrote:
My objection is more along the lines of, that it's not like the US leadership doesn't have an agenda set. Sure, it's set more prominently by the executive rather than the legislature, but in the executive's absence it's not like Congress would just dick around aimlessly until the end of their term. They have an agenda that is just superseded by the president.
As Gorsameth argued as well: If no consensus is reached beforehand, no government is formed. Which can lead to reelections, but provides a check against gridlock.
I don't consider the present Republican party as one party with one agenda (the continuing health care debacle proves this), but rather warring factions (that could be different parties like the "Tea Party") fit into the straitjacket of US two-party-politics. It's right though that the president can single-handedly change the legislative agenda, but this ultimately leads to a discussion on the merits of the respective political systems and whether presidents/chancellors/leaders should be elected independently of parliament and how much authority they should have.
|
10 percent you can shut out if you try hard enough. Obviously 30% is a far different story.
|
On September 26 2017 01:35 Velr wrote:
But Die Partei is very, very good.
And under all the bullshit/fun would probably do pretty ok for most "normal" leftists.
Given the 5% treshhold in the German parliament you're effectively throwing your vote away. There was actually a little bit of discussion shortly before the election whether it is arrogant to vote for such a party. I'd agree with that, your democratic vote is to valuable to just throw it at a satire party or a party you know will not enter the government.
|
On September 26 2017 02:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 01:35 Velr wrote:
But Die Partei is very, very good.
And under all the bullshit/fun would probably do pretty ok for most "normal" leftists. Given the 5% treshhold in the German parliament you're effectively throwing your vote away. There was actually a little bit of discussion shortly before the election whether it is arrogant to vote for such a party. I'd agree with that, your democratic vote is to valuable to just throw it at a satire party or a party you know will not enter the government.
I don't think that such votes can be considered throw-away votes. They are still votes counted, and other parties will consider whether they can acquire those votes in another election.
Pretty much like the Pirate Party. They collected a fair number of votes (in some cases even exceeded the 5%, but that really didn't impact anything), their core topics actually suddenly made it into discussion, and other parties finally offered at least opinions to those topics, and the Pirates dissappeared again. Sure, there were also in-party struggles with the Pirates, but in the end, they did their thing and proved to be useful. Job done, party not needed anymore.
And given that "Die Partei" even stated their goal as "aquire protest votes, without giving them to the AfD", voting for them actually had a clear message.
And no, I didn't vote for them or any other splinter. But I see some value in them.
PS: But of course, the usefulness of stuffs like PdV with its 500 votes can be questioned 
|
Norway28830 Posts
I think it's way, way more on point to criticize the 30% of non-voters than the ones who vote for a party that isn't big enough. Really not a fan of criticizing the latter. If you believe in the message of a party, you should vote for them, if everyone has the attitude that this is a wasted vote, then the party never has a chance to achieve relevance. Sure, from a 4 year perspective it makes sense to just go with whatever party is big enough to achieve representation that supports your pov the most, but if I really support a party with 3% of the votes, I want to inspire them to fight harder to achieve representation next year.
I dunno how serious Die Partei is though, and I'm not a fan of voting for a joke party. But I don't think size is what determines this. In a 2 party system like the US, this argument has more going for it, but it's not that far fetched that a party with 1% of the vote can get more than 5% in 4-8 years. I mean, look at AFD. They grew from 1.9% to 12.6% over a 4 year period. I obviously wish they hadn't, but it's fair to assume that if everyone who supported them in 2013 had been like 'nah, they're not gonna get representation anyway so I'll vote for someone else' and they ended up with 0% instead of 1.9%, their mobilization this election would be smaller.
|
On September 26 2017 03:03 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 02:32 Nyxisto wrote:On September 26 2017 01:35 Velr wrote:
But Die Partei is very, very good.
And under all the bullshit/fun would probably do pretty ok for most "normal" leftists. Given the 5% treshhold in the German parliament you're effectively throwing your vote away. There was actually a little bit of discussion shortly before the election whether it is arrogant to vote for such a party. I'd agree with that, your democratic vote is to valuable to just throw it at a satire party or a party you know will not enter the government. I don't think that such votes can be considered throw-away votes. They are still votes counted, and other parties will consider whether they can acquire those votes in another election. Pretty much like the Pirate Party. They collected a fair number of votes (in some cases even exceeded the 5%, but that really didn't impact anything), their core topics actually suddenly made it into discussion, and other parties finally offered at least opinions to those topics, and the Pirates dissappeared again. Sure, there were also in-party struggles with the Pirates, but in the end, they did their thing and proved to be useful. Job done, party not needed anymore. And given that "Die Partei" even stated their goal as "aquire protest votes, without giving them to the AfD", voting for them actually had a clear message. And no, I didn't vote for them or any other splinter. But I see some value in them. PS: But of course, the usefulness of stuffs like PdV with its 500 votes can be questioned
Something that can't be underestimated is also financing. If you genuinely agree with the agenda of a smaller party then every single vote might matter when it comes to the question whether they'll be able to push for their topics in the future.
The Pirate Party falling to 0.4% is kind of a shame in this regard for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
