EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 950
| 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. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6288 Posts
On September 26 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote: 10 percent you can shut out if you try hard enough. Obviously 30% is a far different story. I don't think that's true. If I look at my own country even small parties can have real influence. Parties like the Greens, D66 (social liberal), Christen Unie (christian left), SGP (hardcore conservative christian party) and even the animal party have had real influence with less than that. Often they're necessary to even get a majority in both chambers of parliament. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28842 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 26 2017 03:27 RvB wrote: I don't think that's true. If I look at my own country even small parties can have real influence. Parties like the Greens, D66 (social liberal), Christen Unie (christian left), SGP (hardcore conservative christian party) and even the animal party have had real influence with less than that. Often they're necessary to even get a majority in both chambers of parliament. But you are a real representative democracy without a fascist threshold to push people away from voting for smaller parties. People who want to go into politics don't have to rally to existing parties, compromise and get lost in their popular image, ideology and party bureaucracy to get into parliament, and voters don't have to comprimise on the best option that might make it into parliament. I just cast my vote in Austria and there is like a 50:50 chance that instead of voting a leftist my vote gets split 20% to fascists, 20% to conservatives and 20% to neoliberals, 20% to Greens and 20% social-democrats. That's basically voting majorily against my interests, instead of fully for my interests. If I actually gave a probability weighted vote towards my interests, I would have to vote for a party (soc-dems) I don't want to vote for. Many people actually do that, because they want a bloc as big as possible, given that smaller parties have a hard time existing or making an impact if you always end up with 2 of the bigger parties forming a coalition. So the Netherlands actually ends up with a representative parliament, with an actual parliamentary culture of weighted interests of the population, which is fractured, but as you say, your smaller parties make a difference. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 26 2017 03:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: ya, but if you're on the very far right or very far left, 10% still often leaves you in the ignored segment. Being a center party with 10% can be massive in a coalition though. Basically 10 percent is more valuable if your view is not too far off from the party that is close to the biggest party in the country. It will generally get you a few token concessions like gay marriage when civil unions already exist. If you are one of the unfavored 10 percent some other 10 percent party will get concessions instead. It's not your vote that makes you get your way, it's who the main party needs in their coalition. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11907 Posts
On September 26 2017 04:24 Big J wrote: But you are a real representative democracy without a fascist threshold to push people away from voting for smaller parties. People who want to go into politics don't have to rally to existing parties, compromise and get lost in their popular image, ideology and party bureaucracy to get into parliament, and voters don't have to comprimise on the best option that might make it into parliament. I just cast my vote in Austria and there is like a 50:50 chance that instead of voting a leftist my vote gets split 20% to fascists, 20% to conservatives and 20% to neoliberals, 20% to Greens and 20% social-democrats. That's basically voting majorily against my interests, instead of fully for my interests. If I actually gave a probability weighted vote towards my interests, I would have to vote for a party (soc-dems) I don't want to vote for. Many people actually do that, because they want a bloc as big as possible, given that smaller parties have a hard time existing or making an impact if you always end up with 2 of the bigger parties forming a coalition. So the Netherlands actually ends up with a representative parliament, with an actual parliamentary culture of weighted interests of the population, which is fractured, but as you say, your smaller parties make a difference. Germany has a reason for that 5% threshold. It is called Weimar republic. I assume you are talking about something like that? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 26 2017 04:30 Simberto wrote: Germany has a reason for that 5% threshold. It is called Weimar republic. I assume you are talking about something like that? Yeah sure, it's not the combination of a lost war, treaty of Versailles, completely missguided economic and monetary politics which resulted in hyperinflation and mass unemployment and the resulting rise of anti-democratic forces on the far-left, the middle-right and far-right that destroyed the Weimar republic. It's the voting system we should blame! | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
The SPD is losing most of my respect from how they reacted to the result. It feels that they were playing a game of damage minimisation over the last few weeks. To make Nahles their "new" face is ridiculous and I would find some guilty joy in them losing further. Really, it appears that most of the parties (except for the CDU) seemed to be lacking in promising personalities beyond their leaders (at least as lond as some chose to remain on a state level). However, I hope I'm wrong, and it wasnt a true lack of capabilities, but more a lack of spotlight. But really, when watching the election coverage of SPD/FDP/greens/left I was having a what-this-man/woman-is-still-doing-politics moment a lot of times when seeing the apparent leader circles of the parties. | ||
|
Derity
Germany2952 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
 Edit: Lol, just read some joke on the internet. Translation: It appears that both Trump and Macron liked the same fairytale as kids. That fairytale is Little Red Riding Hood. Trump liked Little Red Riding Hood, while Macron liked her grandmother. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 26 2017 05:12 sc-darkness wrote: If you lower threshold, you might end up with more coalitions. It could be good or bad depending on culture. Well, that's if you go for a coliation-based government to begin with, which in itself is not necessary. There are various ways to split the power between parliaments and governments and how to elect them depending on each other or independent from each other. I personally don't see much reason to have a parliamentary election result overruled by party interests. The parliament should be free to decide according to the majority consensus on topics, not based on a colition contract. There is no "winner" of an election that gets to rule, there are seats in a parliament to represent opinions. Democracy is not a competition and when your party choice doesn't get to rule your voice still shouldn't matter less than someone else's by default. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10910 Posts
But well, diffrent countries diffrent systems, we are all still around | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On September 26 2017 05:35 Velr wrote: Yeah, from a swiss viewpoint this whole "coalition" stuff seems, uhm, unnessesary. But well, diffrent countries diffrent systems, we are all still around So what's the ideal? Referendums? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10910 Posts
It also needs some common sense among the politicians to actually work... It probably wouldn't net good results everywhere. I like it, you can read up about it. I also like referendums, but i don't see them as the one thing that makes the swiss system great. I'm more fan of the fact that we don't have this stupid coalition/form a goverment drama after every election  .No clue what the ideal would be, I doubt any country has found it yet . | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Having a small, wealthy country that doesn't have issues of scale always is a huge boon. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12474 Posts
On September 26 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote: Having a small, wealthy country that doesn't have issues of scale always is a huge boon. With the presumption that we agree "direct" democracy is a good thing. Recognizing that we had good conditions to create a system that works well shouldn't be a freepass for not even trying. It's worth an attempt. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 26 2017 06:36 Nebuchad wrote: With the presumption that we agree "direct" democracy is a good thing. Practically or as a virtue? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12474 Posts
Probably both but depends what you mean by that. It's harder to put in place than other alternatives so less practical in that sense, but it's worth the effort. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
What's the difference? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 26 2017 06:43 Nebuchad wrote: Probably both but depends what you mean by that. It's harder to put in place than other alternatives so less practical in that sense, but it's worth the effort. I mean, do you mean that we agree that practically, we should actively work towards a system where the direct political viewpoints of individuals become policy - or in the sense of a virtue, as in you want everyone to be represented as well as possible even if that doesn't end up being realistic? | ||
| ||
