But can't this system backfire? The French Fourth Republic fell in part due to parliament not being able to form stable governments. Now France has a run-off system that still lends itself to having two big parties. It's one thing to force parties to work together, but it's another to have them actually work together. That's no guarantee for negotiation and compromise, and having some government is better than having no government at all. Also, it can be difficult for a constituency to elect a member that represents them when seats are distributed by the proportion of the total vote and not by simple majorities.
The PCNation
- Thread starter gimmepie
- Start date
But can't this system backfire? The French Fourth Republic fell in part due to parliament not being able to form stable governments. Now France has a run-off system that still lends itself to having two big parties. It's one thing to force parties to work together, but it's another to have them actually work together. That's no guarantee for negotiation and compromise, and having some government is better than having no government at all. Also, it can be difficult for a constituency to elect a member that represents them when seats are distributed by the proportion of the total vote and not by simple majorities.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen today
Any system can backfire in some way- many European countries have this sort of thing, most Spanish States have a purely proportional system and do their own business happily (and, in some cases, a two/three party system ended up developing naturally anyway). If the country is naturally split, forcing on a fake majority where you have a plurality can cause voters of the smaller parties to feel swindled and unrepresented, which certainly doesn't help calming the mood- instead, you can get protests or people just opting out of politics altogether because why even bother if their vote doesn't count for anything anyway.
(As an aside, France is the only country in Western Europe with a runoff Presidential system so it's not the best example. It's like praising the great tradition of Westminster-style Parliamentary systems in America, proving that Presidential systems aren't really that popular, with Canada as a shining example- what do you mean it's the only one?)
Also, in this system, "constituencies" do not elect individual members- the only constituency is the entire country (or larger regions, not a small congressional district but, say, an entire State). You don't get to control your individual Member of Parliament (because there is none); in turn, your party can be held accountable for all of their decisions (and if a MP is being an ass, he can be kicked out in primaries). It also removes the incentive for MPs to add pointless local pork for their voters, or the "I hate Congress but I like *my* representative" mindset that prevents failing parties from being punished if the manage to pill on enough money for their local supporters.
In other words, in this system, Mps do not represent the people of Boringhamshire, but all the voters of their party from the entire country.
Last edited:
Well, I think what the exceptions tell us is that the electoral system has to be contingent on the political culture of the country. For France, the fact of the matter is that PR didn't work, because the parties couldn't get along. I don't think it's an issue of popularity.
Furthermore, you have to consider the kind of parties, their ideologies and their organization, that inhabit whatever parliament you're considering. In Canada, we had two big-tent parties that were more concerned with electoral success than adherence to ideology. Given the first past the post (FPTP) system, it means that whichever party wants to form the government must express some level of national consensus. I think that's a good system, where the expression of consensus begins in each parties and is further expressed in parliament rather than parliamentary activity being the only conduit of consensus. PR would probably be the best electoral system to handle a system of parties that emphasize ideology over broad-based support.
If we apply it to PC, we have to take a good look at ourselves and ask is PC ready to form majorities based on coalitions or are we too stingy with our special interests to compromise (Instead of cooperating with a conservative and socialist party, a more libertarian party cooperates with neither because they don't want to compromise their social or economic views). It might be the lesser of two evils to give parties an electoral incentive to promote broad-based consensus within each party by using a FTFP system.
2Fruit
Aka 2Fruit
- 126
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Seen Apr 1, 2019
We just had an election here in Canada, so it's interesting to see how this will play out.
As for my opinion, FPTP can work, but how many parties do you guys think there will be? I can't see PR working if there are a dozen different parties, or FPTP working if there are less than 3.
As for my opinion, FPTP can work, but how many parties do you guys think there will be? I can't see PR working if there are a dozen different parties, or FPTP working if there are less than 3.
I don't like the idea of any system where votes can be transferred from a losing individual/party to a party they support. I don't think it is fair for my vote to be given away to a party that I don't necessarily agree with.
I still think a socialist democracy is the way to go, but I don't want it to be an unfair system at a deeper level either.
I still think a socialist democracy is the way to go, but I don't want it to be an unfair system at a deeper level either.
Both voting systems will work no matter how many parties there are - in fact, there probably shouldn't be limits on the types of parties one can create. It's the system that reduces or increases the number of viable parties.
Blueredemption
Never stop exploring!
- 478
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 25
- Seen Oct 16, 2023
This was exactly what came to mind before I started reading all of the political theory above. As a country, PC is going to be fresh and new. I think that starting out as a simple direct democracy, like the one of ancient Greece, should go a long way for a new country. At least from the start, because I don't even want to think about the process of getting some of the more complicated governments going in this wild environment we have. They just wont work.
I mean, a despotic government would be a pretty secure way to run things too imo... though I may flee the country before it get's set in place.
Salzorrah
[font=Montserrat][b][color=#66CC66]g[/color][color
- 6,374
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 26
- Floaroma Town, Sinnoh
- Seen May 14, 2022
How bout an oligarchic meritocracy? A goverment ruled by a close knit group of people who actually has certain abilities to run a country? Without one, the whole system falls and would be more vital to work together? idk just my point on that :x
I don't like the idea of any government that isn't accountable to the people and to be accountable to the people, the people need to have a say in who the government is.
- 399
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Yes.
- Out Of My Mind
- Seen Aug 18, 2021
The issue with any elected government is that corrupt and self-serving officials will try to be elected, and there are very few ways to avoid corruption through elections. The only true way to avoid ambitious corruption in a form of government is a Demarchy, where able citizens are chosen randomly to serve, kind of like being pulled for jury duty. Could be a short term, say six months or so, then new officials are elected. In this way there is no way for room for ambitious people to advance their own political careers. Its perhaps not ideal and perhaps there wouldn't be an even spread of representation from the people, but its perhaps one of the most fair forms of government. Maybe the only problem would be that the chosen representatives would be uneducated in governing, or just uneducated in general.
As for an actually functioning form of government, I would go for a federal republic, essentially where each region would be divided up and representation would be spread out equally among them (On this forum perhaps a few representatives per major section). Each section could elect officials, and those officials would be a part of a council or senate. Among those, a head official could be elected to precede over the meetings and decisions, holding checks and balances and the senate holding the same against them.
Other than that, could also go for a hive mind type government. Starts handing out brain implants.
As for an actually functioning form of government, I would go for a federal republic, essentially where each region would be divided up and representation would be spread out equally among them (On this forum perhaps a few representatives per major section). Each section could elect officials, and those officials would be a part of a council or senate. Among those, a head official could be elected to precede over the meetings and decisions, holding checks and balances and the senate holding the same against them.
Other than that, could also go for a hive mind type government. Starts handing out brain implants.
GreyBidoof
You used a Master Ball on the GreyBidoof!
- 770
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Age 27
- Goldenrod City, Johto
- Seen Jun 14, 2020
I agree with STARDU5T on this matter. A Republic, with evenly-distributed elected representatives, is the way to go.
I Think Our leader should be fearless, And I propose a rather controversial choice, But a well thought one- Civil war.
Yes, This would result in casualties, Depending on the size of this country It could be several 1000's, However, the survivors Would all be supporters of the governing body in power, And any opposers will not have the numbers to start major riots.
Yes, This would result in casualties, Depending on the size of this country It could be several 1000's, However, the survivors Would all be supporters of the governing body in power, And any opposers will not have the numbers to start major riots.
Thepowaofhax
Spectre
- 357
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Seen May 29, 2017
I say, let's ditch all these fancy governments and set up the great and glorious Kakistrocracy; as it's not like every country in the 21st century is degenerating into such a deplorable type of government.
Somewhere_
i don't know where
- 4,494
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- somewhere (duh)
- Seen Jun 5, 2019
Good thing I'm not an anarchist, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of me participating haha. Although, Im probably the closest thing to an anarchist (specifically ancap) on PC.
Maybe Ill have some fun with this. Ill argue for my real political views rather than something else. I hope I dont go crazy haha. Sometimes I get a bit... passionate I guess?
Maybe Ill have some fun with this. Ill argue for my real political views rather than something else. I hope I dont go crazy haha. Sometimes I get a bit... passionate I guess?
Thepowaofhax
Spectre
- 357
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Seen May 29, 2017
The Kakistocracy would fit your views; it will lead to a rebellion.
El Héroe Oscuro
IG: elheroeoscuro
- 7,239
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Chicago
- Seen Apr 10, 2022
Everyone should just vote for me as your leader because if you do...
Somewhere_
i don't know where
- 4,494
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- somewhere (duh)
- Seen Jun 5, 2019
Nononononono. I want a very small government, but right-libertarianism has nothing to do with Kakistocracy. And Anarcho-capitilism is no government, where the free market runs everything (voluntaryism), which is not rule by unqualified citizens. And I am not Ancap, just to make that clear.
- 399
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Yes.
- Out Of My Mind
- Seen Aug 18, 2021
There has to be some balance between small and large government though. A small government is more easily able to get things done due to not having as many conflicting opinions and agendas. However a smaller government does not usually represent the people equally due to how few people there are. Its also much easier for a group of people to effectively hijack the government due to the fact that every person has more power and authority.
Larger governments represent the populace as a whole better, but never tend to agree on anything, or get anything done. Far too many opinions flying around that it just turns into a group of people in a room shouting at each other. Its harder for one person or group of persons to take control of the government, but nothing every gets done except what absolutely needs to.
There must be some sort of balance.
Although...that taco government is looking tempting....
Larger governments represent the populace as a whole better, but never tend to agree on anything, or get anything done. Far too many opinions flying around that it just turns into a group of people in a room shouting at each other. Its harder for one person or group of persons to take control of the government, but nothing every gets done except what absolutely needs to.
There must be some sort of balance.
Although...that taco government is looking tempting....
Somewhere_
i don't know where
- 4,494
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- somewhere (duh)
- Seen Jun 5, 2019
Small government as in they would not take up as many responsibilities. It will stay out of our personal lives and let us do whatever we want as long as we dont hurt others. For example, it is a free market economy and socially, we have every freedom. Its just that the government handles courts, foreign affairs (of course stay out of most), military (for defense), etc. They will make laws and stuff that they do now. They do NOT run the police or firefighters, or run/fund any institutions (ex: planned parenthood, various departments, obamacare, etc). Please note that I am not 100% a voluntaryist.
This is not not (not a type lol) representing. Although the democratic system is VERY flawed and does not represent everyone, its unfortunately the best thing we have. And government size does not change the representation of the people.
Thepowaofhax
Spectre
- 357
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Seen May 29, 2017
Your anarcho-capitalism will be the most likely government if a Kakistocracy would happen either by rebellion or by policy.
Vote for me and the Kakistocracy will rise.