Multi-party or two party system?

I'm an avid supporter of a two party system, the two parties become broad umbrellas that are coalitions of smaller parties and interest groups. It essentially takes care of the "making the government" before they are elected.

In a multi-party system there is often such a plurality of parties that they have to then coalition together to form a government, which is fine, that's what happens in the two party system before elections usually through primaries.

However, the problem with the multi-party system is that each party is a fragment of the whole, it is a very narrow spectrum party focusing on few ideals to secure its adherent's loyalty.

The problem arises if there is a break down in the party system that artificially sees one of these mini-parties rise to too much prominence where they don't have to make a broad coalition. It doesn't happen often but in times of duress it has happened and fascist/socialist parties often take over.

In a two party system the stability is like that of a more deeper keel, keeping the hull even. Because the coalition process is before the elections, it is more difficult for one interest group to gain too much power because the success of a party is seen as the success of is coalition and not of its individual interest groups.

No party system.

There is the candidate. Their claimed stances. And their voting record. Done.

We have the internet. We no longer need massive expensive campaign trails. We no longer need televised debates where the two parties determine who gets to debate.

Any candidate can put together any platform they want and put it out there for anyone to see. They can put up a webpage which lists their stances... and then next to it provide links that show their official voting record.

Other people can put together their own webpages which aggregate this information into an easily searchable database... allowing people to look into the variety of candidates in their area and filter and sort them by a variety of topics.

The technology to break the chains of this absurd oligarchy already exists and we're already using it extensively, effectively, and so naturally we don't even notice it sitting right in front of us.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


I agree with the no party stance. Abolish them. Political parties establishes a baseline for beliefs and viewpoints and then requires that candidates within those parties fall in line with whatever the party narrative is. If you don't you are shoved out by the party. The media is a joke because it is based around this system of division and control. It's what makes them thrive.

Third vote for 'no party'. The party political system is broken, we need to vote for individuals who we know and trust to speak their minds, and not just have to toe a party line all the time.

reply to post by FreeMason

One of the possibilities inherent in a system of two opposing coalitions is that an element in one of the coalitions will break away, and will finally, in the long-term, re-attach itself to the other coalition.
In the interval between the breaking away and the re-attachment, there will be the appearance of a three-party system, but this appearance will probably just be temporary.
I can think of two classic examples in nineteenth century British politics, and one in twentieth century American politics.

1) In the aftermath of the Corn-law crisis, the leadership of the Conservatives ("the Peelites") drifted away from the rank and file of the party and finally, in the person of Gladstone, joined up with the opposing Liberals.

2) The Victorian Liberal party was a coaltion of lberal-minded aristocrats ("the Whigs") with radical thinkers and leaders. When Gladstone tried to bring in Home Rule in Ireland, the Whigs and the rather radical Joseph Chamberlain broke away from him. For a period of time they were a third party, as the Liberal Unionists, but in the long-term they joined up with the Conservatives.
This temporary third party are the people who are being mocked in "The Importance of being Earnest", in the dialogue where Jack Worthing says "I really have no politics- I call myself a Liberal Unionist" and Lady Bracknell replies grandly "They count as Tories [Conservatives]- they dine with us". When the film version was released, the Liberal Unionists had already got absorbed, so Jack called himself a Liberal instead. Therefore the jokes at their expense do not quite work, or work in a different way.

3) When I was growing up, it was axiomatic that the South in America was Democrat. This was one of the givens of the mysteries of American politics, because ever since the Civil War the Democrat party had been a coalition of Southern conservatives and Northern radicals.
Yet now, ever since Reagan's time, it has been axiomatic, apparently, that the South is Republican, Southern and Northern conservatives in coalition.
I may be treading on dangerous ground, as an outsider, but I presume this has been the long-term effect of what Governor Wallace did in 1968, when he ran for President independently instead of supporting the Democrat candidate.
In other words, it seems to me that Governor Wallace was the Joseph Chamberlain of American politics. Even if he did not transfer to the Republicans in person, his Southern followers seem to have done.

If there was to be a split between the Tea Party and old-style Republicanism, then the end-result would probably have to be that the old-style Republicans formed a working partnership with the Democrats. That is, their fate would be similar to the fate of the Peelites.

The idea of abolishing parties, which other members have put forward, is a non-starter because there is no possible way of enforcing it. if you ban official party links, they will just go underground. The people who are now linked openly would then be linked secretly instead, and hours of investigation and conspiracy theory would be required to establish links which are currently public knowledge ("Breaking News: Obama and Clinton have been contacting each other and having meetings- does this mean they are on the same side and working together?").

DISRAELI
The idea of abolishing parties, which other members have put forward, is a non-starter because there is no possible way of enforcing it. if you ban official party links, they will just go underground.

You don't ban people from organizing into groups of common interests. You allow that to be wide open... which will naturally happen via web pages etc. organizing information in different ways. Candidates sharing views can put on programs, discussions, whatever they like to help communicate their common message.

What you remove are any indications of these parties on all ballots and do not recognize parties in any government business or communications.

If people can't walk in and push a big R or D button to do a blanket vote in a few seconds... they have zero choice but to either randomly pick people or... watch this... go out and find out who they are voting for.

If people couldn't vote for a sports team at the ballot... enormous swaths of people who don't know what they are voting for would stop voting because it's too hard and they don't get the "pride" of "doing their part" for their team.

Which is good... because we need INFORMED voters on the candidates and issues, not sports team voting. Which is what we have right now.

It starts with removing party indication from the ballot.

People can form unofficial "parties" all they like. There is just no reason for this to transfer over into the actual structure of the government. When they cease to have the seeming backing of government itself... these parties will form and dissolve naturally the same way all sorts of other things come and go based on the current status of the population.

People will attempt back room dealings no matter what... but without the umbrella of a party to hide behind to use as a hammer or smokescreen... they become dramatically less powerful.

reply to post by BardingTheBard

Removing party names from ballot papers would do little in itself.
Party names on British ballot papers is a very recent innovation, and the party system existed for a century or two without them.
Therefore the election leaflets which parties pushed through people's doors included the necessary information, "John Smith is your X party's candidate for this area", and the voter need do nothing more than remember the name.
Your suggestion would just mean reverting to that practice. Voters would not need to look for information about candidates and would not bother. It would be given out by the parties themselves; "If you're a Democrat, John Smith is your candidate for Congress and George Washington for President".

reply to post by DISRAELI

Is it your assertion that fewer voters vote blindly along party lines now than they did then?

I'm quite aware parties pushed candidates long before. That is what they do. A voter still had to make the note of the person they were going to vote for rather than just pushing a "Red" or "Blue" button. There is zero reason to automate this process for voters... further encouraging lack of research.

We haven't moved *forward* when it comes to informed voting by adding parties to the ballots. Yes... sometimes a perceived step "backward" is a step forward.

reply to post by BardingTheBard

No, I think the incidence of party-line voting would have been about the same.
All I am claiming is that removing the party name from sight would not, in practice, do anything to reduce party-line voting.
If you make voting along party lines more complex, voters will not go hunting for information.
They will just stop voting and leave the task to the ultra-committed.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Well then we are at an impasse.

There is no value added in having people voting who only vote if they can do so blindly. There can be no value added by having people unwilling to seek out information casting votes.

This isn't the 1950's or even the 1980's. People live in a world now where it's actually possible and orders of magnitude easier to know who you are voting for in ways their parents could scarcely imagine. And the young voters *expect* to be able to access this information in ways their parents never even had access to.

Thank you for the discussion.

reply to post by BardingTheBard

And if, in the course of accessing information, they discover that the candidate belongs to a political party which they like, they might be more inclined to vote for him.
So the party system still ends up not having been abolished.
That was my original point-that the abolition of parties was not achievable.

reply to post by DISRAELI

That is fine.

I didn't suggest abolishing the *existence* of political parties. I made a post making that clear... that people SHOULD be able to find like minded people speak together about common problems and platforms, etc. There is nothing wrong with like minded people collecting to work together... and people finding they tend to agree with groups. People of *course* will vote in blocks of like minded people. I would wind up primarily voting for libertarian candidates, for example.

I'm saying we don't need our ballots and government to "officialize" parties and automate blind voting.

The no party proposal isn't about preventing people from organizing into groups *outside* the government process... but to remove the formalization and recognition of them *inside* the government process. The ballot is official government business and has no reason to automate and facilitate blind voting.

A person finding a candidate hangs with other candidates that they like is fine and a positive thing. But they should have to know they are voting for that person *before* they enter the ballot box. Not just see the label one someone they've never heard of and click "yes" right there in the ballot box.