My democracy can beat up your democracy

[odditycollector]

 
I've been paying some slight attention to the campaigning down south, partly because I'm worried, partly because a lot of those on my f-list are worried, and partly because it's long since descended into utter lunacy and it's funny.

I mean, "Bush looks like a monkey!" "Yeah, well, Kerry looks French!" is not exactly scintillating debate, people.

And then there's the whole Nader problem, which is also stupid. Everyone's afraid he'll steal away votes from Kerry, and you Americans will be stuck with another election like the last one. And, okay, ignoring for the moment recounts and court orders and general chaos, what happened was that Bush got about 48% of the vote, Gore got about 48% of the vote, and Nader got a little over 2% of the vote. And then Bush was president, and That was That.

'K. Now, that, right there, is the problem with the Winner-Take-All election approach. It only, only, works for a two party system. In Canada, there's, um, more than two anyway. Four or five country-wide political parties, IIRCC, and then extra bits like the Marijuana party and such. People put together new ones if they can't find any that they agree with, and old parties fade and die, and they steal each other's demographic all the time.

So, in Canada, having the winning party obtaining less than 50% of the vote is not all that unusual. We even have a phrase for it: Minority Government. And, what happens in a Minority Government is that the political parties with the most in common team up. So if, just for an example, our ostensibly left-centrist Liberal party won the election with 37%, they'd make a compromise with the leftist NDP (16%) so they'd have enough seats to put through their decisions.

If, however, the Conservatives had won this year's election with 37%, the Liberals would have still teamed up with the NDP (and the Bloc and the Green party, I'm sure. We've got pretty much just the one right wing party), and when that government would have tried to put forward a bill to, say, take back Gay Marriage from the provinces that have it (or whatever), they'd have been blocked 'cause they'd only have 37% of the votes.

And then the government would fall apart, and we'd have a new election. Minority Governments, historically, do not have a very long life span.

And something similar should have happened in the States, really. I know you guys have other checks and balances, but unless I'm just not understanding your system (very possible), you're kind of stuck with just the two parties you have now - forever and ever unless something drastic happens.
 

And, BTW, the one time a Canadian political party (then in charge) made fun of the opposition leader's appearance, there was such a backlash that the then opposition is *still* in power. Just a thought.

 
Next time: GO fic!

Comments

The Them

[shaun84.livejournal.com]

Hiya, Um, someone suggested I read your GO fics, (they're quite good, by the way) but I was wondering if you had ever written any fic focused on The Them or know of anyone who has written any fics about the Them. Anyway, just wanted to know.

D

Re: The Them

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

Um, someone suggested I read your GO fics,
You might be thinking of *me,* actually. I tried to answer your question when you posted it on lower_tadfield.

Hope you find what you're looking for. If all else fails, be sure to write it! Best way to convince the fandom to notice ideas it hasn't yet.

[baked-goldfish.livejournal.com]

Actually, we've had instances where the winner-take-all approach has worked with three (and even four, I think) parties. The problem is more societal than infrastructure(-al?). People tend to think that only a two party system can work when, historically, that hasn't been the case at all. We're all set up for a three, four, eight party system, but they all fall under the general headings of "left" and "right" anyway.

And from what I'm understanding from what you've posted here, you've basically got two political parties as well - the left is just further split up into more- and less-left groups, and when push comes to shove, certain factions team up to achieve common goals. It's basically the same as toeing the party line down here - for instance, Howard Dean and John Kerry represent, really, two fairly different Democratic viewpoints, but they're joining forces in a Voltron-like showing to attempt to defeat Bush in November. It's the same as John McCain's current support of Bush, even though he was critical in the past.

Maybe we're just too lazy to split our teams up, but it seems like it's the same basic effect as your deal, at least in terms of the legislature (which is a stronger branch than the executive, anyway).

At any rate, long and rambly post short, we're not really "stuck" with anything - it's a combination of ease of organization and lack of historical knowledge (on our part, I mean - many here just don't realize that we didn't have "only" two major parties until the 20th century) that may make it seem so.

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

Actually, we've had instances where the winner-take-all approach has worked with three (and even four, I think) parties
Hmm. I mean, I have no problem believing that - if you have one or two large parties and a couple marginal ones - but what happens if, say, Dean got 27% of the votes and Kerry got 24% of the votes and, um, Nader got 10% and Bush got 39%? As I understand, you'd still be stuck with Bush. Is that right?

And from what I'm understanding from what you've posted here, you've basically got two political parties as well
Well, my knee-jerk reaction is, No! They're all different! but you might be right in the sense that there'd be much overlap between who would vote liberal/green/ndp/bloc/marijuana/etc and who'd vote democrat if we had just the two parties. (But there's solid conservatives I know who hate Bush, so it's not *exact*.)
when push comes to shove, certain factions team up to achieve common goals.
...just not always in the ways you'd expect. But up until a few months ago we had two right wing parties - a fiscal conservative party and a social conservative party - and they joined together 'cause they wanted a shot at the election, so you might be right.

legislature (which is a stronger branch than the executive
Um. Maybe that's the difference right there. We don't actually vote for the Prime Minister, as such - He's just the head of the winning party. So I guess it would be difficult to have extra prisidents hanging around. Hmm. *thinks*

At any rate, long and rambly post short, we're not really "stuck" with anything - it's a combination of ease of organization and lack of historical knowledge (on our part, I mean - many here just don't realize that we didn't have "only" two major parties until the 20th century) that may make it seem so.
*nods* See. I also didn't know that. It's interesting.

[baked-goldfish.livejournal.com]

So I guess it would be difficult to have extra prisidents hanging around. Hmm.

Yeah, but it'd be a hell of a lot funnier.

And, fwiw, there are some extreme conservatives here who loathe Bush - but, again, we've got that idea of toeing the party line at work again. OTOH, a lot of 'em are voting for Kerry, just out of spite.

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but it'd be a hell of a lot funnier.

I'd say it sounds like be a sitcom, but I'm pretty sure that was already done.

Um. So, it *really* does then.

[randomsign.livejournal.com]

even in the last election, the.. last last one.. the one before the last one.. the liberal party didn't get 50% of the popular vote, but they won enough ridings to gain a majority.

It's very rare that a party in canada will actually take 50% of the popular vote.

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

the liberal party didn't get 50% of the popular vote, but they won enough ridings to gain a majority.

Yeah, well, you knew what I meant... but I didn't have much inclination to summarize the whole Canadian electorial system. 'S easier just to use the ridings and not have to explain. *nods*

[randomsign.livejournal.com]

oh yeah, I knew what you meant.. well, I did after I posted that since more than two parties seems to confuse those south of the border. But yeah, we do it proper.

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

But yeah, we do it proper
We rulz!!11one

[randomsign.livejournal.com]

Are you okay over there? :)

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

Aren't I usually?

[randomsign.livejournal.com]

I would have to say.. yes.

[rhyannelise.livejournal.com]

Supposedly, we are ripe for the emergence of a third party. Like, back when Ross Perot ran and suddenly tons of conservatives were throwing off the GOP to vote Libertarian, and that got like, 10 or 11% of the popular vote that year, and a ton of federal funds to continue the party. But a lack of strong figureheads after that had pretty much doomed the Lib party back into obscurity. Now, at one point, I thought that Ralph Nader had enough of a public persona to command a pretty significant portion of the popular vote, but the "Go Green" campaign kinda petered out the closer to November 2000 it became, and this year he's completely sold out.

And I'm not really sure if that's answered any of your questions, but I'm just going to say that I get the feeling that George W. is going to pull it off with a >10% majority in the popular vote, and probably the same electoral votes that he had last time, because most Americans don't care enough about politics to form an opinion one way or another, so if they even muster up the energy to make it to a polling place, they vote for who the TV tells them to vote for.

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

but I'm just going to say that I get the feeling that George W. is going to pull it off with a >10% majority in the popular vote,
I really, really hope not. Even though I don't live in the US, he scares me. (Maybe even especially 'cause I don't live there.)

I don't know. I've looked more closely at the US electorial system, and while I still don't *understand* it, as such, it seems like it can't work if the parties are unblanced. Like, if you had two right wing and two left wing parties, you might be okay. But if you had two right wing and one left wing, the left wing president would be pretty certain to get in, even if >60% of votes were for the other *guys*.