TWO PARTY SYSTEM; The Best? | Bitcointalksearch.org

Tash

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 305

Pro financial, medical liberty

Quote from: BADecker on October 16, 2021, 04:41:08 PM

TWO PARTY SYSTEM; The Best?

The NO PARTY SYSTEM is the best.

Cool

A party is just a group of criminals who band together for mutual protection and profit like a pack of wild dogs.
Two, is a pack of Hyenas fight the pride of Lion over a sheep. Sometimes the hyenas win other times the lion.

Edit: Be your own king http://governyourself.com/index.html

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

TWO PARTY SYSTEM; The Best?

The NO PARTY SYSTEM is the best.

Cool

Barinekapaul

member

Activity: 104

Merit: 10

Quote from: Call me Fada on April 08, 2021, 03:23:13 PM

Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best because it doesn’t really give room for proper democracy.

Good democracy as said earlier by you is achieved through good challenges and prove of self and political worth
or benefits that can be derived if the opportunity is given.

Witness of two-person is asserted to be true, so democracy can be well achieved with the two-party system.

You even get to realize that, bringing multiple parties together, all others tend to support one of the two
thereby making democracy more interesting when played by two sides or political parties.

Pablo james

member

Activity: 74

Merit: 19

In a democratic country, Two party system is the best,it saves cost, there will be less fight against each other, compare to multi party, countries that practice multi party system, these politicians uses non popular party to fight the other, politicians uses those non popular party to contest knowing that they can't win election, doing all these to receive compensation from there counterpart.
In a nutshell two party system is the best.

Cnut237

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1277

Quote from: Natsuu on April 18, 2021, 06:55:22 AM

That would be good. hmm interesting.

Yes. It's clearly the fairest method. However, it's very rare to see such a system implemented. And the reason for this is quite straightforward - it's the party who is in charge who gets to write the laws. And it's the party in charge who stands to lose out under a switch to a fairer system... because the current system is unfair in their favour. They benefit from the current unfairness, and have no incentive to change it.

Natsuu

full member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 158

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

Quote from: Cnut237 on April 18, 2021, 04:41:29 AM

Quote from: Natsuu on April 16, 2021, 10:57:22 AM

it just happens that these two holds too many peoples, thus having major power in politics.

It doesn't just happen, though. It happens because elections aren't representative. In a first-past-the-post system, voters for smaller parties will never get representation. Which means that sometimes they vote tactically for the 'least bad' major party.

Red 50%
Yellow 40%
Green 10%

In FPTP, the outcome would be something like: Red gets 70% of seats, Yellow gets 30%, Green gets nothing.
In PR, the outcome would be: Red gets 50% of seats, Yellow 40%, Green 10%.

But also, under FPTP there are people who want to vote Green, but vote Yellow instead because Green will never win and Yellow are 'less bad' than Red... if we switch to PR, the votes may be more like:

Red 50%
Yellow 35%
Green 15%

... so moving from FPTP to PR not only makes representation more democratic, it also empowers individual voters to vote for their preferred party rather than for a tactical 'least bad' compromise.

Ohhhh, now I get your point.

That would be good. hmm interesting.

Cnut237

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1277

Quote from: Natsuu on April 16, 2021, 10:57:22 AM

it just happens that these two holds too many peoples, thus having major power in politics.

It doesn't just happen, though. It happens because elections aren't representative. In a first-past-the-post system, voters for smaller parties will never get representation. Which means that sometimes they vote tactically for the 'least bad' major party.

Red 50%
Yellow 40%
Green 10%

In FPTP, the outcome would be something like: Red gets 70% of seats, Yellow gets 30%, Green gets nothing.
In PR, the outcome would be: Red gets 50% of seats, Yellow 40%, Green 10%.

But also, under FPTP there are people who want to vote Green, but vote Yellow instead because Green will never win and Yellow are 'less bad' than Red... if we switch to PR, the votes may be more like:

Red 50%
Yellow 35%
Green 15%

... so moving from FPTP to PR not only makes representation more democratic, it also empowers individual voters to vote for their preferred party rather than for a tactical 'least bad' compromise.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Government officials and others are holding way more than two parties in D.C.

Cool

Natsuu

full member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 158

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

Quote from: Cnut237 on April 14, 2021, 11:48:30 AM

Quote from: Natsuu on April 14, 2021, 10:43:39 AM

in the long-run, it will still go back to majorities of party and will gonna narrow to 2 major parties clashing.

I'm not sure it will. In a two-party system, Party A is always going to attack Party B, because they need to take votes off Party B to get seats off Party B. But in a PR election, lots of parties get seats, everyone has their own angle, and it's no longer a case of forcing everyone in your party to band together to attack the opposition.

And even if PR does result in two parties getting all the seats, then that will be because those two parties got all the votes... which is a lot fairer than it is now.

But two party system is just a concept of two major parties in the government. There are other minor parties but it just happens that these two holds too many peoples, thus having major power in politics.

Cnut237

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1277

Quote from: Natsuu on April 14, 2021, 10:43:39 AM

in the long-run, it will still go back to majorities of party and will gonna narrow to 2 major parties clashing.

I'm not sure it will. In a two-party system, Party A is always going to attack Party B, because they need to take votes off Party B to get seats off Party B. But in a PR election, lots of parties get seats, everyone has their own angle, and it's no longer a case of forcing everyone in your party to band together to attack the opposition.

And even if PR does result in two parties getting all the seats, then that will be because those two parties got all the votes... which is a lot fairer than it is now.

Natsuu

full member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 158

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

Quote from: Cnut237 on April 11, 2021, 07:25:08 AM

Quote from: Natsuu on April 11, 2021, 06:51:28 AM

So if the electoral system is the problem, then what is the best approach

The best system for ensuring that the politicians in power reflect voter intentions is proportional representation, where if a party wins e.g. 28% of the vote, then they get 28% of the seats.

Isn't it gonna be an issue if a certain party wins more than 50%, cause probably the voters will vote to the parties that are already known.

But if we do reset, like disband all the parties and make new ones. Then at first it will be pretty like a fair system of fair percentage of votes. But in the long-run, it will still go back to majorities of party and will gonna narrow to 2 major parties clashing.

semobo

full member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 146

Quote from: Call me Fada on April 08, 2021, 03:23:13 PM

Many scholars of politics have proven that two party systems are the best, but in my opinion I don’t think it is the best because it doesn’t really give room for proper democracy because it’s just two persons that stands the chance of contesting for elective offices, the aspirants just come from two parties only and it makes democracy unbalanced in the society.
In a democratic state I think it’s perfect for multi party systems to take effect and come to stay because looking at the society generally you will see so many are interested and loved by their people but they ain’t given a voice simply because they’re not well connected. Multi party systems allow the grassroots movement have a strong voice and high level profile.

In most of the democratic it became unwritten rules, who got the power and money became the rulers and don't let any new people to contest for suce place, either they will buy the new party or will destroy them completely which proves Illuminati is real. Shocked

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

^^^ But we don't want Democracy.

In Democracy, 49% are slaves to 51%. But in a big Democracy, everybody is slaves to 500 people who fake like they are carrying out the wishes of the 51%, while they really do anything they want.

Cool

E6XN

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Bipartisanship is a modern creation, for an ancient problem, to make individuals believe that they have a choice. The goal is to hide the fact that it is not a democracy.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

The 3-party system is better. The 3rd party could be the tie-breaker.

Cool

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Cnut237 on April 13, 2021, 10:28:19 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on April 13, 2021, 06:48:36 AM

the parties will be forced to compromise

Yes. I don't think this is a bad thing. Some countries have a history of coalition governments that work very well, Germany being an example.
Proportional representation is just that - the political positions of the representatives mirrors that of the electorate. It helps to prevent extremism, and the kind of oppositional and factional bickering that you get in 2-party systems... for example the pointless impeachment of Trump, when it was obvious that even if he'd gone on a massive killing spree with a machine gun, the Republicans would still have backed him.

In the US, politics have become nationalized, with many in congress fundraising primarily outside of their districts, and Senators fundraising from outside of their state. Both parties, but especially the Democrats have been able to keep their people in line, and to always toe the party line. Part of this is because there are so many 'safe seats' in congress, and representatives and Senators are more afraid of loosing in the primary than in the general election.

Quote from: Cnut237 on April 13, 2021, 10:28:19 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on April 13, 2021, 06:48:36 AM

To further improve a multi-party system, the number of districts could have halved, and each district would get two representatives, the candidates who receive the most and second most votes, and each voter could cast two votes in an election (but could not vote for one candidate twice).

I'm not sure about how it would work best... just that in general it's a better idea than FPTP, particularly when FPTP covers such huge regions (such as winner-takes-all for an entire state at a time).

The above would make it more difficult to gerrymander districts so that a district will reliably remain in one party's control.

yat97

member

Activity: 173

Merit: 20

The worst as implemented in the USA

Cnut237

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1277

Quote from: Quickseller on April 13, 2021, 06:48:36 AM

the parties will be forced to compromise

Yes. I don't think this is a bad thing. Some countries have a history of coalition governments that work very well, Germany being an example.
Proportional representation is just that - the political positions of the representatives mirrors that of the electorate. It helps to prevent extremism, and the kind of oppositional and factional bickering that you get in 2-party systems... for example the pointless impeachment of Trump, when it was obvious that even if he'd gone on a massive killing spree with a machine gun, the Republicans would still have backed him.

Quote from: Quickseller on April 13, 2021, 06:48:36 AM

To further improve a multi-party system, the number of districts could have halved, and each district would get two representatives, the candidates who receive the most and second most votes, and each voter could cast two votes in an election (but could not vote for one candidate twice).

I'm not sure about how it would work best... just that in general it's a better idea than FPTP, particularly when FPTP covers such huge regions (such as winner-takes-all for an entire state at a time).

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Cnut237 on April 11, 2021, 05:25:00 AM

Quote from: Natsuu on April 10, 2021, 01:01:10 PM

It is just that the two party system is a concept of 2 major parties that conquers other parties in number and power. To have multiple major parties, parties in politics should have almost same number of members to balance the numbers. BUT, is there people willing to do this? and if there is, how many? will others risk going to minor parties instead of going to the major ones?

I don't think the number of parties is the issue, so much as the electoral system itself.
A first-past-the-post, or winner-takes-all system will always be unrepresentative and will always favour big parties, and cause people to not vote for smaller parties because they will be throwing their vote away.

Take an election where the result is:
40% red party
35% blue party
15% yellow party
10% purple party.

First-past-the-post means that red and blue will take almost all of the seats, and a vote for yellow or purple is pointless.
But proper proportional representation would give the seats in accordance with number of votes, 40% of seats to red, 10% to purple, etc... and would be so much fairer.

What you say is true for a head of state, where there is one winning for the entire nation/state, however this is not the case for representative elections, where one representative represents a district. If there are three or four parties in the legislature, the parties will be forced to compromise to pass a budget and/or legislation.

To further improve a multi-party system, the number of districts could have halved, and each district would get two representatives, the candidates who receive the most and second most votes, and each voter could cast two votes in an election (but could not vote for one candidate twice).

Call me Fada

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 29

Quote from: Poker Player on April 12, 2021, 04:19:44 AM

There is no single system that is the best. In this case, the two party has the disadvantage that minority opinions or sectors are not represented or are underrepresented. But the system with many parties also has the disadvantage that it is difficult to get them all to agree, and that sometimes by means of pacts a very minority party obtains advantages for its sector of voters that are exaggerated for the few votes it represents.

Indeed there’s no single system that is the best but this is not the point, all I’m insinuating is you personally taking a thorough look at this two party system thing. Can you boldly say it is democratic? Placing instances from the United States 🇺🇸 previous election 🗳 process would you be able to say this is democratic I really need to know please, I’m so eager.

Topic: TWO PARTY SYSTEM; The Best? (Read 312 times)