4 ms·

I can say the same of your system. You effectively have 2 parties, but they don't exist until after the election. You don't know what they will be. Your 12, th

by burfog 10y ago

I can say the same of your system. You effectively have 2 parties, but they don't exist until after the election. You don't know what they will be. Your 12, the ones you voted for, make dirty deals with each other to "form a government". About half of the original 12 get assigned to the loser party, and half to the winner party. The goals of the winner party are not determined when you vote, because the party doesn't exist until after the election. Suppose 11 parties each get 5% for a total of 55%, and 1 party gets 45% all by itself. That party with 45% might team up with a couple others and thus take control... or maybe everybody else hates them, so they are the loser despite being 9x more popular than any other party. You don't even get to choose who is the primary person running your country. That person is picked as part of the dirty deal-making that creates 2 parties from 12.

pavlov 10y ago
The two American parties are effectively composed of roughly a dozen factions that just pretend to be unified parties at election time. Look at the fate of the Ryancare/Trumpcare bill. Republicans control all branches of government, yet they can't even agree to vote on a piece of legislation that was a core campaign promise for the last eight years. It would feel more honest towards voters if the Republican umbrella were split into actual separate parties: "Economic Liberalists", "Moderate Right", "America First Economic Nationalists", "White Nationalists", etc.
mrec 10y ago
Their are upsides and downsides either way. Moving the coalition-building to before the election, as the US and (to a lesser extent) the UK do, means that voters have a pretty good idea of the final outcome they're voting for. On the other hand, keeping the coalition-building until after the election allows voters to send a stronger signal about which particular part of that coalition they're supporting, which arguably makes it easier for parties to evolve in response to shifts in the electoral climate.

by burfog 10y ago

pavlov 10y ago

The two American parties are effectively composed of roughly a dozen factions that just pretend to be unified parties at election time. Look at the fate of the Ryancare/Trumpcare bill. Republicans control all branches of government, yet they can't even agree to vote on a piece of legislation that was a core campaign promise for the last eight years. It would feel more honest towards voters if the Republican umbrella were split into actual separate parties: "Economic Liberalists", "Moderate Right", "America First Economic Nationalists", "White Nationalists", etc.

mrec 10y ago

Their are upsides and downsides either way. Moving the coalition-building to before the election, as the US and (to a lesser extent) the UK do, means that voters have a pretty good idea of the final outcome they're voting for. On the other hand, keeping the coalition-building until after the election allows voters to send a stronger signal about which particular part of that coalition they're supporting, which arguably makes it easier for parties to evolve in response to shifts in the electoral climate.