At 23:31 31-10-00 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>>I didn't call the US government undemocratic -- I called your >*political
>>system* undemocratic. The two-party system is democratic >in so far that
>>it gives you a choice between parties, but it >doesn't give
>>parties/people on the left of the Democrats a chance.
>
>A chance to what?
A chance to win seats in Congress and the Senate for their own party.
>The only thing that a two party system doesn't facilitate is having small
>groups of people very intent on one issue ensuring that issue goes their
>way against the will of the majority.
>Why should 2 million impose their will on 200 million?
>What does happen with proportional representation is that small groups of
>people have power to dictate their will to the rest of the people.
That's highly unlikely. Such a thing can only happen if support for all
their proposals is the price for forming a coalition with that party.
However, if a party wants to form a coalition with a smaller party, it will
not do so if the price is too high (like having to support some extremely
radical proposals). It is therefore highly unlikely that a small group will
ever be able to dictate its will to the rest of the population.
>An example of this is the strict religious law in Israel. My Jewish
>friends tell my Israelis are mostly atheistic. Indeed one of them talked
>about being approached in the street to pray Koddish (sp) because there
>are so few people in Israel who can.
>
>Yet, the Shas party has been able to get very strict religious laws passed
>as the price for joining one coalition or the other. About 5% of the
>population, IIRC, is able to dictate to 95%. Is this democratic?
No, this is not democratic, but a single case is not proof that small
groups of people have the power to dictate their will to the rest of the
people. This particular case only shows that the party or parties the Shas
formed a coalition with were quite desperate -- otherwise they wouldn't
have agreed to support those religious proposals.
>>Re: power: In European countries, power is very relative because a
>>political party rarely (if ever) has an absolute majority. The only >way
>>to get a majority is through forming coalitions with other >parties.
>
>That's right, giving 5% of the people enormous leverage.
Not really. Forming a coalition does not mean that all parties involved
fully support everything on each other's agendas. Rather, they are
agreements to work together on certain issues. For instance, Social
Democrats may vote with the Greens on raising Ecology Taxes for heavy
industries, but vote differently on the issue of raising minimum wages.
IOW, the only time a small party can get a proposal accepted is when a
larger party agrees with them and *together* they form a majority.
>It sounds good when it's the 5% you want. But, lets say the religious
>right wins 20% of the vote and will join any coalition that will ensure
>that neo-evangelical Christianity is taught in the public schools.
Such an idea would be considered extreme, so few (if any) larger parties
would be willing to form a coalition with the religious right if supporting
that proposal would be the price.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
Brin-L Party Page: http://www.geocities.com/jeroenvb.geo/party.html
