Juho,
--- Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> My use of term "populism" is maybe not quite proper English. The
> intention is to refer to behaviour where the politician expresses
> views that easily get the support of large (maybe not so educated/
> knowledgeable) masses (but are not typically that much appreciated by
> the best experts / responsible leaders). Typical extreme themes might
> be e.g. "if I'll be elected the taxes of low and mid class will be
> cut to half", "if I'll be elected there will be no more unemployment
> in 6 months".
>
> What would be a good term for this kind of political behaviour
> (benefiting of popular but not so sensible themes)?
That's already exactly what comes to my mind when you say "populism."
If a lack of parties really did lead to an explosion of populism, I think
on the whole that would be a bad thing.
I don't think that would happen though. I don't see parties (or stronger
party discipline) as likely to moderate candidates. Just the opposite
actually. I don't think that, if candidates were free to advocate whatever
they wanted, it would actually be a viable strategy most of the time to run
on a "populist" platform.
Kevin Venzke
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
http://mail.yahoo.fr
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
