On Dec 19, 2007, at 3:51 , Kevin Venzke wrote:
> 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.
I agree that "populism"/"demagogism" is more evenly spread between
party-based and non-party-based political systems (than what
impression putting that attribute only on one side gave). There are
also typically "populist"/"demagogic" parties, at least typically in
the multi-party systems.
One more observation that I forgot from the list is:
No parties
- numerous candidates (unstructured mass) to wade through in order to
pick the best of them
Juho
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease
of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
