What do you think?
I think both of them know how to play the media and are charismatic. Both however are full of **** and just appeal to the stupid masses.
On a other issue is the US a democracy? I think it is a border line issue. Can any country where there are only 2 parties be called a democracy? I doubt it since there is almost no freedom of choice.
Number of parties has little to do with being a democracy or not.
But yeah, i have a hard time viewing US as a democracy due to the regulations on voters etc.
I share that view, though some ofg the regulations I agree with.Number of parties has little to do with being a democracy or not.
But yeah, i have a hard time viewing US as a democracy due to the regulations on voters etc.
As for Verdonk and Wilders pfft both are racist scum. I'm Dutch myself, but I seriously can't understand why people chose to vote for any of them, so yeah number of parties has little to do with a country being a democracy or not, except that you need more than one of course (don't want to go communist).
Basicly if you think about it, there's about 19 parties in the Netherlands and only 2 of them are worth voting for (VVD and PvdA), you really don't need the other 17, as most are either extremists, one-issue, religious nutters, or utter BS.
More choice does not necessarily lead to a country being a better democracy.
Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.
my question is though, why does someone named 010101 care other then act like a troll?
Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.
freemehul
you dont need more than 1 party to be a democracy, in fact you dont even need one at all.
number of parties shouldnt be controlled by anyone other than the people in a democracy at all.
More choice does not necessarily lead to a country being a better democracy.
a democratic state shouldnt dictate choice in any way at all. So yeah, its not about how many choices you can make but about how many choices you cannot make.
I think you need more then 2 parties to have a proper democracy. With 2 parties there is a rather large chance that neither of them have any appeal to the voter. If I were a poor working class or unemployed non religious citizen in the US I would have no party that stands up for me. All US parties have some kind of religious theme going on to draw footers.
In order to have a democracy I think it is necessary that a government should not consist of only 1 party neither should the opposition.
Freemehul why do you think this an attempt to troll?
I vote neither VVD or PvdA I don't vote extreme left or right but I do like the fact that they are here. Helps to keep the more decent parties awake.
The fact that I don't agree with some people on this forum doesn't turn me into a troll. In fact some of the other people mention vines in every thread even though he is not active in that thread. Now that is trolling.
Last edited by 010101; 10-09-2008 at 17:41.
I think you need more then 2 parties to have a proper democracy.
Why? What if the population for some reason are divided into just two camps? :)
The problem isnt that there are "only 2 parties" but rather that any other parts have a hard time spreading their agenda. For democracy to work properly people have to know what all the actors stand for, not just a chosen few. One cannot vote for what one doesnt know exist.
If I were a poor working class or unemployed non religious citizen in the US I would have no party that stands up for me
You might have one without knowing so. If theres enough support for an idea thats not supported someone should start their own party.
look i'm not saying that you should dictate choice, all i'm saying is that 2 is enough, if the other ones don't lead to anything good
Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.
That is the good part of a democracy you don't decide what is good or not, neither do I. So it is not up to you or me to decide whether they will lead up to anything good or not.Originally Posted by freemehul
i'm not saying that and please note the difference between need and ought or shouldThat is the good part of a democracy you don't decide what is good or not, neither do I. So it is not up to you or me to decide whether they will lead up to anything good or not.
why need one or two at all. There were democratic systems that were based on no parties, but rather on individual candidates.Why? What if the population for some reason are divided into just two camps? :)
such a system would eliminate bloc voting according to party lines and also eliminate the use of dogma that too often than not doesn't work in the real world.
The only downside is that it doesn't really work that well anymore today. Most countries are way too populous for this system to work, because only popstars can get elected in such a system, since everyone knows their name.
Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.
There were democratic systems that were based on no parties, but rather on individual candidates.
That is always possible in any democratic system. Its hard for one man to make his voice heard compared to the voice of many though. In fact its not that uncommon for politicians to separate from their party and follow their own agenda due to differences in opinions becoming to large over time.
I like Switzerland, they still employ direct democracy to some extent.
There are 38 official parties in the U.S who have endorsed canidates for office ,but there is only two major parties,therefore your thoughts on the American political system is baseless when raising the point of "only two parties in the U.S vs democracy.
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
As long as the system is in place where all votes go to 1 candidate per state, you can have a million +1 parties in the US it will practically mean you will only have 2 parties.
lolyou can have a million +1 parties in the US it will practically mean you will only have 2 parties.
some of the efficiencies of the system
Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote