http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm

From the vote results you see there are three major parties with a fourth party on the fringe. The leading party received roughly 36% of the vote.

How did the UK's three party system come into being? Why does it work there?

Then, ultimately, what would it take for it to work in the US? I figure most people can't offer solutions without a clear understanding of a successful precedent..

>Then, ultimately, what would it take for it to work in the US?

I don't think a party could start from the ground up and become a major player in American politics, the two major parties are too powerful. If it were to ever hapeen, I think it would be thorugh a break within one of the two major parties, followed by a vast political realingment

------------------------------

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

It can work in the Us if the smaller parties became regional. For example the greens in the US could gain power if they concentrated there power on the West Coast and in the Northeast. This happened in Canada when regional parties gained significant power against the two party machine. I think it was the election of 1994 or 95 where the conservative party in Canada went from having a majority to having only two seats in parliament.

.. because we all know those Californians are 'different' anyway. ;)

>How did the UK's three party system come into being?

You realize that bipartism IS NOT the norm all over the world, do you ?

______________________________

*TWINNING*

not all of us were born in2 this world all knowing like you!!

>
>
>>How did the UK's three party system come into being?
>
>You realize that bipartism IS NOT the norm all over the world,
>do you ?
>

I could've just as easily asked about any other country without a 'blatantly corrupt' political system. However, since the UK elections just happened, I tried to keep the post focused..

If a LIAR like Tony Blair can be REelected after conniving against Iraq-how is the U.K. better off?

You DO REMEMBER that Bush/Blair LIED and FABRICATED a FALSE WMD pretext for a US/UK invasion of Iraq,right?

The Brits are only SLIGHTLY better off than the USA in the sense that 1 or 2 people over there still READ BOOKs.....

>If a LIAR like Tony Blair can be REelected after conniving
>against Iraq-how is the U.K. better off?
>
>You DO REMEMBER that Bush/Blair LIED and FABRICATED a FALSE
>WMD pretext for a US/UK invasion of Iraq,right?
>

well, I can't speak for the 53% of americans that voted for Bush, and the Blair and Bush lies have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

This is a discussion about the SYSTEM itself and not what the system produces.

What "advantage" do the Brits have if the end result is the SAME?

Answer:none.

is it not?

The "pruduct" of a Bush/Blair election is Exponential Imperialism at the precipice of world wide anarchy and chaos.

What do you perceive as being "what the system produces"?

"more choice"?

What does that mean in a practical sense?

>is it not?
>
>The "pruduct" of a Bush/Blair election is Exponential
>Imperialism at the precipice of world wide anarchy and chaos.
>
>What do you perceive as being "what the system produces"?
>
>"more choice"?
>
>What does that mean in a practical sense?

my intent is not to engage in issues of imperialism and domination by world powers, but to gain a greater understanding of the advantages / disadvantages of a three party system.

In a practical sense, many blacks feel they have no other alternative to the democratic party. Knowing this, there is no incentive for them to really address any issues facing blacks. From a practican sense, I wonder if there was a viable third party in the US how it would affect both the democrats and republicans obvious lack of concern for minority issues.

Nice try,kids.

What difference does "choice" make if the END RESULT is EXACTLY the same -whether it be in "distribution of power" OR "wielding of power"?


Is that too complex for you to grasp?


Just TRY to use that BRAIN and THINK.....put some effort into it...

we are talking about how power is distributed.

you are trying to talk about how power is wielded.


ease up

Would anyone think that the REelection the UK's version of George Bush is an example of fair "distribution of power"...bwaahaaahh...

love2000 and tohunga should try graduating from highschool before they venture into mildly complex issues such as this.

you assume too much

Yes, politicians can (and do) lie. All the original poster is asking is whether a multi-partisan system would give us more politicians to choose from.

The system won't keep the politicians from lying to us. You haven't exactly proposed an alternative form of government that would keep this from happening. But it's fair to ask whether there are strengths from other forms of govt that would make sense here in the US.

during their election campaign?

The Conservatives (the opposition) outright called Tony Blair a liar, then Tony Blair claimed he never knowingly mislead anyone. This whole thing taking up the last 1.5 weeks of the campaign. Then the public voted, and most voted for the Labour Party (not Tony Blair, the Labour Party).

It's democracy at work.

interesting...
______________________________

*TWINNING*

To give you more information on the British system. It's not really a three party system more like a two and a half. The Liberal Democrats only got 22% of the popular vote, but they gained 10 seats. They did these because they ran regionally in places like Wales and large urban section of England. The conservative party stays strictly in England the Labour Party is all over. The liberal democrats used to get in the uper 20%, but they didn't get any seats because it's a single distric system instead of a PR. It will be interesting to see if the Liberal Democrats can tried to spread more into labour territory and get an election where this is no majority government. In which case there will have to be a coalition government which is rare in a single distric system.

the lib dems got screwed by the first-past-the-post yet again.
22% of the vote and <10% of seats.

we have (inherited?) the same problem in canada too.


hmm, didn't realize the torries were completely shunned in scotland either.

but the fact that Labour shifted to the right over the last decade meant that people are looking for a party on the left. and the LD's are there to fill that gap.

you guys need a strong presence in between the Greens and the Democrats, basically.. we got MMP- Mixed Member Proportional (?)- a multi-party system, back home in NZ. it's got problems, but the principle is worthwhile enough to work with the problems.


i think Germany has MMP as well. and a few other places..(in fact i believe Hitler actually siezed power by playing parties against each other in a multi=party set-up. but don't let that put you off..)

anyway, it can be a hell of a lot more representative then a two-party system, if you have a larger representation of the political spectrum in power. it means you have extremists at both ends, of course, but the overall effect is mostly more balance.



basically any party that gets over 5% of the votes gets representation in the House. the higher a % they get, then the more relative seats they end up with.

one of the major obstacles in the US could be the sheer size of the place.. and the fact that most of your govt. would need to be overhauled. but that may not be a bad thing..

> Why does it work there?

Lots of reasons, the main one being the UK has a diff culture than ours.

What's different?
- A much. much, much older society,
- Typically more educated,
- less affective reasoning and more cognitive reasoning,
- and a lot more appreciation for the subtle.

>Then, ultimately, what would it take for it to work in the US?

1) "real choice"
2) a change the very nature of our culture.

You should read Democracy in America by DeTocqueville.

not sure what you mean here in this context..

is a perfect example of an appreciation for the subtle.

heh

it's like the difference between the original 'The Office' and the US remake... the subtleties are just ironed out

years of your entertainment outlets underestimating their audience can lead to this, i hear

the past presidential election clearly showed this

I have no idea what / who any of these are all about, but there is obviously a different approach to elections. This is what I'm trying to understand...

~C

edit: their abbreviation on the BBC site follows the name of the party


Alliance for Change Change
Alliance for Green Socialism AGS
Alternative Party Alternative
Alliance Party Alliance
Ashfield Independents Ashfield
Build Duddon and Morecambe Bridges Bridges
Blair Must Go Party Blair Go
British National Party BNP
British Public Party Brit Public
Clause 28 Clause 28
Community Action Party Community
Common Good Common Good
Community Group Comm Group
Civilisation Party Civil
Church of the Militant Elvis Party Elvis
Conservative Conservative
Christian Peoples Alliance Christian PA
Communist Party of Britain Communist
Croydon Pensions Alliance Croydon
"Death, Dungeons & Taxes " Death
Demanding Honesty in Politics and Whitehall Honesty
Democratic Labour Party Dem Lab
Democratic Socialist Alliance - People Before Profit Dem Socs
Democratic Unionist Party DUP
English Democrats Eng Dems
English Independence Party English Ind
English Parliamentary Party Eng Parl
Families First Fam First
For Integrity And Trust In Government Integrity
Freedom Party FRP
Free Scotland Party Free Scot
Forward Wales Forwd Wales
Get Britian Back Party Britian Back
Green Green
Independent Green Voice Ind Grn
Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern Ind Kid Hosp
Imperial Party Imper Party
Independent Progressive Labour Party Prog Lab
Independent Working Class Association Workers
Iraq War. Not In My Name Iraq
Islam Zinda Baad Platform IZB Platform
Justice Party Justice
Labour Labour
Legalise Cannabis Alliance Cannabis
Local Community Party Local Comm
Liberal Democrat Lib Dem
Liberal Party Liberal
Removal Of Tetramasts In Cornwall Masts
Max Power Party Max
Millennium Council Millennium
Motorcycle News Party Motorbike
Mebyon Kernow Mebyon Kern
Monster Raving Loony Party Loony
Newcastle Academy with Christian Values Party Newcastle
New England Party New England
National Front Nat Front
New Millennium Bean Party Bean Party
Northern Progress N Progress
Operation Christian Vote Christian
Open Forum Open Forum
Organisation of Free Democrats Free Dems
Peace and Progress Peace
Plaid Cymru Plaid Cymru
Progressive Democratic Party Progressive
The Pensioners Party Pensioners
People of Horsham First Party Horsham
Pride in Paisley Party Pride
Pensioners Party Scotland Pens Scot
Personality AND Rational Thinking? Yes! Party PARTY
Publican Party - Free to Smoke Pub Party
Protest Vote Party Protest
Residents` Association of London Res Ass
Respect-Unity Coalition Respect
Resolutionist Party Resolve
Rock `N Rock Loony
Socialist Alternative Soc Alt
Save Bristol North Baths Party Save Baths
Social Democratic & Labour Party SDLP
Socialist Environmental Alliance SEA
Senior Citizens Party OAPs
Sinn Fein Sinn Fein
Scottish Green Party Scottish Grn
Scottish Independence Party Scot Ind
Socialist Labour Party Soc Labour
Silent Majority Party Silent
Safeguard the NHS Save NHS
SNP SNP
Socialist Party Socialist
S O S! Voters Against Overdevelopment of Northampton SOS
Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party SSCP
Scottish Socialist Party Scottish Soc
St Albans Party St Alban
Socialist Unity Soc Unity
Scottish Unionist Party Scot Union
Telepathic Partnership Telepathic
Tiger's Eye - the Party for Kids Tiger's Eye
The Community (London Borough of Hounslow) Community
Their Party Their
The People`s Choice! Exclusively For All Peoples
The Peace Party Peace
Third Way Third Way
UK Community Issues Party UK Com
UK Independence Party UKIP
United Kingdom Pathfinders UK Path
Ulster Unionist Party UUP
Virtue Currency Cognitive Appraisal Party Virtue
Veritas Veritas
Vote for Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket Yourself
World World
Workers Party Workers
Wessex Regionalists Wessex
Workers Revolutionary Party Workers Rev
Xtraordinary People Party Xtra People
Your Party Your Party

............

No message

... nor does it make anyone (including myself) want to engage you in a rational conversation...

please try to stick to the topic at hand....

thank you.

Maybe you think this passes for an "informed debate"--I did not mention anything about "training wheels"--I SIMPLY tried to get you to see the weakness of your forum topic...I guess you are not at all interested in a dissenting opinion....a 2way debate....??

Thats what we're here for,isn't it? Or are you just looking for a pat on the back?


But since you are so SURE of yourself against censure--VERY condescending--EXPLAIN how your "choices" would benefit AA's with a British BUSH at the helm?


please...i gotta see this....

>Maybe you think this passes for an "informed debate"--I did
>not mention anything about "training wheels"--I SIMPLY tried
>to get you to see the weakness of your forum topic...I guess
>you are not at all interested in a dissenting opinion....a
>2way debate....??
>

I didn't mention training wheels either... there isn't any debate here in the first place, this is what you fail to grasp. The topic is about gaining a better understanding of the multi-party electorate in the UK and what its benefits may or not be. Once this has been grasped, it is hoped to make a comparison to the US two party system to try to make a comparison between the two.


>Thats what we're here for,isn't it? Or are you just looking
>for a pat on the back?
>
No, I'm not here for debate. I'm here for understanding. Big difference. There are many people (yourself included obviously) who believe everything has to be a debate instead of shutting the fuck up and trying to learn something from other people from time to time. You can't listen when your mouth is open.

>
>But since you are so SURE of yourself against censure--VERY
>condescending--EXPLAIN how your "choices" would benefit AA's
>with a British BUSH at the helm?
>
>
>please...i gotta see this....

??? how in the hell did we get here? You obviously have an agenda and are trying to turn a learning opportunity into a Bush/Blair bashing exercise. I can't stand Bush just as much as the next okplayer, but there is a time and a place for everything and I don't see the point of bringing my displeasure for our current president into every single topic.

Since we currently don't have any other 'choices', I can not hypothetically assert how these hypothetical people and their hypothetical views would be better for blacks. It would obviously be foolish of me.

So, I yearn to understand what the effects of a multi-party system has on a country other than ours to see how this may / may not affect the political strata in the US.

I LIVE in a "3 party system".

YUP--its OK--you CAN shut the phuk up and take my advice..."distribution of power" is STILL a problem up here too.

No need for further "study".

you're not bringing a damn thing to the discussion

it's just some petty one-upmanshit that you're trying to fob off as an argument

bring some food to the table 'fore you open the wine, yeh?

now. please. some serious discussion on the topic at hand.. electoral systems. don't reply to this with anger, just drop a reply down the bottom that, gee, i don't know, ooh, tells us something.

n/m

where they're playing BBC reporters covering an election. Whenever a party was named it was followed by the designation "Sensible" or "Silly." The Sensible parties were Labour, Conservative, and LibDem (though I personally think one could question the Tories). I don't remember the Silly parties, but I think a few are visible in your list:


>Church of the Militant Elvis Party Elvis
Cute.

>"Death, Dungeons & Taxes " Death
The Tories, like the Republicans, prefer the first two.

>Legalise Cannabis Alliance Cannabis
Not that I wouldn't vote for them.

>Max Power Party Max
I pray to God this is a Homer Simpson reference.

>Motorcycle News Party Motorbike
Huh?

>Monster Raving Loony Party Loony
Clearly.

>Personality AND Rational Thinking? Yes! Party PARTY
Yes! indeed.

>Rock `N Rock Loony
Okay.

>Telepathic Partnership Telepathic
Did John Hagelin move to the UK?

>Tiger's Eye - the Party for Kids Tiger's Eye
They should have spelled it "Kidz."

>Their Party Their
Uh oh, who are "they"?

>The People`s Choice! Exclusively For All Peoples
Any party with an exclamation point in their party name is automatically designated a Silly Party.

>Vote for Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket Yourself
Keep hope alive?

>Xtraordinary People Party Xtra People
Any party which replaces "Ex" with "X" in their party name is automatically designated a Silly Party.

>Your Party Your Party
I actually like this one.

Only 2 of the 3 consistently become the government of the country.

The other party NDP never gets close.

I know if helps to have more choices, but all the top parties have pretty much the same way of doing their thing.

Not much difference between them.

Thanks,Mellow.

Thats all I was trying to convey.

Maybe the little boy from D.C. should practice as he preaches- shut the phuk up and LISTEN to some people who LIVE in a "3 party system".

But -then again--Americans don't seem to have developed that 2way communication thing.They stare at the forrest looking for the trees like deer in the headlights.

Sorry,love2000--the rest of us half-intelligent citizens of the world sometimes get a little impatient with Americans and your self-enchanted ruminations and navel gazing.

You need not waste the energy in "studying" such a simple thing,Fool.


....just grow UP a little and you'll be ok.....

please.. listen and build, don't just attack and defend

You Americans seem MORE interested in basking in the glow of your own self-enchantment than REALLY LEARNING ANYTHING and its VERY annoying to those of us who are half-intelligent enough to PERCEIVE your sillyness and the RESULTS with EVERY U.S.A. election year !!!@!

The watered down crap I see on this message board can't help but to be reflected in the demise of anything progressive or TRULY forward thinking both in YOUR country and ,2 a lesser degree, mine.

You guys have to TOUGHEN UP and GET REAL....you TALK all kinds of sheeeit without ever REALLY "listening or building" anything.


Meanwhile ,the Corporate/Business Government sits back and LAUGHS heartily and your effete self-enchantment...ha-ha-haaa...bwaaaHaaahh...


Please don't rebutt me with some sheeeit about.."what have YOU done ?"

I could be an Amaru Indian hunkered down in some Peruvian forrest and you'd impugn my credibility for the lack of a better retort....so please just ...THINK a LITTLE HARDER...thats all..

hell, i could be from a tiny village in a small island in the South Pacific for all you know.

ease up, cowboy

That doesn't mean you haven't submitted to every U.S. Idealogical underpinning..

Didn't you already have some "Free Market Experiment" go wrong already?

I know Canada has...and we are PAYING the price for our lack of Intellectual/Political Vigilance....and apparently,so are you.

Haven't you "listened and built" something YET?

Nice try,NZ.

US trade relations with NZ were frozen in 2003 over our refusal to send armed troops to Iraq, for starters.

and yeah, we had a free market blitz in the late 80s.. which was addressed by the subsequent Labour govt (led by a woman, no less, as was the Opposition at the time) adopting the MMP political approach instead of the FPP (First Past the Post system).

which is how we ended up with the Green Party sharing power with Labour for four years. and why we had the worlds first Rastafarian MP, and the worlds first transsexual MP. (not surprising considering we were also the first country to give women the vote.. oh, and actually we entered a partnership with our native people, which is still being honoured today, instead of simply slaughtering, marginalising and forgetting about them.)

this is all more than can be said for Canada, a country which still blindly follows the partisan policies of the US on almost everything.

research, skippy. it helps.

edit: and your bitchass little edit- adding 'NZ' to that post up there in a vain effort not to make yourself appear so stupid- is pretty fucken lame.

once your lackey of a country abandons the US voting style of FPP, and joins us progressive countries in multi-party democracies, then you might have an argument.. of sorts.

What makes you feel it doesn't work, And what could be done to improve it?

wow.......c'mon,people.

Go do a Google search if you HAVE to--check the Campaign Platforms and slogans of the "opposition" underdogs.

They are saying EXACTLY what I am saying -OR RATHER -I am merely relaying...you haven't CHECKED THIS ?????

THe underdogs had HUGE BILLBOARDs that read, "Tony LIED about IRAQ--why wouldn't he LIE about his FUTURE as British PM?"

WHY BOTHER with the PRETENCE of discussing the pros/cons of a "3party system" if you have not even bothered to CHECK the Political milieu INSIDE the U.K. or Canada...wtf !!??...are you guys this retarded?

Are you all just drifting off into flakeJOBville?...and you wonder why you come off seeming sooo PRETENTIOUS..???

wtf.....???


knock-knock...anybody home?

"If you don't know, you're an idiot" is never a good argument when people are ASKING you for your views. Way to raise the bar!

All you've said is "We both elected similar politicians, so there's obviously no difference in our political systems". Which isn't true bc the electorates aren't identical and neither are the parties or the issues.

Did your "opposition parties" run similar campaingns to the Democrats over here? Did they spend most of their time defending their credibility rather than attacking the credibility of the incumbent? How are your debates held? What role does the 3rd party really play? Do they influence local elections?

The only pretentious person in this thread is you for thinking that us genuinely asking if there are differences between our systems is somehow an idiotic question. We're familiar with our system, either offer some analysis or point us in the direction of someone who is knowledgeable.

I might take you by the hand and REALLY walk you through this one.
The sad truth is that the cliche "if you don't know your an idiot" is utterly appropriate.


YUP-yup YES YES...phuk yeah....
We have VERY SIMILAR pre-election rhetoric/dynamics.

The only difference between Canada/UK and the USA is that the electorate in the FORMER is better educated and well read than the latter as YOU and the others have demonstrated by OPENLY acknowledging that you HAVE NOT investigated the Political Milieu of these 3party countries....a standardized norm amongst Americans,I suppose.


If you HAD BOTHERED to CHECK-you wouldn't even WASTE THE ENERGY debating this lame topic.

Hopefully you are OLD ENOUGH to know BETTER BY NOW--that the structure and design of a given Political System is UTTERLY irrelavent to its END RESULTs.

If you want to consoling yourself with some lame FLIPPING of SCRIPT -trying to paint ME as the pretentious one...be my guest.....play on player

"the structure and design of a given Political System is UTTERLY
>irrelavent to its END RESULTs."

but since you've never lived in a country with a multi-party system, I don't expect you'd know that

research what First Past the Post means

and find out what Canada's govt is

_ooops_ one and the same, you pretentious asshole


having lived under a truly multi-party system, and then after having lived for 3 years here in the UK, which (like Canada) tries to be a multi-party sytem but fails- i can truly say that the MMP electoral system works better.

now you can either respond with more huffy and aggressive, quasi-personal attacks, or you can sit the fuck down in the back of the class and let the sensible people have a sensible discussion. your call.

Its a good thing your aren't talking like this in an English Pub....undoubtedly a riot would ensue and you'd be chased outta town by a bunch of enraged and disenfranchised working class Brits.

How on earth is the U.K. electorial system any better off when a guy like Tony Blair can be REPEATEDLY "voted" into power ..?

Talk about "election irregularities".....where are the election monitors on this one?

it's funny, i was in a Brit Pub a few hours ago, being the disenfranchised unemployed lout that I am.
and i can assure you, we're glad that we've got the Lib Dems and George Galloway in our corner. although it woul be nice to have a truly representational system.. as i've been saying.

i know that if you'd stumbled in there talking like this, you wouldn't get served at the bar. replying to random people like a crackhead muttering.

oh-who should I REPLY to?

YOU?

Phuk,your a RETARD....just STOP...and you'll be ok...


I'm glad you have George Galloway....you OBVIOUSLY haven't studied his platform and YOU LIVE THERE....wow....maybe the Brits are moving faster toward FlakeJob Status than I thought..

I KNOW the difference between oranges and lemons,child.

BOTH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENCE systems end up with the SAME Domestic and Foreign Policy RESULTS.

All these countries are G8 Members/ALL the Leaders (even in the 3rd parties) of these countries are DESPARATE to convince us all that PRIVITIZING the VERY air we breath is the only RATIONAL thing to do and other related NONSENSE....


I am simply pointing out the OBVIOUS similarities between these systems and you are trying to get me to care about the IRRELAVENT differences...




But don't let me interrupt your Glow Basking....carry on with your deep and meaningless "listening and building" of something....

i don't even know why i'm bothering with this. you've got the discussion skills of a frustrated sea sponge.

look, go start your own incoherent thread about the benefits of privatization, or why Iraq was a good idea, or reading books, or whatever it is you're trying to piece together here.

you're not contributing anything to this discussion. your total argument can be summed up in one line- "i believe you get the same type of government regardless of the political system used to select, elect and form said government"..... and this statement is wrong anyway.

the basic fact is that, in a truly multi-party system (NOT Canada, I have to reiterate- you guys use the two-party American-style model, as does the UK) you have parties from all points of the political spectrum, who have a proportional representation in the government. they can therefore wield this influence to broker deals with the major parties, and refuse to cooporate on a number of issues.

but really, i've said all thiis

Seems like you have a problem with books...?

"look, go start your own incoherent thread about the benefits....
... reading books"


" your total argument can be summed up in one line- "i believe you
get the same type of government regardless of the political
system used to select, elect and form said government" in the instance of Canada,USA and U.K...?.....Yup,thanks...


"...and this statement is wrong anyway." Really? how so?

Canada,UK,USA? Which one is NOT like the other?

Maybe Canada...since we refused to kiss Bush's ass and participate in the ILLEGAL invasion/occupation of IRAQ.

Oh-BUT-I'm going WaaaY off topic ,here.





The premise of this forum is the "successful precedent" ...chortle...of the U.K.'s "3 party system".

I'm STILL wondering-as are MILLIONs and MILLIONs of European Activists--how the U.K.--birth place of European Trickle Down Bullshit under Thatcher--is a "successful precedent".

Is it because of the number 3,perhaps.....hhhhmm?

Oh-I GET IT...they have ONE more party--so THEREFORE...uuhmm 3 is ONE MORE than 2 ????



what..?


"the basic fact is that, in a truly multi-party system (NOT
Canada, I have to reiterate- you guys use the two-party...."

Yada yada yada....




Why are you responding AT ALL to a "frustrated sea sponge"..?
These continued responses have a nullifying effect on your credibilty.

Why don't you do the Mature Thing--like all these other silly OkPlayers---and IGNORE me?


I'm sure there are other forums(maybe even "private" ones) for you to partake in some heated back patting and self-congratulatory imbibery.


Incidentally...what part of London do you live in?

>Seems like you have a problem with books...?

you keep going on about this in heaps of posts. i've read loads, i've got a degree, i own hundreds of books, i got 6 books out from the library right now, i worked in a bookshop earlier this year, and i'm writing a novel at the moment.

assumptions, mate. they're a bitch.


blah blah blah
"I'm going WaaaY off topic ,here."
.. no shit.



>Oh-I GET IT...they have ONE more party--so THEREFORE...uuhmm
>3 is ONE MORE than 2 ????
>
>
>
>what..?

yeaaah... what?
i never said the UK is a 'successful precedent'. i'm saying that the UK uses FPP, same as you guys in North America, which is an inferior electoral model.
i can't be fucked explaining this to you yet again.


>Why don't you do the Mature Thing--like all these other silly
>OkPlayers---and IGNORE me?

uh? why do you have such a low opinion of yourself? are you frustrated that you can't engage in a discussion without becoming angry?

>Incidentally...what part of London do you live in?

Ooh. this bit made sense.
I live in Hackney. E5.

But i don't know what the fuck that should have to do with anything.

So you AGREE with me that FFP is inferior or -at least- irrelavent/inconsequential to any notion of a "successful precedent" =the PREMISE of this forum?


.....good job,sea sponge....


"...low opinion of " of myself ? How so?

You READ ?-nicely done.

Hopefully you have the analytical/cognitive skills to gleen SOMETHING from those pages.

Right now you are in opposition to the PREMISE of the forum topic AND me...take your pick ,FlakeJob.

You have a degree?...chortle....thats nice ..I did not even Graduate from HighSchool...nice educational system yu got over there.......ha-ha


Chuckle....you didn't mention anything in your retort about "nullified credibility".....




Carry on Motley Piffle........

Hmmm... the structure of a political system is irrelevant to it's end results.... yet most of the other parliamants in the world didn't support the Iraq war.

Brilliant!

I guess I really can't win this argument. You'd rather NOT be asked your views... you'd rather Americans make assumptions based on the results of your election, rather than the views of your people. I'm not used to this... but again, BRILLIANT! The wisdom from the other side of the Atlantic is inspiring!

You might want to commence with some playschool silent treatment as well,Coco.


"Hmmm... the structure of a political system is irrelevant to
it's end results.... yet most of the other parliamants in the
world didn't support the Iraq war."

EXCEPT in the U.K.(the subject of the forum) which IS supposed to be a "successful precedent"....even though the British Government has been marching in LockStep WITH the USA (Both in Foreign+Domestic Policy) since the days of the Vampire Witch Thatcher.


"Brilliant!".....yeah,real brilliant,Coco.

"I guess I really can't win this argument. You'd rather NOT be
asked your views... you'd rather Americans make assumptions
based on the results of your election, rather than the views
of your people. I'm not used to this... but again, BRILLIANT!
The wisdom from the other side of the Atlantic is inspiring!"


Thanks...you can start boycotting ANYTIME now.

And almost all of them are within the last two days in this *1* debate. You don't exist on this board outside of this debate so there's nothing *to* boycott.

And you still haven't explained how the failures in your 3 party system mean the same would happen here. As you said "the structure of a political system is utterly irrelevant to it's end result".

I could explain-BUT-I'd have to go a little "off topic".....and I know how you OPlayers covet those VERY narrow margins of debate...when its CONVENIENT..


Let me know if its ok by you 4me to go a LITTLE "off topic"....k?

THEN maybe you can explain exactly WHAT DIFFERENCE a change of electorial systems would make if the Economic System and its CorporateMedia Propaganda Machine is left INTACT....in the VERY remote likelyhood that it would EVER be changed in the FIRST PLACE...


Communist China has become VERY FRIENDLY with the US Corporate Community.
How do such vastly different Political/Economic Systems work with such harmony..?

They have common Economic goals...irregardless of who/how the leadership in the respective governments operates or how "distribution of power" is determined.



oh-but.....damn...I'm TOTALLY OFF topic .....again....shucks.....





"So soon we'll find out who IS-the REAL Revolutionary.Cause I don't want my people to be tricked ..by mercenaries." Bob Marley from the song Zimbabwe

I obviously have free time when I post on here.

Plus I haven't made a stance so I have nothing to prove nor any reason to play the "narrow the scope until I win" game. Also, I think the bigger point of the original post was about learning the dynamics of a multi-party system. Whether it "works" or not is subject to opinion, which you've exhaustively proven.

So please, continue.

Oh yeah, I think you overestimate the harmony between America business and the Chinese govt (since the government still largely controls chinese business). If China were truly conscerned about our business prospects, they'd more quickly loosen govt regulations on foreign industries, they'd stamp out the rampant pirating of many lucrative American patents and trademarks, and they'd remove their currency peg.

But the Chinese are largely self-concerned (as they should). They're looking to grow their economy and utilizing American business is just a means to an end. Removing their currency peg would help America but likely send them into a deflationary spiral. Also, cracking down on piracy would hurt a significant part of their industry that's gaining ground on the world by mimicry.

So despite the expressed will to cooperate, there really isn't that much synergy. We're using each other but I wouldn't call it collaboration nor common goals. They're looking to grow from an agrarian-communist ecnomoy into a modern capitalist one. We're just looking to maintain our economy, and maybe grow a little more, bc China is one of the last great un-sold to populations. They're letting us in only to learn how to do it themselves.

We USED to be on a reasonably independent ideologic/economic path from the States--up until Trudeau departed from the scene to be replaced by the dirtbag-Brian Mulroney-see Stevie Camerons books "the Last Amigo"(MacfarlaneWalter&Ross2001) and "On the Take"(MW&R1994)(can be ordered OnLine @Abebooks) for details....Mulroney made the present GomeryCommission/Sponsorship debacle look like the weak smear campaign /regime change trick that it is.


The "failures" of our 3 party system are BECAUSE of our political leaders aquiescence to USA economic/political influence in the FIRST PLACE..and UNLIKELY scenario in the REVERSE,but...i digress


OUR "3rd party " has been historically ,EITHER the NDP(Socialist)OR the BlocQuebecios.... or,more recently,the Right Wing-first as the Conservatives--THEN the Progressive Conservatives--THEN came the Reform Party--after the PC's were discredited by Mulroney...then the UNIFICATION of PC's and Reformers under the banner of the "Alliance" Party.


The Bloc Quebecios have always beeen major players in the possible dissolution of the Canada....as are the Reform/Alliance since they advocate a diminished sovereignty via a blind pursuit of toxic international trade agreements and a rescinding of Social Welfare INSIDE Canada.


What I'm am trying to say...and it would take a small ESSAY to make my point....is that the "3 party system" in Canada has always beeen-to some degree- an instrument of US leverage in Canadian INTERNAL affairs (as it is in other countries such as Zimbabwe/Ukraine/Haiti) and therefore an unlikely scenario in the minds of US economic/political leaders irregardless of its hypothetical benefits.


BOTH "3 party"s in Canada(The Alliance OR Bloc Quebecios) represent the "devided we FALL" end of the equation.


Your US Polititians are -UNDOUBTEDLY-keeenly aware of these dynamics and this is why I say the question of a 3party system in the USA is a RedHerring and an inconsequential argument...


I realize my argument is not properly argued--I am trying to think of ANY political entity WITHIN the USA that has even ENTERTAINED the notion--but in the end,i simply believe it is an inconsequential RedHerring.







"So soon we'll find out who IS-the REAL Revolutionary.Cause I don't want my people to be tricked ..by mercenaries." Bob Marley from the song Zimbabwe

Irregardless of MY opinion--WHY debate a point that is not even being CONSIDERED by your own political leadership/OR would not result in any REAL ideological departure in any event ?!

Its like saying,"what IF the USA was run as a old Soviet style Communist State"...yeah? WHAT if....?






"So soon we'll find out who IS-the REAL Revolutionary.Cause I don't want my people to be tricked ..by mercenaries." Bob Marley from the song Zimbabwe

but after the electoral reforms of the mid 90s- held pretty quickly, after we came out from two terms of a conservative govt. who fucked everything up, badly and obviously (which might sound familiar to the americans)-- well, we had a mass petition, a referendum, and a resultant change of electoral systems.


the end result was that the Greens polled over 5%, and ended up with (i think) 8% of the vote, and 8% of the seats in Parliament. this was enough to act as a left-hanging 'anchor' on the Labour Party, and- to use one small example- the Greens opposed the growth of genetically modified crops in our country. the fact that they had this leverage in Parliament meant that they could actually coerce the majority government into supporting a ban on GM crops, because the centre-left party (Labour) wouldn't be able to get a majority vote on something else without the support of the Greens. they end up trading issues, kind of like swapping baseball cards but it seems to work pretty well.



that may not be exactly how it went down. but it's prety close. and that's the sort of dynamics that you get when you translate the actual number of votes a party gets, into actual representation in government... aka a multi-party system. not the "three party system" as you know in the US, or here in the UK, or even in that progressive bastion, Canada. the small parties are completely extraneous there-- they can get local representation, but due to the majority-favouring mechanics of the FPP system,they don't do a thing.

the biggest barrier to bringing this change about is the apathy of the general population. if they don't know that there's a better way to elect a government, then how can they work towards it?

I read the other day about NZ's new direct carbon tax. Perhaps this too is the influence of the greens...

it remains diametrically bipartite; conservative v liberal.

But New Labour has muddied the waters. Everybody's heard the cliche that Blair's government is in fact conservative, and there is truth in this. The Iraq war and Blair's collaboration with the Republics is its biggest signifier.

Liberal Democrat is an alternative vote for those who have voted Labour their whole lives, but who opposed the war.

>it remains diametrically bipartite; conservative v liberal.
>
>But New Labour has muddied the waters. Everybody's heard the
>cliche that Blair's government is in fact conservative, and
>there is truth in this. The Iraq war and Blair's collaboration
>with the Republics is its biggest signifier.
>
>Liberal Democrat is an alternative vote for those who have
>voted Labour their whole lives, but who opposed the war.

I didn't know this..