NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently been evaluating systems of democracy. While I am not a supporter of democracy, I am of the opinion that if you want to have democracy, you better have democracy. The only practical way to have democracy on a large scale is with a republic. That is, you elect people to make decisions on your behalf. The best form of a republic is thus:

At the bottom, you have the people. All those who are eligible to vote. They go to local caucuses or polling stations (whichever works best, personally I like caucuses, but in an area that people can't take time off for a caucus, a voting booth is the next best thing) and select independent candidates based on whatever issues the candidate presents. A candidate must receive a majority of one more than one half to win the precinct or whatever it is called. They represent that area in the next level.

The next level is probably a municipal level. All the representatives elected by the people make up the legislative body here: similar to a town/city council. They also elect the representative to the next level.

The next level depends on how big the country is. It may be something like county in the United States, department in France, or province elsewhere. All the representatives elected by the municipal councils meet at this level. They act as legislators and also elect their representative to the next level.

This level is similar to states in the United States, provinces in France, etc. They also legislate and elect representatives to the top level.

The top level is the national level. It is made up of all the representatives elected by the state/province level bodies. They enact national legislation, but also elect a leader for their nation.

This system allows for the people to partake in democracy in the best way they can. They elect people they trust and know will get the job done. Most of the time, it will be people qualified to do the job: technocrats. The candidates get to meet with every constituent and hear their concerns and opinions. This is what the Founding Fathers of the United States wanted when they crafted the Constitution. This is why they put in the Electoral College, why they had the states elect senators, and why democracy was based on constituencies. Cuba has something like this, as did the Soviet Union, and China I think has something like it as well.

Each representative is a member of the lower body generally as well. So, many would be a member of all bodies. The questions raised about time conflicts are answered by the fact that lower bodies meet less often and for shorter times. Members of higher bodies get paid enough not to need other jobs.

There is one flaw that the Founding Fathers didn't foresee: political parties. Once you add those into the mix, this system becomes horrible and ineffective. Two parties with similar ideologies become dominant. The only way around that is to ban political parties or bar candidates from running under a political party. Political parties influence and force their members and candidates to ascribe to their platform. You cannot deviate from them. Independents are able to present their own opinions and not what their party wants.

Agree? Disagree? Maybe? In b4? Troll? Commie? Retard? Confused? Option 9? Other?

Andaras, where are you?

Andaras, where are you?

He was banned for 24 hours

He was banned for 24 hours

Why?


ps- Agree.

Why?


ps- Agree.

flaming

Actually, this might be an improvement over the current system. I, personally, think it was much better when Senators were elected by the legislature of each state rather than by direct election, as this made a competing authority that would put a damper on the central government's increases in its power at the expense of others, and since the politicians are on a closer level one has more marginal benefit in replacing them and less marginal cost in gaining information to act upon. (Versus the current system in which one does not see one's representatives and one, being just one in thousands/millions voting for that individual, has little effect on the outcome of the election.)

This also reminds me of the Anglo-Saxon system of law-enforcement, where you had tithings that made up hundreds that made up shires that made up some organization whose name I do not think is known. Of course, these associations lacked legislative power, so they are not democratic and thus not analogous.

why not just have a reigning monarch or a populace who will riots over anything (a la France)

or face it that the general public are a bunch of no good retards who would drown in the rain if the govenrment didn't say the water was polluted

This also reminds me of the Anglo-Saxon system of law-enforcement, where you had tithings that made up hundreds that made up shires that made up some organization whose name I do not think is known.

Shires are like states for instance I live in Northampton which is the center of Northamptonshire and its not hundreds we have like 12 :p

Of course, these associations lacked legislative power, so they are not democratic and thus not analogous.

er...MP's?

He was banned for 24 hours
It's a bourgeoisie conspiracy.

why not just have a reigning monarch or a populace who will riots over anything (a la France)
Monarchy is exactly the problem with America. They think they're so perfect and can do anything. they want and it's correct and right.

or face it that the general public are a bunch of no good retards who would drown in the rain if the govenrment didn't say the water was polluted
My proposal virtually eliminates that issue.

Shires are like states for instance I live in Northampton which is the center of Northamptonshire and its not hundreds we have like 12 :p

Unless you are living in post-450 to 1066 AD Anglo-Saxon England, I am not referring to the shires you live in.

Sounds rather ParPolity (http://www.zmag.org/shalompol.htm), which I'm sure some of our resident libertarian socialists could tell you more about. The one thing I don't see is how an executive would come into it. Perhaps lower level councils/caucuses could hold executive powers themselves, while those representing an area with a higher population copuld hire a CEO, like a busines or city.

An interesting idea nonetheless, and one that should be tried.

If people are free to actually elect candidates rather than have them vetted beforehand by the government, it would presumably work. That was, and continues to be, the inherent reason for the corruption and restrictions on personal freedom that are the hallmarks of the Communist nations; the presence of a dominant political party, from whose policies which no candidate can deviate significantly, results in the party elites wielding all of the real power and shaping government policies to prevent a revolution from below.

That being said, there are no inherent problemswith a tiered system. In fact, it's not all that different from the way most US state electoral systems worked in the 19th century; locally elected representatives chose the higher levels, either to govern the state or to represent them in Washington. The Electoral College filled a similar role in electing the president, and continues to do so today although its utility has diminished considerably.

However, you'd need a careful system of checks and balances and strict term limits to ensure that the entire system doesn't become rife with corruption as the upper level officials simply buy the support they need from the lower levels.

Sounds rather ParPolity (http://www.zmag.org/shalompol.htm), which I'm sure some of our resident libertarian socialists could tell you more about. The one thing I don't see is how an executive would come into it. Perhaps lower level councils/caucuses could hold executive powers themselves, while those representing an area with a higher population copuld hire a CEO, like a busines or city.

An interesting idea nonetheless, and one that should be tried.

Each body elects an executive if they need one. Alternatively, the body can be the executive until an emergency arises and an executive is elected in advance to prepare for such a case. Basically, someone is made executive, but only is granted powers when an emergency arises.

Each body elects an executive if they need one. Alternatively, the body can be the executive until an emergency arises and an executive is elected in advance to prepare for such a case. Basically, someone is made executive, but only is granted powers when an emergency arises.
Just do what works in a specific situation, I suppose.

Each body elects an executive if they need one. Alternatively, the body can be the executive until an emergency arises and an executive is elected in advance to prepare for such a case. Basically, someone is made executive, but only is granted powers when an emergency arises.
You haven’t been studying Machiavelli by any chance? The above is pretty much what he outlines in The Discourses.

I can’t say it’s without its appeal.

If people are free to actually elect candidates rather than have them vetted beforehand by the government, it would presumably work.
Indeed. Political parties can either be banned outright or candidates are barred from being a party candidate. Endorsements may be necessary to compromise unless this is a new system that wipes out political parties that exist or they never existed in the first place. Presumably, anyone would be able to run, but only people interested and capable of their job would really get votes. There would be no approval board or anything. You just go to your local place and announce your candidacy. Meet with the locals and get their support. If the existing candidates seem to establishment, another person can just come in and say they want to run. Since there's no massive campaign, they can much more easily win.

That being said, there are no inherent problemswith a tiered system. In fact, it's not all that different from the way most US state electoral systems worked in the 19th century; locally elected representatives chose the higher levels, either to govern the state or to represent them in Washington. The Electoral College filled a similar role in electing the president, and continues to do so today although its utility has diminished considerably.
Precisely. Also, the Electoral College is well-intentioned, but once political parties arose and how it's used now, it's a horrible system. If we can't eliminate it, we should certainly get rid of the winner-take-all system.

However, you'd need a careful system of checks and balances and strict term limits to ensure that the entire system doesn't become rife with corruption as the upper level officials simply buy the support they need from the lower levels.
I'm wary of term limits. In this system, there is much less campaigning so buying support isn't as easy. However, I could see consecutive term limits in the upper tiers where the people can't vote out corrupt officials who are popular in their constituency.

In reality, any system without political parties is ideal. It's either all or nothing. You have a lot of powerful parties or you have none at all. No two/three-party nonsense. Although, three is clearly an improvement from two.

The problem is just how do you escape party politics? In such large organisations people will always drift together to form groups. What's more, people tend to drift together such that a bipolar environment forms. In the UK you have New Labour and the Conservatives, in Germany you have the SDP and the CDU, in Israel you have Kadima and Labor, France is originator of the Left/Right split, in Japan you have the LDP and the DJP, and so on...

Even if you stop a candidate officially standing as a party's candidate they will still be unofficially known as a candidate of that party and will likely follow the party line once elected. If you went so far as to ban political parties this wouldn't stop the tendency of people to group into two opposing power blocs.

So unless you can find a way to overcome humanities tendency towards an us vs. them mentality I don't see how your system would be any better than any other functioning democracy.

The problem is just how do you escape party politics? In such large organisations people will always drift together to form groups.
By creating small electorates of several hundred to a few thousand people, campaigning is pointless and you can develop your own platform. You also don't need the funds and clout that parties only can provide. You can really get to know your constituents and if they don't like you, it's very easy to vote you out with only a small electorate. In a huge election where millions make one decision, candidates can ignore thousands of people and still win.

What's more, people tend to drift together such that a bipolar environment forms. In the UK you have New Labour and the Conservatives, in Germany you have the SDP and the CDU, in Israel you have Kadima and Labor, France is originator of the Left/Right split, in Japan you have the LDP and the DJP, and so on...
Disputable. UK still has a strong third party. Also note that constituency systems with parties generally have two dominant parties. When there's proportional representation, there are two main parties that have to form coalitions. You happen to be incorrect on Israel. Likud is still a very powerful party and could win the next election if things go in their favor. Israel has like a dozen parties winning in excess of two seats in the 120-member Knesset. An interesting place is India, which has constituency voting, but parties have regional bases so it acts sort of like a multi-party democracy.

Even if you stop a candidate officially standing as a party's candidate they will still be unofficially known as a candidate of that party and will likely follow the party line once elected. If you went so far as to ban political parties this wouldn't stop the tendency of people to group into two opposing power blocs.
Only if you let parties endorse them. If you ban parties, there can't be power blocs. The whole thing with parties is that you are coerced into voting with the party more or less.

So unless you can find a way to overcome humanities tendency towards an us vs. them mentality I don't see how your system would be any better than any other functioning democracy.
The primary preventive factor is the small electorates of under 5000. In fact, most would really be under 1000. Candidates have time to meet with every constituent and get their viewpoints. If they become unpopular for some reason, it's fairly easy to get them out. In a 550-450 election, only 51 people have to swing over. In a 550,000-450,000 election, 51,000 have to swing over. In the upper levels, the candidate with the most universal viewpoints would get elected up. So, you will sort of have geographical blocs.

Disagree. Everyone should be able to vote in local, regional, national, etc... elections. None of this 'electoral college' crap where you vote someone to vote for you. See the US for problems regarding voting in a president.

Other problem is that the system allows an unpopular government to come to power, as per the UK rules, where it's possibly to have 25% support in key areas and win more than 50% of parliament.

Disagree. Everyone should be able to vote in local, regional, national, etc... elections. None of this 'electoral college' crap where you vote someone to vote for you. See the US for problems regarding voting in a president.

Other problem is that the system allows an unpopular government to come to power, as per the UK rules, where it's possibly to have 25% support in key areas and win more than 50% of parliament.
That's exactly the problem parties bring. Without parties, the Electoral College would be great. People have no idea who to vote for and end up making bad choices. What you propose would maintain that problem of getting a lot of power when they shouldn't.

That's exactly the problem parties bring. Without parties, the Electoral College would be great. People have no idea who to vote for and end up making bad choices. What you propose would maintain that problem of getting a lot of power when they shouldn't.

*looks at own country*

We have direct representation in Denmark and I'm not seeing an issue. Nine political parties, with the largest ones representing about 20+% of the populace. Smallest ones represent 2-3% of the country. They thought of changing it to 5%, but in my opinion, they should change it to 0.5% (for one seat).

On the other hand, you have the electoral college in the US and I am seeing two political parties that shift from 40-60% in strength, depending on the season.

Then there's all the other countries that use the system you mentioned. None of them are very democratic at all.

Finally, there's the UK, which, as I've stated, has the problem of permitting unpopular governments to have popular mandate.

There will be no such thing as economy once the comman man over throws the capitalistic pigs and creates a utopia.

*looks at own country*

We have direct representation in Denmark and I'm not seeing an issue. Nine political parties, with the largest ones representing about 20+% of the populace. Smallest ones represent 2-3% of the country. They thought of changing it to 5%, but in my opinion, they should change it to 0.5% (for one seat).
Multi-party proportional representation is the second best system. Netherlands, by the way, has a one-seat threshold.

On the other hand, you have the electoral college in the US and I am seeing two political parties that shift from 40-60% in strength, depending on the season.
The only reason we have problem is because parties exist. I'm advocating against parties.

Then there's all the other countries that use the system you mentioned. None of them are very democratic at all.
In your opinion. And to your thought of democracy. In my opinion, Cuba, for example, is a great democracy, far better than the US.

Finally, there's the UK, which, as I've stated, has the problem of permitting unpopular governments to have popular mandate.
It's the combination of two incompatible systems: parties and constituency-based voting.

There will be no such thing as economy once the comman man over throws the capitalistic pigs and creates a utopia.

I fail to see what this thread has to do with economies.

I fail to see what this thread has to do with economies.

Your Capitalist comments show your bigotry in this matter.

Multi-party proportional representation is the second best system. Netherlands, by the way, has a one-seat threshold.

The Netherlands and Belgium are both doing pretty well with multi-party proportional representation. I'm not seeing any reason why it's not the best political system, at least for now (your system might work without political parties, but you're going to have to prove it before I'll accept it as being the best).

The only reason we have problem is because parties exist. I'm advocating against parties.

I don't believe you can ban political parties as such. People don't have to make them official to make it work within any system, unless you're going to repress parties even at the detriment of a democratic system.

In your opinion. And to your thought of democracy. In my opinion, Cuba, for example, is a great democracy, far better than the US.

Both have massive failures, unfortunately. Both failures are the result of the popular support of ideas that don't work (much like failures in most political systems). It is interesting to note that where in the US, a socialist will have a hard time getting power in Congress, in Cuba, it's exactly the opposite.

Now, with direct proportional representation, you'd actually be able to get maybe one or two socialists into Congress, simply because that tiny minority that would vote socialist would actually get their votes counted.

You're right in that political parties are the main issue in both countries - whilst both have independents, they simply cannot compete in a non-proportional representation system.

The Netherlands and Belgium are both doing pretty well with multi-party proportional representation. I'm not seeing any reason why it's not the best political system,
Any system with political parties is not the best system. They also happen to be small countries.

at least for now (your system might work without political parties, but you're going to have to prove it before I'll accept it as being the best).
Because I obviously have a spare country to test this out on.

I don't believe you can ban political parties as such. People don't have to make them official to make it work within any system, unless you're going to repress parties even at the detriment of a democratic system.
You can ban parties. It's not that hard. A few people might join underground parties, but they won't be that big or influential. I fail to see how repressing political parties is a detriment to democracy. Political parties ARE the detriment to democracy.

Also, I feel the need to remind you that political parties won't be necessary since you won't really need to campaign and spend much money since you have a small electorate of under 1000.

Both have massive failures, unfortunately. Both failures are the result of the popular support of ideas that don't work (much like failures in most political systems). It is interesting to note that where in the US, a socialist will have a hard time getting power in Congress, in Cuba, it's exactly the opposite.
Cuba is socialist. And, yes, it does have some issues with the Yes or No thing, but at least they're up front about only one candidate instead of putting up two similar candidates.

Now, with direct proportional representation, you'd actually be able to get maybe one or two socialists into Congress, simply because that tiny minority that would vote socialist would actually get their votes counted.
That would be a most welcome improvement. We actually do have a self-proclaimed socialist: Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

You're right in that political parties are the main issue in both countries - whilst both have independents, they simply cannot compete in a non-proportional representation system.
Independents can't compete anywhere that political parties exist, except in rare cases where they can mount a great campaign or they're known or they were previously a member of a party.

Why not just have a largely self-selecting Politburo type affair, which people can vaguely vote for?

As in, there are 2 handpicked candidates for Minister of Economics, Minister of Justice etc., and these people have absolute power.

It's basically what we have in the UK, after all. It works alright, I suppose.

The Netherlands and Belgium are both doing pretty well with multi-party proportional representation. I'm not seeing any reason why it's not the best political system, at least for now (your system might work without political parties, but you're going to have to prove it before I'll accept it as being the best).
Are you taking the piss?

It took Belgium 7 months to get an interim government together, which has taken another 6 or so months to get a new parliament in place, based on an extremely weak alliance of five different parties.

This is a Not Good way of running things.

Are you taking the piss?

It took Belgium 7 months to get an interim government together, which has taken another 6 or so months to get a new parliament in place, based on an extremely weak alliance of five different parties.

This is a Not Good way of running things.


While by no means endorsing the original point that Belgium's democracy is 'doing pretty well', for the reasons you note above, it's perhaps worth emphasising that Belgium's recent problems were directly connected to the language issue. In addition to tensions over devolution of power to Flanders and Wallonia, there are no national political parties anymore; for example, there are Walloon socialists and Flemish socialists, but no Belgian socialiasts. This means that the number of parties potentially represented in parliament is effectively doubled, making it that much harder to form an effective coalition even before you start tackling the two communities differing perspectives on devolution.

As to Sel's original point, I think he makes the understandable American-centric mistake of projecting the institutionalisation of a two party system in the United States, whereby the two parties cooperate in legislating to maintain their dominance (which I agree is bad) into assuming that this is the immutable end point of democratic development. The UK, for example, has been going the opposite direction. In the mid-1950s, only 3% of voters voted for someone other than Labour or the Conservatives; in 2007, that was 32%, with 22% voting for the Liberal Democrats.

My proposed reform for the US system is in fact quite simple. Take the power of drawing Congressional election districts out of the hands of the State legislatures, and instead place it into the hands of a neutral non-partisan commission, as is done in the UK, Australia, and, erm, Iowa. While it doesn't solve every problem inherent in the US electoral system, at least it ends gerrymandering by partisan state legislatures and increases the number of competitive House seats. It's a start.

*Belgium stuff*
No, it's not really to do with the language, it's to do with the fact that in the past, the Walloon area was always the more cosmopolitan area where the ruling classes lived and people were generally richer, and generally thought of the people of Flanders as country bumpkins.

This then changed in the 1960s as European heavy industry began to collapse - Flanders then started to get wealthier and wealthier as the oil refining region of the country, something which became incredibly important in the 1970s, when oil was very expensive.

The tables have now turned and it's the rich Flemish paying money to help out the Walloons, who now live in an area which is of eastern-European levels of poverty and unemployment exist, but on extremely high benefits - the Flemish pay about 2,000 Euros each to prop up the Walloons who don't seem to be sorting themselves out.

The Flemish largely vote for conservative parties which desire a Flemish autonomous region at the very least, and really desire seperatism, the people in Brussels mostly vote for economically liberal parties, and the Walloon population votes en masse for the socialists - about 80% of the population of each region votes essentially for the same party, or the same kind of party at least.

The Flemish are pissed off because they see the Walloon types as overall not doing their bit at all, and just stringing the whole thing out by voting Parti Socialiste, which is why they want seperatism, really.

Anyway, that's enough of that, right?

By creating small electorates of several hundred to a few thousand people, campaigning is pointless and you can develop your own platform. You also don't need the funds and clout that parties only can provide. You can really get to know your constituents and if they don't like you, it's very easy to vote you out with only a small electorate. In a huge election where millions make one decision, candidates can ignore thousands of people and still win.But how, in the age of information and branding, do you propose to stop these small electorates communicating with each other and forming groups that are recognised outside of their own electorate. And like I say further below, how do you propose to engage enough people to actually stand and vote in such small electorates. Local councils in the UK struggle to get enough people to vote in their elections and they have electorate wards of around a few thousand.

Disputable. UK still has a strong third party.As much as I love the Liberal Democrats, they are not a strong party. The other two parties occasionally steal their ideas, but that doesn't make them politically strong. Just more of a think tank.

Also note that constituency systems with parties generally have two dominant parties. When there's proportional representation, there are two main parties that have to form coalitions. You happen to be incorrect on Israel. Likud is still a very powerful party and could win the next election if things go in their favor. Israel has like a dozen parties winning in excess of two seats in the 120-member Knesset.Perhaps Israel was bad a example as it's currently undergoing a paradigm shift caused by Ariel Sharon. Whether Kadima will survive him and push Likud into relative obscurity remains to be seen. However I believe before the Kadima/Likud split Likud held nearly half of all the seats in the Knesset.

An interesting place is India, which has constituency voting, but parties have regional bases so it acts sort of like a multi-party democracy.I'm not very aware of the political system in India and shall have to look in it.

Only if you let parties endorse them. If you ban parties, there can't be power blocs. The whole thing with parties is that you are coerced into voting with the party more or less.I think it is a very flawed assumption of yours that banning political parties will simply do away with power blocs. Humans are naturally social creatures and will inevitably form social groups that will form the basis for power blocs. What these power blocs provide is central organisation and cohesion, thus making them better equipped to win field candidates that can win elections.

In the UK National Union of Students (NUS), there are no official political parties, but this hasn't stopped the emergence of power blocs within the NUS.

Indeed, the NUS seems to have a similar structure to the one you propose. It's membership is constituted of student unions from around the UK, of whom each elect and send delegates to the Annual Conference where the delegates vote on policy and elect the NUS executive. Each student union is independent of the NUS and elects its own executive...

Yet there are still two unofficial power blocs in the NUS: National Organisation of Labour Students (NOLS) and the Independents (a group fairly recently formed in opposition to NOLS dominance of the NUS). The Independents claim to be independent, but are increasingly demonstrating the signs of a political party (putting up sanctioned candidates and policy).

Now most students don't know about these power blocs, most students don't really care about the elections. They think it's hardly worth their time as the election is so small and what difference will there vote make. This is where the power blocs come in, because of apathy the power blocs actively recruit people into their ranks at the local level. Then from amongst their ranks they encourage people to stand. Because so few people stand they are able to get them elected, but also because as a group they are able to send campaigners out in mass to drag in students to vote. They mention key phrases, typical scare tactics and so forth, and the person they want the student to vote for. And this all contributes to helping to get their candidates elected.

The primary preventive factor is the small electorates of under 5000. In fact, most would really be under 1000. Candidates have time to meet with every constituent and get their viewpoints. If they become unpopular for some reason, it's fairly easy to get them out. In a 550-450 election, only 51 people have to swing over. In a 550,000-450,000 election, 51,000 have to swing over. In the upper levels, the candidate with the most universal viewpoints would get elected up. So, you will sort of have geographical blocs.If you make your electorate too big you induce apathy because people think their vote won't count. If you make the electorate too small then you induce apathy because they think their representatives will have little power or whereby the number of tiers of government will produce a filtering effect so that their vote means little in the end.

Also, the smaller you make your electorate the more people you have to find who are actively willing to take part in the process of government. My university has approximately 30,000 students. The student union is barely able to get 30 regularly attending representatives to its legislative body, let alone 30 competent representatives. Of which only a handful of these representatives will have stood in a contested election.

No, it's not really to do with the language, it's to do with the fact that in the past, the Walloon area was always the more cosmopolitan area where the ruling classes lived and people were generally richer, and generally thought of the people of Flanders as country bumpkins.

This then changed in the 1960s as European heavy industry began to collapse - Flanders then started to get wealthier and wealthier as the oil refining region of the country, something which became incredibly important in the 1970s, when oil was very expensive.

The tables have now turned and it's the rich Flemish paying money to help out the Walloons, who now live in an area which is of eastern-European levels of poverty and unemployment exist, but on extremely high benefits - the Flemish pay about 2,000 Euros each to prop up the Walloons who don't seem to be sorting themselves out.

The Flemish largely vote for conservative parties which desire a Flemish autonomous region at the very least, and really desire seperatism, the people in Brussels mostly vote for economically liberal parties, and the Walloon population votes en masse for the socialists - about 80% of the population of each region votes essentially for the same party, or the same kind of party at least.

The Flemish are pissed off because they see the Walloon types as overall not doing their bit at all, and just stringing the whole thing out by voting Parti Socialiste, which is why they want seperatism, really.

Anyway, that's enough of that, right?

Hardly. There's nothing quite like a good Belgian political discussion to prove that the country's not nearly as boring as most people assume ;-)

Both of us are clearly quite familiar with Belgian politics (and I lived in Walloon Brabant for years). Nonetheless, while you've done an excellent job in explaining the subtext to what I described somewhat simplistically as 'the language issue', the country also clearly remains split along what are perhaps better described as ethno-linguistic lines, where the two different communities have a different perception of how much devolution the two communities are to be granted. You're quite right, however, to note that the pro-devolution sympathies of many Flemings are driven by historic resentment of Francophone attitudes towards the Flemish community and a perception that wealthy Flanders is giving too much money to poor Wallonia.

But I think you oversimplify the politics within each community somewhat when you say that 80% of voters in each community vote for the 'same kind of party' within that community. I still hold that the fracturing of parties along ethno-linguistic lines as well as ideological lines complicates the process of coalition building in Belgium.

But I think the Flemings are making a mistake when they implicitly assume that just because they're the wealthier community now that it automatically holds that they'll always be the wealthier community. 100 years ago, the Walloons probably assumed that their economic dominance was essentially permanent too....

Hm, he claims that Political Parties ruin the system. However it has been working quite fine, mind you, for the past two hundred years (recognizing that they have not existed at the very beginning of the United States.)

Now, where did this revelation of yours come from?

But I think you oversimplify the politics within each community somewhat when you say that 80% of voters in each community vote for the 'same kind of party' within that community. I still hold that the fracturing of parties along ethno-linguistic lines as well as ideological lines complicates the process of coalition building in Belgium.
OK, so 80% was a bit high - 2/3, though, is accurate.

Statistics from http://www.statbel.fgov.be/figures/d21_fr.asp#2 :

The Flemish are around 55% of the population - now look at the election statistics :

- CDV/NVA, Pro-autonomy - about 20% of the overall vote (3/8 of the Flemish vote)
- Vlaams Belang - Pro Flemish state - about 12% of the overall vote (1/3 of the Flemish vote
- VLD/Vivant - Economically Liberal - about 12% of the overall vote again ( about 1/6 of the Flemish vote)

Here we see that around 70 or so% of Flemish voters voted for economically liberal parties, mostly pro-Flemish autonomy, mostly with a conservative touch.

The other 30ish% voted for either the Groen! party, or Socialistische Partij - Anders / Spirit.

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

Now - the community around Brussels - 10% (ish) of the population:

Based on polls by Le Soir, we can see that they voted around:

27% for the Mouvement Réformateur (pro-unity, but economically liberal)
25% for Parti Socialiste (pro-unity, pro far-too-high benefits)
15% for the Christian Democrats (pro-something, not quite sure what)
11% for the Ecolo party (pro-green, not much else)

It's basically a complete mish-mash, which isn't very surprising.

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

The Walloon population - 35% (ish) of the population :

Voted mostly for the MR (35% of the vote) and PS (about 30% of the vote here). Quite a lot of votes for the Ecolo party, which gained 4 seats in the Assembly from the last elections.




Now that's quite strong voting in the mainly Flemish and mainly Walloon regions, no? The parties the Flemish are voting for are mostly pro-autonomy, and free market, whereas the Wallon population is voting for pro-unity, pro-socialist parties, at about 2/3 of the vote apiece.
But I think the Flemings are making a mistake when they implicitly assume that just because they're the wealthier community now that it automatically holds that they'll always be the wealthier community. 100 years ago, the Walloons probably assumed that their economic dominance was essentially permanent too....
I'd agree, but at the moment the Flemish are in a good position to make a lot of money in the next 10 to 20 years an invest it in factories for creating hydrogen fuel cells, or whatever the next big development is for fuels in the world.

I have recently been evaluating systems of democracy. While I am not a supporter of democracy, I am of the opinion that if you want to have democracy, you better have democracy. The only practical way to have democracy on a large scale is with a republic. That is, you elect people to make decisions on your behalf. The best form of a republic is thus:

At the bottom, you have the people. All those who are eligible to vote. They go to local caucuses or polling stations (whichever works best, personally I like caucuses, but in an area that people can't take time off for a caucus, a voting booth is the next best thing) and select independent candidates based on whatever issues the candidate presents. A candidate must receive a majority of one more than one half to win the precinct or whatever it is called. They represent that area in the next level.

The next level is probably a municipal level. All the representatives elected by the people make up the legislative body here: similar to a town/city council. They also elect the representative to the next level.

The next level depends on how big the country is. It may be something like county in the United States, department in France, or province elsewhere. All the representatives elected by the municipal councils meet at this level. They act as legislators and also elect their representative to the next level.

This level is similar to states in the United States, provinces in France, etc. They also legislate and elect representatives to the top level.

The top level is the national level. It is made up of all the representatives elected by the state/province level bodies. They enact national legislation, but also elect a leader for their nation.

This system allows for the people to partake in democracy in the best way they can. They elect people they trust and know will get the job done. Most of the time, it will be people qualified to do the job: technocrats. The candidates get to meet with every constituent and hear their concerns and opinions. This is what the Founding Fathers of the United States wanted when they crafted the Constitution. This is why they put in the Electoral College, why they had the states elect senators, and why democracy was based on constituencies. Cuba has something like this, as did the Soviet Union, and China I think has something like it as well.

Each representative is a member of the lower body generally as well. So, many would be a member of all bodies. The questions raised about time conflicts are answered by the fact that lower bodies meet less often and for shorter times. Members of higher bodies get paid enough not to need other jobs.

There is one flaw that the Founding Fathers didn't foresee: political parties. Once you add those into the mix, this system becomes horrible and ineffective. Two parties with similar ideologies become dominant. The only way around that is to ban political parties or bar candidates from running under a political party. Political parties influence and force their members and candidates to ascribe to their platform. You cannot deviate from them. Independents are able to present their own opinions and not what their party wants.

Agree? Disagree? Maybe? In b4? Troll? Commie? Retard? Confused? Option 9? Other?

Have you read The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html)? If so, I'm not sure why you are spouting such nonsense. If not, I suggest you do -- particularly Federalist Nos. 1, 10, 15, 39, 51, 57, 62, and 70.

Regardless, your premise that the Founders did not know of and anticipate political parties (and/or that such parties ruin the Founder's design) is simply not true. I direct you in particular to Federalist No. 10 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html) and its discussion of factions.

Are you taking the piss?

It took Belgium 7 months to get an interim government together, which has taken another 6 or so months to get a new parliament in place, based on an extremely weak alliance of five different parties.

This is a Not Good way of running things.
Wow I totally forgot about that...:headbang:

As to Sel's original point, I think he makes the understandable American-centric mistake of projecting the institutionalisation of a two party system in the United States, whereby the two parties cooperate in legislating to maintain their dominance (which I agree is bad) into assuming that this is the immutable end point of democratic development.
They don't cooperate which is another problem. They are ideologically similar and not polar enough even though both sides sometimes hate each other. But having constituencies with parties still tends to lead to two major parties. Only major parties can really muster enough votes to take the constituency. So you end up spreading out the, say Green, vote across the country when it is about 3% of the voters (probably more if they could get represented).

My proposed reform for the US system is in fact quite simple. Take the power of drawing Congressional election districts out of the hands of the State legislatures, and instead place it into the hands of a neutral non-partisan commission, as is done in the UK, Australia, and, erm, Iowa. While it doesn't solve every problem inherent in the US electoral system, at least it ends gerrymandering by partisan state legislatures and increases the number of competitive House seats. It's a start.
It is a start, but still leaves two parties in power. Only proportional representation could solve that.

No, it's not really to do with the language,
Almost every conflict comes down to language. This is certainly one of them. It's not the only factor, but it is important. Until we all speak the same language, this planet will never unite as one.

But how, in the age of information and branding, do you propose to stop these small electorates communicating with each other and forming groups that are recognised outside of their own electorate. And like I say further below, how do you propose to engage enough people to actually stand and vote in such small electorates. Local councils in the UK struggle to get enough people to vote in their elections and they have electorate wards of around a few thousand.
You're making an irrelevant comparison. When this is the only thing they can vote for, turnout will go up. When it brings more faith, turnout will go up.

I think it is a very flawed assumption of yours that banning political parties will simply do away with power blocs. Humans are naturally social creatures and will inevitably form social groups that will form the basis for power blocs. What these power blocs provide is central organisation and cohesion, thus making them better equipped to win field candidates that can win elections.
But it won't be necessary. This all assumes a large electorate. With small electorates, people don't need the resources of a party to win a seat.

In the UK National Union of Students (NUS), there are no official political parties, but this hasn't stopped the emergence of power blocs within the NUS.

Indeed, the NUS seems to have a similar structure to the one you propose. It's membership is constituted of student unions from around the UK, of whom each elect and send delegates to the Annual Conference where the delegates vote on policy and elect the NUS executive. Each student union is independent of the NUS and elects its own executive...

Yet there are still two unofficial power blocs in the NUS: National Organisation of Labour Students (NOLS) and the Independents (a group fairly recently formed in opposition to NOLS dominance of the NUS). The Independents claim to be independent, but are increasingly demonstrating the signs of a political party (putting up sanctioned candidates and policy).

It's still different from an actual government. So, circumstances would be different. It isn't as important and vital. And how many issues really are there compared to an entire nation's government.

Now most students don't know about these power blocs, most students don't really care about the elections. They think it's hardly worth their time as the election is so small and what difference will there vote make. This is where the power blocs come in, because of apathy the power blocs actively recruit people into their ranks at the local level. Then from amongst their ranks they encourage people to stand. Because so few people stand they are able to get them elected, but also because as a group they are able to send campaigners out in mass to drag in students to vote. They mention key phrases, typical scare tactics and so forth, and the person they want the student to vote for. And this all contributes to helping to get their candidates elected.
As I said, it just isn't as important as an actual government would be.

If you make your electorate too big you induce apathy because people think their vote won't count. If you make the electorate too small then you induce apathy because they think their representatives will have little power or whereby the number of tiers of government will produce a filtering effect so that their vote means little in the end.
No they won't. They will know that their voice is heard because it isn't smushed by a party. The individual can raise whatever points and issues he wants without backlash from the party.

Also, the smaller you make your electorate the more people you have to find who are actively willing to take part in the process of government. My university has approximately 30,000 students. The student union is barely able to get 30 regularly attending representatives to its legislative body, let alone 30 competent representatives. Of which only a handful of these representatives will have stood in a contested election.

Again it's a student government which doesn't do much and things don't get impacted as much. There are less issues as well.

Hm, he claims that Political Parties ruin the system. However it has been working quite fine, mind you, for the past two hundred years (recognizing that they have not existed at the very beginning of the United States.)

Now, where did this revelation of yours come from?
What are you on? Crack? It's working like shit and it has been for decades. The problem of parties first cropped up in 1800 or 1804.

Have you read The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html)? If so, I'm not sure why you are spouting such nonsense. If not, I suggest you do -- particularly Federalist Nos. 1, 10, 15, 39, 51, 57, 62, and 70.

Regardless, your premise that the Founders did not know of and anticipate political parties (and/or that such parties ruin the Founder's design) is simply not true. I direct you in particular to Federalist No. 10 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html) and its discussion of factions.
Which was published after the Constitution was adopted. They didn't think parties would come about or cause trouble.

Which was published after the Constitution was adopted. They didn't think parties would come about or cause trouble.

Nope.
The Federalist Papers were published between the time the constitution was written and the time it was ratified. They're mostly by James Madison, who also wrote the basis of the Constitution.
So, if Madison mentions parties in paper 10, it's the best evidence anyone can give that he thought of parties before he wrote the Constitution.

Political parties influence and force their members and candidates to ascribe to their platform.

Good.

Without that, candidates would be free to make the election about them... instead of about real issues.

Have you read The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html)? If so, I'm not sure why you are spouting such nonsense. If not, I suggest you do -- particularly Federalist Nos. 1, 10, 15, 39, 51, 57, 62, and 70.

Regardless, your premise that the Founders did not know of and anticipate political parties (and/or that such parties ruin the Founder's design) is simply not true. I direct you in particular to Federalist No. 10 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html) and its discussion of factions.
Which was published after the Constitution was adopted. They didn't think parties would come about or cause trouble.

Um. The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay and published in newspapers supporting the ratification of the new Constitution -- which had been adopted in September 1787, but still had to be ratified. Thus, the Papers are from before the Constitution was adopted. The Federalist Papers expressly explain the ideas behind the new Constitution.

AS for whether the Founders had any idea that parties might come about or cause trouble, the answer is a simple, yes. Federalist No. 10 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html) deals with exactly this problem at length (emphasis added):

|| Federalist No. 10 ||
The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
From the New York Packet.
Friday, November 23, 1787.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

Um. The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay and published in newspapers supporting the ratification of the new Constitution -- which had been adopted in September 1787, but still had to be ratified. Thus, the Papers are from before the Constitution was adopted. The Federalist Papers expressly explain the ideas behind the new Constitution.
As I said, published after the Constitution was adopted. Ratification is irrelevant. It still existed and was published prior to that paper.

And it's still just a few opinions that may have been told to STFU. If they knew parties could screw with the system beforehand, they would have made a better system. George Washington was not of any party.

As I said, published after the Constitution was adopted.

So? The Federalist Papers still represent at least one reasonable view of the intentions and theory behind the Constitution.

If they knew parties could screw with the system beforehand, they would have made a better system.

Why do you think Madison would necessarily object to the existing two-party system? Admittedly, we have adopted paper money... but we are very far from the "improper or wicked" project of wealth redistribution. ;)

George Washington was not of any party.

George Washington was essentially a Federalist. It's just that he was too popular for the Republicans to mount a real opposition... and he presided over a unity cabinet.

As I said, published after the Constitution was adopted. Ratification is irrelevant. It still existed and was published prior to that paper.


You're dancing with semnatics, Sel (can they waltz, or are they more fond of a tango?). The point being raised is highly relevant as ratification was by no means a foregone conclusion, and was strongly debated within and between the states. The Federalist Papers clearly demonstrate that those individuals who were largely responsible for writing the constitution anticipated the development of political parties, and were openly aware of this when they were both writing it and arguing for its adoption. I regret that you're in danger of being stubborn just for the sake of being stubborn if you try to argue to the contrary or attempt to argue - which you're trying to do - that Madison only anticipated political parties after the constitution's adoption, but before its ratification, and was making an ex post facto argument to justify his document.

But I will note that whether or not Madison anticipated the rise of political parties (which he clearly did) is an entirely separate argument from whether the state of two party politics as it currently exists within the United States is a good thing. You're on much safer debating ground on that point, and it's where I'd suggest you focus your argument.

how can people trust anyone? especially anyone about whome they know nothing other then what they say about themselves and their opponents say about them? (and possibly their voting record if they have one and its public, even where their campaign contributions are comming from fails to tell the tale adiquitely, although granted, that, in combination with voting record is suggestive, but only so.)

no. that makes far less sense then voicing ones input on issues, which, unlike people, CAN be studied factually and objectively, even if relatively few people ever actually seem to.

at the local level, with plurality voting, you could choose among people you know, who would then at the next level choose among people THEY KNOW and so on.

i don't know if that is what was being refered to. i didn't wade through the whole things. but that latter is how the baha'i adminstration works its electorial process while avoiding partisenship and all that crapola.

(in conjunction with an institution called the 19 day feast (because it's held every 19 days) where the community at large, i.e. everyone in it, essentially sets the agenda which the local assembly spends the remainder of that 19 day month deciding on)

i still like the idea even better of voting on issues directly myself, through some kind of internet hook up, or by whatever means that would give everyone interested access to doing so, that i can look up in the engineering journals and other nonpolitical sources of real useful information, the realities of what is actually envolved.

but where decision making bodys are required, plurality is the more sensable way of choosing them.

=^^=
.../\...

Almost every conflict comes down to language. This is certainly one of them. It's not the only factor, but it is important. Until we all speak the same language, this planet will never unite as one.
No, you're simply wrong.

Different languages have come about as a product of war, not the other way around - when people break off from another group, at any level, they often create a different language moulded, largely, around the original, so that they can appear to be seperate entities by any outside observers, and also to create a new, unifying culture around which to set their own little civilisation up.

The language argument in the whole Belgian crisis is nothing like as important as the economic and political differences between Wallonia and Flanders. The Flemish vote largely for economically liberal, and socialially centrist parties, most of which are pro-seperation. The Walloons vote largely for socialist parties, which favour the continued 'unity' of Belgium as it stands now, because they are much poorer than the Flemish.
It's still different from an actual government. So, circumstances would be different. It isn't as important and vital. And how many issues really are there compared to an entire nation's government.
Seeing as you've never been to an NUS conference, and probably never will, how could you have any context?

Factions in the NUS were banned because of their deleterious effect on the politics of an organisation which tries (sort of) to overall run things in an efficient way. You start having party politics getting in the way of that, and things take bloody ages to do, because we have accusations that people are "Tories" (this is basically like calling someone a Trotskyite in Stalin's Russia), or that "the NOLS support a party whose economics likens that of Thatcher" (which actually got NUS support of privatised education, when the NOLS decided, in their infinite wisdom, that they'd vote this way as a protest at the accusation).

Basically, they're now back, and back in force. When candidates for election put down their politics and personal views, they either put down NOLS, Conservative Future, Independants, or Organised Independants. You get a few Respect candidates as well, and they somehow get a couple into the Block of 12 (essentially the exec, although its name is changing in the next review we're voting in) every time.

People don't just play party politics though the elections, either. We get literally half of Conference dressed up in green Respect t-shirts, a few in red, almost none in blue (no surprise there) and a couple in black (the OIs, mainly).

It's a farce, and if put to a national level, things would be the same. People would campaign on the same grounds as they did when there were official parties, and people with certain viewpoints would team up together to form improv political parties, this is just how it goes. When there are jobs on the line, especially paid HoR / Congress positions going around, people will form unions to protect themselves, and political parties are really just an extension of that.



As to the issues point, it's a massive variety of stuff that's being discussed. Here, take a look :
http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/media/resource/cd15_orderpaper_2008.pdf - Agenda
http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/media/resource/CD16_Final_Motions_20085%20Final.pdf - Motions

George Washington was essentially a Federalist. It's just that he was too popular for the Republicans to mount a real opposition... and he presided over a unity cabinet.
He had no party affiliation and abhorred even the thought of the idea.

Seeing as you've never been to an NUS conference, and probably never will, how could you have any context?
It's a student organization. It's not hard to guess what issues are.

Basically, they're now back, and back in force. When candidates for election put down their politics and personal views, they either put down NOLS, Conservative Future, Independants, or Organised Independants. You get a few Respect candidates as well, and they somehow get a couple into the Block of 12 (essentially the exec, although its name is changing in the next review we're voting in) every time.

People don't just play party politics though the elections, either. We get literally half of Conference dressed up in green Respect t-shirts, a few in red, almost none in blue (no surprise there) and a couple in black (the OIs, mainly).
You order them to be broken up and dissolved.

It's a farce, and if put to a national level, things would be the same. People would campaign on the same grounds as they did when there were official parties,
There is no campaigning because the electorate is small and localized. Basically, a section of a town. There's no reason for parties.

and people with certain viewpoints would team up together to form improv political parties, this is just how it goes. When there are jobs on the line, especially paid HoR / Congress positions going around, people will form unions to protect themselves, and political parties are really just an extension of that.
This won't happen. When an issue comes up, representatives vote with their views on it. When another one comes up, some will change around to the other side. They won't be forced to stick with the party. If independence is forced, they can't be coerced by parties.

Parties need a reason to come into existence and my system ensures that there is no reason. If political parties do arise, then they can be banned, broken up, and dissolved until they go away.

This system hasn't really been tried anywhere yet. Even Cuba still has comparatively large first-level constituencies. I wish it could be tested out, but the chances are slim that any country would adopt this.

He had no party affiliation

Not officially, no.

and abhorred even the thought of the idea.

That's what he said, anyway. Of course, it was going to happen, and he surely knew it.

Which was published after the Constitution was adopted.

1. "Adopted" is a rather ambiguous word. The Federalist Papers were published after the Constitution was written, but before it was officially made the Constitution by ratification.

2. I fail to see how the timing is particularly relevant anyway. The documents express the views of the main Founders regarding the meaning of and theory behind the Constitution.

3. You appear to be avoiding the question of whether you have actually read the relevant Federalist Papers.

They didn't think parties would come about or cause trouble.

Then it is rather strange that they expressly discussed the role of parties in the new Republic.

As I said, published after the Constitution was adopted. Ratification is irrelevant. It still existed and was published prior to that paper.

You give no reason why this timing is relevant. No doubt if The Federalist Papers had been published before the Constitution was written you would argue that they didn't reflect that document because it wasn't yet complete. As is, they were published at a critical time when the populace was deciding whether or not to adopt the Constitution as written.

And it's still just a few opinions that may have been told to STFU.

You really don't know much of anything about The Federalist Papers, their authors, or the role they play in U.S. history, do you?

If they knew parties could screw with the system beforehand, they would have made a better system.

Again, they anticipated the rise of parties and factions and designed the system with them specifically in mind. They specifically considered the issues you raise. If you care to point out where they got it wrong in Federalist No. 10, for example, knock yourself out.

George Washington was not of any party.

For obvious reasons, George Washington is an anomaly. And he was a strong supporter of the Federalist Party, even though he never officialy joined the Party.

Regardless, it was the other Founders who started the first political parties. To act like they all somehow thought parties were wrong or didn't understand how a party functions is to simply be ridiculous.