CDZ More than just two viable parties?

[Donald H]

I would point out though that another advantage of Parliamentary systems is that they tend to make impossible the sort of deadlocked government that arises frequently these days in the U.S. when Congress and President disagree — for the very simple reason that a Prime Minister loses his office if he loses a vote of confidence in parliament under a Parliamentary system of government.

Thanks for your reply Tom. I was only really asking you to explain why a parliamentary system would work better as a multi-party system than a presidential system. I couldn't think of any reason that would be so.
I get how the parliamentary system would change government leaders more often, or at least a little more often in Canada. I'm not sure that changing government more often is either good or bad.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Same here, in regard to the first thing you said. It can be challenging, because as the saying goes, ”If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention”… but if a message is shared in the wrong way, you can’t reach people. So that’s something I try to be mindful of, how to get a message across in the right way, the way that actually works. If we can’t do that, then we’re no better than the ones we criticize, and it’s fruitless. (Is that a word?)

Most anything I talk about these days, I do so for the benefit of casual passers-by, to be honest. I'm rarely interested in debating or trying to change someone's mind. The most vocal people aren't going to change their minds anyway. I find that the ripest fruit to come from those exchanges is for the casual passer-by to observe just how little so many actually understand about a given topic of discussion. It's what I meant when I'd mentioned that the loudest are so often the weakest. So it's important to invite that to be demonstrated. At the same time, the information stage has almost run its course. For the time being anyway. We're back to a transition to a phase of action, much like what were doing back in '07/'08, if you recall. Which I know you do.

About the gradual erosion of virtue, I’m glad you bring that up on threads because almost no one talks about that and it’s such an important topic. I believe it has been by design. In the same way the the PTSB have purposely dumbed down the populace over the last several decades (they want dumb, compliant little serfs) they have also intentionally and gradually destroyed virtue. Apparently they understand that liberty depends on people being knowledgeable, aware and virtuous. That reminds me of a famous quote about America being great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great. (I’m paraphrasing.) Well, I think we’re well beyond the point of America being good. And sadly, most of the electorate not only don’t seem to care about that, but they cheer on and enable the tyrants and frauds/ traitors. Which goes back to the original point.

Yeah. It's kind of been indoctrinated into people's minds that laws will dictate the virtue of society. But that's not how it works. Society has to resolve its moral problem itself and then that will reflect on the laws. That's a deep discussion actually, we get into liberty-responsibility there.

Speaking of liberty, as I mentioned to you the other day, I think true liberty comes only from God. That’s a topic that I think is worthy of a thread of its own, but it goes along with what we were just talking about. When the public turns their back on God, they will inevitably end up in bondage. I think that’s true on an individual level, and on a national level. But again, that should go on a thread of its own. For now I’ll just post a relevant scripture.

“….where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17

One of my favorite scriptures is Proverbs 28:1. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion."

Here's a snip from a very good book on the topic of responsibility and Individual liberty. Which I'll link as a courtesy, since your thought here reminds me of it.

The American Ideal Of 1776

Anyway...

1. The Spiritual is Supreme

". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.

Religious Nature

2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.


An Indivisible Whole

3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

The Individual's Self-respect

4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential-- spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.

Some Things Excluded

5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.


The Truly American Concept

6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.

Mark Dice videos are hilarious... but truly disturbing! It’s hard to believe that anyone could be that ignorant or indoctrinated. But that brings up another truth…. “people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

Yeah. I used to believe that it was hard to believe that people could be that dumb. But the long march through the Institutions have effectively ensured it.

It's why it's so important to demonstrate it, going back to what I'd mentioned earlier on in this communication.

Well, this discussion of Natural Citizen and buttercup started in a rather interesting, if mostly off topic way. I agree it would be worth discussing matters of polity, virtue and religion in a different thread. Here I hope nobody will object if I just insert my personal belief that both interlocutors — starting with some noble aims — wander far off base in their basic assumptions about this relationship.

 

[Donald H]

Well, this discussion of Natural Citizen and buttercup started in a rather interesting, if mostly off topic way. I agree it would be worth discussing matters of polity, virtue and religion in a different thread. Here I hope nobody will object if I just insert my personal belief that both interlocutors — starting with some noble aims — wander far off base in their basic assumptions about this relationship.
[/QUOTE]
And thank you for your thanks to me, but did you realize that wouldn't fill the bill for me and I would keep coming back? It's a simple question and I've made it into a test now, that I hope you won't ignore. How do you think a parliamentary system is more compatible to multi-party system, as opposed to the presidential? I know you must have had something on your mind!

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

And thank you for your thanks to me, but did you realize that wouldn't fill the bill for me and I would keep coming back? It's a simple question and I've made it into a test now, that I hope you won't ignore. How do you think a parliamentary system is more compatible to multi-party system, as opposed to the presidential? I know you must have had something on your mind

Well, I suppose I really ought to give you credit for persistence ...

My view on Parliamentary Systems being more amenable to multi-party governing is first of all based on empirical studies:

“Apart from one-party-dominant and two-party systems, multi-party systems tend to be more common in parliamentary systems than presidential systems and far more common in countries that use proportional representation compared to countries that use first-past-the-post elections.” — Multi-party system - Wikipedia

The reasons this occurs I believe is partly because parliamentary systems often allow for more proportional voting in selecting parliamentary deputies — but this too varies considerably from country to country. The almost total lack of proportional voting in the U.S. — not talking here about race or gender — penalizes severely all new third party movements and tends to force them into one or another party of the (now corporate) duopoly. This has been a phenomenon observed by virtually all serious political scientists throughout our history. It is also why recent groups like The Tea Party, Trump populists and Democratic Socialists have been forced to enter one of the main parties if they hope to have their people elected or become politically relevant at all.

As for the way in which “first past the post” or “winner take all” voting systems lead naturally to two-party systems, whereas party-proportional voting tends to reinforce multi-party systems and therefore coalition politics, you can study “Duverger’s Law”:
— Duverger's law - Wikipedia

For some other specific disadvantages of a U.S.-style Presidential System, see: Disadvantages of Presidential Systems | Structure and Systems of Government

 

[Donald H]

Well, I suppose I really ought to give you credit for persistence ...

Yes, I'm persistent but I don't feel any credit is due.

As for the way in which “first past the post” or “winner take all” voting systems lead naturally to two-party systems, whereas party proportional voting tends to reinforce multi-party systems and therefore coalition politics,.........

That could be a rational explanation if we were comparing 'first past the post' systems with 'winner take all' systems.

Don't worry about it, I'll try to research an answer myself.

Otherwise, I consider you to be a bright bulb and so we'll meet again!

 

[Donald H]

Here's my best effort Tom and where I'm going to leave it.

The Parliamentary System Versus the Presidential System - The Borgen Project

In a parliamentary system versus the presidential system, it is easier to end the term of a Prime Minister within a parliamentary system than it is to impeach a president. Prime Ministers are dependent on the legislature, yet presidents are completely independent.

borgenproject.org

I haven't read the entire link because that's your job, so I don't know if it's going to be helpful?

 

[Agit8r]

Around 2/3 of americans favor the following polices:

Wealth Tax

Medicare for All

Free public college

Taxing carbon emmisions

Legalizing Cannabis

If neither party significantly advocates for these, then a third party that does is certainly viable.

 

[Donald H]

Around 2/3 of americans favor the following polices:

Wealth Tax

Medicare for All

Free public college

Taxing carbon emmisions

Legalizing Cannabis

If neither party significantly advocates for these, then a third party that does is certainly viable.

My explanation on why you are wrong is because both of your political parties are in opposition to the policies you've mentioned. The Dem party proved that when they pushed establishment Joe to the top of the ticket.

So you need that one party under the labels of two, and then another party that is similar to Canada's government or the governments of the world's leading democracies.

In fact you've as good as saying that with your list that there's no inbetween.

There's greedy capitalism and then there's 'socially responsible' capitalism.

And then there's only a long hard look at China's success.

 

[Agit8r]

Around 2/3 of americans favor the following polices:

Wealth Tax

Medicare for All

Free public college

Taxing carbon emmisions

Legalizing Cannabis

If neither party significantly advocates for these, then a third party that does is certainly viable.

My explanation on why you are wrong is because both of your political parties are in opposition to the policies you've mentioned. The Dem party proved that when they pushed establishment Joe to the top of the ticket.

So you need that one party under the labels of two, and then another party that is similar to Canada's government or the governments of the world's leading democracies.

In fact you've as good as saying that with your list that there's no inbetween.

There's greedy capitalism and then there's 'socially responsible' capitalism.

And then there's only a long hard look at China's success.

All I'm saying there is that if the "major parties" are too corrupt to acknowlege the popularity of these policy proposals, they leave the door open for another party.

Remember that in 2016 more voting age Americans chose not to vote than voted for either trump or HRC