But proportional representation does not require political parties to be a part of the electoral system.
See single transferable vote (STV): A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems. It’s still a work in progress, but lays out a good framework for discussing electoral systems.
But proportional representation does not require political parties to be a part of the electoral system.
I never said proportional representation requires political parties. I said, and I quote, “Proportional representation is not the answer because the party system does not work to begin with.” meaning the system PR is being tacked on to doesn’t work and we aren’t fixing anything switching from FPTP to PR if we keep the party system.
The party system is the single biggest issue with our Politics. It prevents independents from ever being elected and allows a few parties to control the entire political landscape and narrative.
Which is why the entire history of Canada has been Conservative Government, Liberal Opposition or Liberal Government, Conservative opposition on a federal level excluding that one time because the right old white guy lead the NDP.
The point is we need a complete overhaul, and not a tune up so electoral reform should mean the entire system if we are going to go through with it because it is a huge undertaking.
I also do not need to have you pretentiously offer me “simple guides to political systems” because I think you are wrong.
There isn’t a modern democracy in the world that doesn’t have political parties. And for good reason, it’s wholly impractical. Even single party states such as China have political parties…
The reason we have two major parties is described in Duverger’s law. You don’t have to think I’m right or wrong, because this is just the reality.
There isn’t a modern democracy in the world that doesn’t have political parties. And for good reason, it’s wholly impractical. Even single party states such as China have political parties…
There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago. We can do better than our less intelligent ancestors can’t we? Especially when we all agree generally that the systems we have aren’t working.
Human tribalism will be our downfall. Just because everyone is doing it doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t mean the alternative is “wholly impractical”. It just means humans are a generally ignorant and stubborn species who hate change and cannot imagine things beyond what they know.
Which is the actual reason why we have political parties much like other Primates have their social systems that can be found across the species regardless of how beneficial it is or isn’t to the health of the overall species. We aren’t that far removed from our cousins.
If you can explain exactly what makes removing political parties from the system wholly impractical I am all ears, otherwise do not waste further time responding with wikipedia links you clearly do not understand.
“Parties” are inevitable just by simple human nature. It’s the same reason cliques exist in highschool; We gravitate towards people we agree with and eventually (either purposefully or not) begin to align our decision making.
I don’t think we can change our base responses, to be honest.
I think throughout history we’ve shown that we can mask our tribal responses to maintain a veneer of civilisation. But that at the end of the day, that’s all it is. It’s a mask waiting for permission from someone like Trump to be cast aside.
I agree with you about tribalism being our greatest weakness. In fact I firmly believe that that is the ultimate answer to the Drake Equation. Their are no species capable of interstellar travel because the Great Filter of tribalism prevents any society from reaching the globalism necessary to ultimately achieve it. As an Archaeology major (a long long time ago, to be fair), the very tribalism that allowed us to dominate this world, is the same tribalism that will keep us ultimately from leaving it.
And for letting us down on proportional representation: !fairvote@lemmy.ca
That was defintely the beginning of the end for Trudeau. And lost him all the young voters.
Proportional representation is not the answer because the party system does not work to begin with.
But proportional representation does not require political parties to be a part of the electoral system.
See single transferable vote (STV): A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems. It’s still a work in progress, but lays out a good framework for discussing electoral systems.
I never said proportional representation requires political parties. I said, and I quote, “Proportional representation is not the answer because the party system does not work to begin with.” meaning the system PR is being tacked on to doesn’t work and we aren’t fixing anything switching from FPTP to PR if we keep the party system.
The party system is the single biggest issue with our Politics. It prevents independents from ever being elected and allows a few parties to control the entire political landscape and narrative.
Which is why the entire history of Canada has been Conservative Government, Liberal Opposition or Liberal Government, Conservative opposition on a federal level excluding that one time because the right old white guy lead the NDP.
The point is we need a complete overhaul, and not a tune up so electoral reform should mean the entire system if we are going to go through with it because it is a huge undertaking.
I also do not need to have you pretentiously offer me “simple guides to political systems” because I think you are wrong.
There isn’t a modern democracy in the world that doesn’t have political parties. And for good reason, it’s wholly impractical. Even single party states such as China have political parties…
The reason we have two major parties is described in Duverger’s law. You don’t have to think I’m right or wrong, because this is just the reality.
There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago. We can do better than our less intelligent ancestors can’t we? Especially when we all agree generally that the systems we have aren’t working.
Human tribalism will be our downfall. Just because everyone is doing it doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t mean the alternative is “wholly impractical”. It just means humans are a generally ignorant and stubborn species who hate change and cannot imagine things beyond what they know.
Which is the actual reason why we have political parties much like other Primates have their social systems that can be found across the species regardless of how beneficial it is or isn’t to the health of the overall species. We aren’t that far removed from our cousins.
If you can explain exactly what makes removing political parties from the system wholly impractical I am all ears, otherwise do not waste further time responding with wikipedia links you clearly do not understand.
“Parties” are inevitable just by simple human nature. It’s the same reason cliques exist in highschool; We gravitate towards people we agree with and eventually (either purposefully or not) begin to align our decision making.
Our tribalism is one of our greatest weakness’ and the ability to change our base responses and nature is one of our greatest strengths as a species.
I don’t think we can change our base responses, to be honest.
I think throughout history we’ve shown that we can mask our tribal responses to maintain a veneer of civilisation. But that at the end of the day, that’s all it is. It’s a mask waiting for permission from someone like Trump to be cast aside.
I agree with you about tribalism being our greatest weakness. In fact I firmly believe that that is the ultimate answer to the Drake Equation. Their are no species capable of interstellar travel because the Great Filter of tribalism prevents any society from reaching the globalism necessary to ultimately achieve it. As an Archaeology major (a long long time ago, to be fair), the very tribalism that allowed us to dominate this world, is the same tribalism that will keep us ultimately from leaving it.
You only think they were going to choose the most complex voting scheme out there.
Can you explain more? What voting scheme did you have in mind?