Twilightpeaks.net

TP.net => The Great Beyond (OOC) => : X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby) November 04, 2008, 10:00:05 PM

: Elections
: X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby) November 04, 2008, 10:00:05 PM
Americans - stop reading about fictional politics and governing.  Go vote.  Then you can come back to the fiction.   ;)
: Re: Elections
: X-Osoerde (Alan) November 05, 2008, 01:02:16 AM
I couldn't wait to vote.  I did it as soon as the polls opened in Massaschussettss.

Funny questions too...

A change in income tax (removal of it more or less)
A Pot law ('legalize' very small (1 ounce) of it)
A Dog Track Law (prohibit running dogs)
: Re: Elections
: X-Roesone/ARR (Robert) November 05, 2008, 01:13:18 AM
A change in income tax (removal of it more or less)

Well, considering its unconstitutional...  8)

A Pot law ('legalize' very small (1 ounce) of it)

LOL

A Dog Track Law (prohibit running dogs)

Say what?
: Re: Elections
: X-SASI/Orthien Tane (Rune) November 05, 2008, 02:31:23 AM
Watching BBC and wondering if it's safe to go to bed soon...

Keeping my fingers crossed for Americans doing something right for a change ;D
: Re: Elections
: X-OIT (Joe) November 05, 2008, 06:58:20 PM
I couldn't wait to vote.  I did it as soon as the polls opened in Massaschussettss.

Funny questions too...

A change in income tax (removal of it more or less)
A Pot law ('legalize' very small (1 ounce) of it)
A Dog Track Law (prohibit running dogs)

It really wasn't 'legalize' it, it just moved it to a civil offense from a criminal.
: Re: Elections
: X-Osoerde (Alan) November 05, 2008, 07:58:39 PM
They take it and fine you 100 dollars.

That is tantamount to legalization IMO.
: Re: Elections
: X-Tornilen/SM (John) November 07, 2008, 10:03:16 PM
We've got our elections tonight down here in New Zealand - I have a bit riding on the result given that I work in our parliament. :)

The polls are consistently showing our conservative party with a healthy lead of our labour party (who have been in for three 3-year terms now).  However, we have a system similar to Germany's, so it really comes down to votes for likely coalition blocks, rather than for individual parties.  Polls still favour the conservatives there, but its much closer.  Conservatives are riding a mood for change, similar to what we saw in America.

Our political parties are quite moderate.  The conservatives have moved to a very centrist position over the last 2-3 years, labour is likewise quite centrist but have moved further to the left over the last 2-3 years.  We have a Green party (very left wing), a right wing party called Act, a couple fringe parties represented by only one MP who holds an electorate seat, and the Maori party (representing our indigenous people).
: Re: Elections
: X-Roesone/ARR (Robert) November 08, 2008, 12:00:43 PM
So, is the conservative victory good for you or not?
: Re: Elections
: X-Mhoired (Dan) November 08, 2008, 06:35:05 PM
Hope your fellas win, John!
Here's a question for you: My dad-in-law have been talking about the lack of a viable third party in US politics. Do you think the multiple parties and subsequent coalitions are a beneficial thing, or does it give a smaller party disprportionate power based on their "swing votes"? Not to put you on the spot or anything , ;) just curious...
: Re: Elections
: X-Tornilen/SM (John) November 08, 2008, 09:12:27 PM
So, is the conservative victory good for you or not?

Yeah, it is.  Looks like I'll have a new (and better paying) job within the next 2-3 weeks. :)

Hope your fellas win, John!
Here's a question for you: My dad-in-law have been talking about the lack of a viable third party in US politics. Do you think the multiple parties and subsequent coalitions are a beneficial thing, or does it give a smaller party disprportionate power based on their "swing votes"? Not to put you on the spot or anything , ;) just curious...

It's worth, I think, mentioning that in order for a political party to get into our parliament, it needs to win 5% of the popular vote (or one of their candidates can win a local constituency/electorate).  This means we don't get the large numbers of parties that you see in, say Italy, where they don't have a similar threshold.  This means our governing coalitions are usually formed around one strong major party and a couple minor parties.  So they're inherently more stable than in some other countries.

We've only had a proportional system since 1996 (we have 3-year parliamentary terms), so I think it's fair to say that we still maturing.  Earlier on we had a number of parties that were built around charismatic individuals rather than a solid policy/brand identity - as we know from playing Birthright, charismatic leaders leading their own faction/cult tend to engage in activities to make themselves the centre of attention.  When they gain real power, they often hold an influence disproportionate to their actual size/power.  We saw the same thing here - though as part of the evolutionary / maturing process, these parties are now falling by the wayside.  Last night, the most influential of these parties was kicked out of parliament and, given that their charismatic leader is likely to retire, we probably won't see them again.  Two other minor parties are down to just one MP and likely to disappear within one or two parliamentary terms.  So in that sense, I think it's fair to say that, yes, minor parties do wield disproportionate influence, but how disproportionate that influence is reduces over time - in simple terms, the voting public lose patience with minor parties that skew results.

However, the degree of disproportionate influence also depends on the strength and desperation of the major parties.  This time around the conservative party here is in a strong position (holding 59 seats out of a needed 62 by itself) and its coalition buddies are desperate to get rid of the left wing governing party, so likely won't make too many demands.  The labour party was desperate to retain power and was making all sorts of promises before the election to other parties which would have made any resulting government unwieldy and difficult to maintain.

In broad terms I think multiple parties are a good thing.  Our experience is that it reduces to an extent the hostile adversarial nature of politics (the two main parties are still quite adversarial towards each other, but everyone generally tries to work with the minor parties).  It also increases the focus to more of an issues-based process, rather than an ideological one, because the governing party often needs the votes of different minor parties at different times.  Things also tend to take longer to get done, because the main governing party often needs to talk to a number of parties to get their votes on individual issues before they can act - and the horse-trading that goes on often moderates government policy.  This also means, of course, that the main governing party sometimes can't respond to a problem quickly, nor can it impose a more radical agenda (which can be either a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view).

I do tend to think that if you have a 'first-past-the-post" system where the party that gets more votes (or more electoral college seats) forms the executive all by itself, then minor parties have much less influence.  In proportional systems where parties roughly get a number of seats according to their percentage of the popular vote, their influence is greater simply because they have a greater presence within the legislature (and those in coalition get a presence in the executive).
: Re: Elections
: X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy) November 08, 2008, 11:27:56 PM
I do tend to think that if you have a 'first-past-the-post" system where the party that gets more votes (or more electoral college seats) forms the executive all by itself, then minor parties have much less influence.  In proportional systems where parties roughly get a number of seats according to their percentage of the popular vote, their influence is greater simply because they have a greater presence within the legislature (and those in coalition get a presence in the executive).

I think that the skew caused by the system is considered a feature not a bug locally.  We have 2 1/2 (maybe 1/4) parties in the UK and first-past-the-post system has encouraged large majorities, these majorities then let the ruling party (which may have less than half the votes) to drive through their manifesto with little in the way of  impediments.

This may have worked in less organised days by recognising shifts as they emerged, discouraging cosiness in the political theater and ensuring that the majority party could enact the manifesto that won the majority vote, but now it fails because parties shift votes between regions with postal votes to get a slight edge over the other party and thus a disproportionate influence.

Let's not mention the postal voting scams that are becoming endemic...
: Re: Elections
: DM B November 09, 2008, 07:19:29 AM
...but then again the UK is the last remaining core fragment of a decadent and long-lost Empire...much like Anuire :)
: Re: Elections
: X-Mhoired (Dan) November 09, 2008, 12:25:28 PM
Wow... that's a pretty comprehensive post, John, thanks for taking the time to write it up!
: Re: Elections
: X-Roesone/ARR (Robert) November 09, 2008, 01:02:08 PM
We also have the proportionate system and the 5% threshold and the way it works in practice is that the party that gets, say 30% of the popular vote, usually gets 40-45% of the seats in parliament, thanks to "dear" mr. d'Honte and his method of seats distribution. Since independence (1991) the conservatives (earlier right, now center right) have had three terms in office, and the left coalition had once.

The left coalition was largely ineffective because the 5 parties (social democrats + 4 minor parties) kept bickering (i.e. minor parties blackmailing) but also because the conservatives claim to have a "monopoly" on national interests. So, whenever the left tried to engage in reforms, the right would start organizing protests and shout "treason." When the conservatives won again, they did those same reforms, but, then again, "whatever they do is in the national interest" 
: Re: Elections
: X-Tornilen/SM (John) November 10, 2008, 03:49:45 AM
We also have the proportionate system and the 5% threshold and the way it works in practice is that the party that gets, say 30% of the popular vote, usually gets 40-45% of the seats in parliament, thanks to "dear" mr. d'Honte and his method of seats distribution.

Our conservative party got 45.5% of the popular vote and that has given them 59 seats in parliament (out of 122 seats).  The right wing party got 5 seats and a centrist party another one.  Together they have 65 seats and a clear majority.

Now its just a matter of nutting out precise coalition details, but don't expect that to take long (certainly done this week).
: Re: Elections
: X-Diemed/Carvaloen Diem (Sheldon) November 12, 2008, 05:13:29 PM
It always fascinates me how democratic politics seem to always be described on the left and right axis, and it seems, at least here in the U.S., forced to fit that mold.  They seem to ignore the other two axiis of the Hans Eysenck model.  ;D

I can't speak for most, but has anyone else noticed that the U.S. has seemed, at least since 1988 to be swinging like a pendulumn as people run one direction, realize they don't want to be there, and run the opposite direction, and then decide they don't like it there either... What concerns me is the pendulumn seems to be swinging farther and faster each time?  Maybe that's a natural mob tendancy... If your house is burning, you don't just run out to the porch and turn around and assess where you are, you run down the street, as far as possible... Maybe it's the fact that Two parties that slug it out in a winner take all brawl each contain elements that most people find good and flaws that most people find appalling... I'm not really sure.  I'm kind of thinking through this as I write it, but it does remind me of a quote from Professor Steven Dutch (Geology, UWGB) that goes like this:

"Just about everything your opponents say about you is true...
Republicans are more concerned about the wealthy than the underprivileged. Democrats are more concerned about the rights of sociopaths than they are about ordinary citizens.

Hint: Republicans, you get elected because you offer the public protection from social predators and regulatory micromanagement. Don’t make the mistake of assuming you have a mandate to ravage the environment or cut taxes for the wealthy. Democrats, you get elected because you offer protection from the abuses of the wealthy and powerful, and a social safety net. That’s not a mandate for gay rights, abortion on demand, or overriding every local decision in the courts."

I'm sure he's an angry old man, but he makes me think.  If you want to read more, there's more here. http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/FAQ.htm

I know I for one prefer when the House and Senate are balanced and if anything not in the same majority as the executive branch.  I think that you get more good done when you are forced to work with people of different view points and are not in a position to ramrod or sign in everything your party's agenda's warrant.  I come from the idea that checks and balances keep things fair, and I guess that's why the pendulum action I've been noticing disquiets me, if it swings all the way one direction, it allows fringe groups to more easily get what they want, not what effects the vast majority of American's as a whole.  It's kinda like running a blender with no lid on.  On low things are alright and it's just wobbling a bit, but if you punch the "Puree" button you and the whole room will be wearing that fruit smoothie.  :P