In a one-party system, your average citizen's political choice is with the State, or against the State.
In a two-party system, your average citizen's political choice is with the State, or with the State. That is because the citizen's efforts are directed towards fighting the citizens supporting the other camp.
A multiparty system creates allegiancies, sides-switching of centrist parties and individual representatives, and too much intrigue and conflict to let the State be governable. It is more effective to restrict a citizen's illusion of choice to two parties, as a third party might represent an anti-State protest.
You can't control a citizen if he has all manner of representatives that let him pick and choose policies. For example, he might agree with party A on education and immigration, and with party B on wealth redistribution and foreign policy. Should a Party C exist, it could potentially have such mixed policy, and we can't let this happen, he must do what we say, and we say he chooses between two kinds of retardation, or he doesn't vote at all.
Can we agree that a two-party system is the best possible system for the purpose of controlling a populace that has been given the right of vote?
>>984291
>no dominant-party system
All the advantages of the one-party and two-party systems with none of the weaknesses.
>>984291
How about a no-party system?
>>984291
The various intrigues, political backstabbing and deal making that occurs in a multi-party system is the thing that makes those system work. To some degree the state must be protected from its own government. A healthy multi-party system will prevent extremists and radicals from taking control and leading the state to oblivion.
>>984318
>none of the weaknesses
I get the PRC reference, but I'm not entirely sure how dominant can a party remain when people can vote.
For example in Japan the LDP had been in power almost continuously since 1955, but eventually it was overtaken by a protest party.
Doesn't a dominant party eliminate the appearance of alternation dispel illusion of choice, creating voter apathy in the opponents, etc.?
To me it's just look like a softer version of the one-party, but not devoid of its weakness.
>>984330
Conceivably, a direct democracy without parties means everything is voted by means of a referendum.
The State is slow as sin (Who proposes the laws? How many laws are voted in a day? etc.) and goes as far and as fast as voter fatigue allows it.
One argument for monarchy is that the monarch is above party politics.
>>984387
The only monarchs that are above politics are those that are useless figureheads. Any monarch actually involved with the day to day running of their nation will be heavily involved with politics.
>>984369
Direct democracy is shit
Just remove parties from the equation
For example
Take the American system and remove parties
>>984411
>Take the American system and remove parties
>Implying parties were designed as part of the system and not a natural response to the voting system
They sprout up like weeds, we'll never quite be rid of them. And like weeds, if you get too lazy for too long they just take over the whole goddamned place.
>>984365
>A healthy multi-party system will prevent extremists and radicals from taking control and leading the state to oblivion.
But the best possible way of doing this is precisely the two-party system!
You aren't likely to see something like a third party doing what Golden Dawn did in Greece in a two-party State.
Neither of the two parties can't allow itself to become too extremist, because they need the most voters possible on one hand, and cannot ally themselves with any other party on the other.
>>984387
In a monarchy the king is not above the law, and to ensure this is respected, as well as to generally help him govern, there's usually a court (of aristocrats, or Confucianism-inspired technocratic ministers), and among them there can be a lot of partisanism, backstabbing and in-fighting.
>>984411
So you want to choose congressmen on an individual basis, instead of within a party?
The congress is going to be fragmented as hell. It's an extreme form of multiparty system.
It is immensely likely that multiple like-minded candidates would aggregate and form party-like organizations anyway, joining forces in the hope of sharing visibility and results.
But even if that doesn't happen, I contend this doesn't change too much:
>The State is slow as sin (Who proposes the laws? How many laws are voted in a day?
If I'm still getting you wrong, please explain what would you be voting for.
>>984330
How about a innerpartysystem? Good band senpai.
>>984434
That's why you make an amendment against them or some shit
>>984440
That's precisely what I want
Representives, the Senate, the electoral college should not revolve around whats best for the nation
Each senator should be concerned with the well being of their state
Each representative should be concerned with the well being of their constitutes
Each member of the electoral college shouldn't vote along party lines but along who will be best for their area
The state is designed to slow
Do you even American politics?
>>984480
But doesn't this mean that, after all the voting is done, nobody has a clue which policy is the nation going to follow?
>>984480
>That's why you make an amendment against them or some shit
"Parties" are banned in quite a few countries which leads to the formation of "factions", "alliances", "voting blocs" etc which are exactly like parties.
>>984563
This.
People are going to collude and vote together, this is just a thing that happens.
A better plan would be a reduction of power in the Federal gov't and an increase in power for State gov'ts to self-manage their shit. Can you imagine the nightmare of party-less direct democracy across the entirety of the United States?
The problem isn't parties per-se, as much as it's we expect D.C. to run the entire goddamned show and give them the power to do so.
>>984581
>That's why you define a party and ban that
Right.
Because explicitly stating that only Congress has the power to declare war has stopped every "police action" taken by Presidents since.
Surely doing the same for "parties" won't end the same way.
>>984608
They defined war really poorly lad
>>984581
You vote for an individual, right? Everybody else also votes for an individual.
Once you have formed the congress with all these individuals, how do you suppose the nation is going to be managed? Some silly examples: will there be peace or war? Will the taxes be raised or lowered?
With parties, you have some measure of knowing which policy is actually going to happen. Without, there's gonna be a lot of bribing to convince the elected individuals to vote on the same issue, every time. As if there wasn't enough corruption in party-based systems...
>>984655
So badly that we call the Iraq War the... "Iraq War" instead of the "Iraq Police Action".
Face it, words aren't magic. If you invest power into a branch of gov't to do whatever it goddamn well pleases, then that's exactly what it will do regardless of what's written down.
