• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it a democracy when....

Is a "party list" election "democracy" really a democracy?

  • Total voters
    11

Maximus Zeebra

MoG
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
7,588
Reaction score
468
Location
Western Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is it a democracy in a state/country when there is a blocking minority 4% of vote necessary to gain a seat, even if a seat only requires 0.5%.

Is a "party-list" system fair, could it be branded as a democracy, even when it blocks small parties or independent politicians from having any change of being elected(which is one of the main points of democracy)?
 
I'd like to see a change to the system.
 
It's a democracy, just a really crappy one. In truth, pretty much all democracies can expect to have this problem. Its part of being a democracy. On the bright side, its a hell of a lot better then the stuff that socialists and communists have to deal with.
 
How is it not a democracy? It is still the rule of the majority, right?
 
Arch Enemy said:
How is it not a democracy? It is still the rule of the majority, right?
Click to expand...

It blocks single individuals from entering politics without being a member of a 4+% party.. This is not democratic since being a member of a party generally need you to agree with party policies.
For example, you have no chance of being elected to the European Parliament, unless a big national party endorse you, and you and the party block your national party in the European parliament is in, get a bigger amount of vote than the blocking minimum.

In many systems you have no chance of having a political say unless you get on a party list, which is not easy in the beginning, because you have to compete with all the people in the party. Doesnt give you much of a chance unless the party really likes you.

It basically blocks out independent politicians from participating, and it blocks out small parties from taking part of government.
In Europe this can be seen by bigger and bigger parties forming, and smaller once disappearing alltogether, while it in the US can be seen in the form that there are only two parties with no other parties having any chance.
 
The party or coalition that is elected or formed has to have the majority vote. Regardless of how unfair the threshold is for independents it is still a Democratic system, as Democracy is rule by the majority.

If you can piece together an argument where the ruling party is not elected by the majority of the weighted votes (votes that actually count, like the EC in US), then you can claim it is not a democracy. Otherwise, tough luck.
 
Well the goal is never pure democracy, in fact such a system is quite dangerous. What one would want is the establishment of a republic. Still the question then goes towards participation of various parties in the political structure. And there, even if one wishes for Republic, there is a lot of work to do. When you have entrenched 2 party system, you're really left with one party. The "two" parties will just teeter-totter back and forth and will only then support the status-quo. Which is the problem America has currently. You do need some amount of participation of third parties so that should one of the two parties stagnate too much or abandon their political philosophy, you can have another party there to take its place. In a winner take all environment, like that set up for the US, you're going to be stable at 2 main parties. However, that doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be others.
 

In Norway in the 90s the leading party had around 7% of the votes... They were supported by an alliance..

No one wanted them or the prime minister to be in charge.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
In Norway in the 90s the leading party had around 7% of the votes... They were supported by an alliance..

No one wanted them or the prime minister to be in charge.
Click to expand...

How many votes did the members of this alliance receive?
 
Arch Enemy said:
How many votes did the members of this alliance receive?
Click to expand...

They did have majority.

But anyways this is irrelevant to the point of the thread, which is asking about the blocking of small parties and individual politicians from taking place in parliament, and if that can really be called democracy. The issue of failed party politics is another thread alltogether.
 

No it is not.

Because democracy does not guarantee true plurality. For definition's sake, as long as the ruling regime has a majority of votes (50+1%) it is a democratic system. Regardless of how unfair it may seem to those who do not break the threshold
 

Points of democracy...
-Rule of the PEOPLE(not just a majority tyrrany)
-Equal access to power(point of this thread)
-Freedom of political expression(which is blocked in party democracy, where single individuals do not have the possibility to represent their interests in government).
 
Since someone that can't get 4% isn't going to get elected anyway, what difference does it make?

If someone's opinion is so extreme that less than four people in a hundred like the guy, why should the rest of the people be forced to grant his opinions official time in the legislature?
 
Last edited:
Maximus Zeebra said:
In Europe this can be seen by bigger and bigger parties forming, and smaller once disappearing alltogether, while it in the US can be seen in the form that there are only two parties with no other parties having any chance.
Click to expand...

The United States has an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, a member of some idiotic socialist party or other, from Vermont, in the House. Of course, he votes to the right of the Democrats, but still, he's not "one of the Big Split Party That Likes to Act Like It's Two Parties Party.
 

There are currently only 2 Senators not of either the GOP or the Democrats. Out of 100. That's not really proof of a viable multi-party system here in the U.S.
 
If a party is consistently elected to office with over half the votes, I really don't see how it isn't a democracy. You can quibble, but the facts are simple.
 
Points of democracy...
-Rule of the PEOPLE(not just a majority tyrrany)
Click to expand...

I think you must have democracy confused with something else. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
 
samsmart said:
There are currently only 2 Senators not of either the GOP or the Democrats. Out of 100. That's not really proof of a viable multi-party system here in the U.S.
Click to expand...

I don't count Senators who got elected under one party and abandoned it, but didn't have the guts to join the other.

Liarman at least was elected as an independent, though.

And I'm not saying we have anything like a multi-party system, anyway. We don't need one. We need a functioning two party system, ie, two parties that are actually different.

It would be nice to have to parties dedicated to the preservation of the Republic, even just one would a healthy change.
 

Because in democracy everyone should have equal access to power, not only the people who join and conform to a party and its politics...
 
Panache said:
I think you must have democracy confused with something else. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
Click to expand...

The principle of the European council is something I highly like. Unanimous agreements.

Not that we can have that in democracy. But we should only implement strategies,policies and goals that a large majority likes and want. Implementing policies that 50.1% likes and 49.9% hates is not REALLY democracy, is it?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And I'm not saying we have anything like a multi-party system, anyway. We don't need one. We need a functioning two party system, ie, two parties that are actually different.
Click to expand...

Problem is that they arent really that different. No matter which party you elect, many of the policies are common and will go through no matter what. This is also true for multi party democracies in Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…