Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
[B]It's very simple, really. In "winner takes all"-elections, only the views of the winner have an influence, and only a very limited amount of people/parties are a viable choice.
Because only a very limited amount of people/parties can be considered a viable choice, people are forced to band together in really large groups which don't agree on most issues, so they have to vote on these things themselves.
|
This is a good idea in theory, but Russia ended up having over 50 parties with presidential candidates by the second election and the reality was that NO candidate was even close to representing the majority view on any issue. In the end, they had to severely limit the total number of political parties. Some represented the dying military. Some represented Communism. Some represented the idea of social reforms. Some represented Labor unions and the list goes on and on.
In this scenario, the "biggest group" with "the most support" could actually be representing a very small minority of people in the country.
It was not possible or realistic for people to know where each candidate stood on any issue because it would be mathematically unrealistic. I think that is a primary reason for the political polarization that almost all countries see and why everything settles into similar points of equilibrium - 1-3 parties that have a chance.... and the rest that don't.
If a system like that were to happen, the questions would then have to be... how long would it take for number parties to dwindle down and die to a limited few, before it would make sense. would they? And if that happened... would you have more than 2-3 parties such as we do now and if so, what was the point in the first place.
People can safely stand behind a party, knowing how that party stands on all issues and have the security of knowing that they agree with 90% of what that party stands for regardless of the candidate.
- anyway, i just wanted to point that out... not really wanting to be drawn into a protracted debate on political theory and practise.