I’m not watching an 1h 10m lecture which may or may not have relevant content. Now who’s the common Lemmy troll?
Can you narrow this down to a time signature please?
I would like to state however, I live in a country within a country. I live within both a (basically) two-party system (Westminster, UK) and a multi-party system (Holyrood, Scotland). I can see first hand which of these systems a) runs most competently b) runs most democratically. In both scenarios it’s the multi-party proportionally representative Scottish Holyrood system.
In a rare moment of defying electoral maths we even had a majority government in 2011 in Holyrood, which meant they no longer had to worry about negotiating with smaller parties. Guess what happened? They got bumped down to a minority government the next election because of dissatisfaction with their governance. When one party has ultimate control they are beholden to nobody, the power goes to their heads, and it’s difficult to say with a straight face that they’re therefore even democratic.
Multi-party systems create cooperation rather than the division that two-party systems thrive on. The point, after all, of all of this politicking, is to agree how to run a shared country. Cooperation therefore is a far better way of living than constant division and attack.
Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in America we’re witnessing right now. Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in Britain where both major parties are collapsing in on themselves (one already has). It’s a shite way to run a country, never ending attack, attack, attack of those who have a slightly different opinion on how things should be run.
Switching from two-party systems to multi-party systems is not going to solve your problems. Likewise, switching from multi-party to two-party won’t either. If you took the time to watch the lecture you would understand that.
There seems to be this naive believe here on lemmy that the two-party system in places like the UK or US is what causes all the trouble and lack of representation. Having lived in multi-party and basically one-party systems I can tell you that this does not make politics more representative.
As long as the general public ™ has no believable leverage that politicians need to take into account while billionaires buy all the media, give politicians exit options and do all sorts of other things, there will never be money for schools or hospitals and always an urgent need to reduce regulations/taxes for companies. No matter if you have 1, 2, or 5 parties.
Without a time signature I’m not going to watch an over hour long university lecture. I have enough studying to do as it is in my own topic, let alone do so for a bullshit internet exchange.
As long as the general public ™ has no believable leverage that politicians need to take into account
That leverage is multiple parties. That leverage is the 3rd, 4th, or 5th option. Competition. The very thing that was said to keep capitalism in check. The one major regulation to keep capitalism trundling along was supposed to be no monopolies. And yet, you believe, that a duopoly of politics is a good thing. A duopoly over every facet of life.
“The SNP are on a dangerous tack at the moment,” he said. “What they are doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the Border in a number of areas.”
A clearly bemused MacKay responded with the obvious question: “Is this such a bad thing?”
“No,” replied George Lord, “but they are doing it deliberately.”
Whatever does the SNP government think it’s doing? Wantonly putting forward policies that might improve the lives of Scotland’s people? It will never catch on – not according to George Foulkes anyway.
Does that sound like there’s a lack of money for schools and healthcare in Scotland? Well, kind of, there is, but that’s due to Scottish funding being linked to a thing called the Barnett Formula which comes from Westminster which is outside the remit of this exchange. But the point is, despite squeezed funds coming from Westminster Holyrood still manage to fund our schools and healthcare significantly better than those south of the border. That’s also with the added difficulty of a sparsely populated country and more extreme weather.
1 party has total control and can do as it wishes. 2 parties have near total control and understand that they’ll get 5-10 years to do as they wish and then it’ll switch and this merry-go-round of power exchange will go on and on. In a multi party system there’s no guarantee of power. There’s dialogue, compromise, intellectual debate rather than ad hominems and posturing, and common ground found.
We have better funded healthcare, better funded schools, nationally owned railways, nationally owned water, the right to roam, a more sociological approach to crime and justice, and a fairer income tax system all because of a multi party system.
Two party systems are fundamentally unrepresentative and undemocratic.
Here we go, I knew I had posted it already here on lemmy a while ago because this crap comes up again and again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3-VlQu3iRM
I’m not watching an 1h 10m lecture which may or may not have relevant content. Now who’s the common Lemmy troll?
Can you narrow this down to a time signature please?
I would like to state however, I live in a country within a country. I live within both a (basically) two-party system (Westminster, UK) and a multi-party system (Holyrood, Scotland). I can see first hand which of these systems a) runs most competently b) runs most democratically. In both scenarios it’s the multi-party proportionally representative Scottish Holyrood system.
In a rare moment of defying electoral maths we even had a majority government in 2011 in Holyrood, which meant they no longer had to worry about negotiating with smaller parties. Guess what happened? They got bumped down to a minority government the next election because of dissatisfaction with their governance. When one party has ultimate control they are beholden to nobody, the power goes to their heads, and it’s difficult to say with a straight face that they’re therefore even democratic.
Multi-party systems create cooperation rather than the division that two-party systems thrive on. The point, after all, of all of this politicking, is to agree how to run a shared country. Cooperation therefore is a far better way of living than constant division and attack.
Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in America we’re witnessing right now. Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in Britain where both major parties are collapsing in on themselves (one already has). It’s a shite way to run a country, never ending attack, attack, attack of those who have a slightly different opinion on how things should be run.
Switching from two-party systems to multi-party systems is not going to solve your problems. Likewise, switching from multi-party to two-party won’t either. If you took the time to watch the lecture you would understand that.
There seems to be this naive believe here on lemmy that the two-party system in places like the UK or US is what causes all the trouble and lack of representation. Having lived in multi-party and basically one-party systems I can tell you that this does not make politics more representative.
As long as the general public ™ has no believable leverage that politicians need to take into account while billionaires buy all the media, give politicians exit options and do all sorts of other things, there will never be money for schools or hospitals and always an urgent need to reduce regulations/taxes for companies. No matter if you have 1, 2, or 5 parties.
Without a time signature I’m not going to watch an over hour long university lecture. I have enough studying to do as it is in my own topic, let alone do so for a bullshit internet exchange.
That leverage is multiple parties. That leverage is the 3rd, 4th, or 5th option. Competition. The very thing that was said to keep capitalism in check. The one major regulation to keep capitalism trundling along was supposed to be no monopolies. And yet, you believe, that a duopoly of politics is a good thing. A duopoly over every facet of life.
Does that sound like there’s a lack of money for schools and healthcare in Scotland? Well, kind of, there is, but that’s due to Scottish funding being linked to a thing called the Barnett Formula which comes from Westminster which is outside the remit of this exchange. But the point is, despite squeezed funds coming from Westminster Holyrood still manage to fund our schools and healthcare significantly better than those south of the border. That’s also with the added difficulty of a sparsely populated country and more extreme weather.
1 party has total control and can do as it wishes. 2 parties have near total control and understand that they’ll get 5-10 years to do as they wish and then it’ll switch and this merry-go-round of power exchange will go on and on. In a multi party system there’s no guarantee of power. There’s dialogue, compromise, intellectual debate rather than ad hominems and posturing, and common ground found.
We have better funded healthcare, better funded schools, nationally owned railways, nationally owned water, the right to roam, a more sociological approach to crime and justice, and a fairer income tax system all because of a multi party system.
Two party systems are fundamentally unrepresentative and undemocratic.
Quote source:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/the-diary-2508490