EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Which system is more democratic?

< Return to subforum
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 10 2014 2:36 PM
Since this little convo in the shout box isn't going away, I thought we might as well graduate it to an actual forum topic.
The electoral voting system is quite interesting for us Kiwis as we recently had a referendum on whether we were satisfied with our MMP (Proportional) voting system experiment, or whether we'd like to return to the FPP (Majority) voting system we used to have - or explore an alternative option.

Just over 56% of us voted to stick with MMP.

The main reason I like MMP is that I find that in a two party system like FFP invaribly ends up being both parties winding up being slightly different shades of the same thing, and it takes a LOT of voter co-ordination to get your party to shift their focus.
With MMP, I can better influence my party's direction. The result is that the major parties are forced to actually listen to the voters because they know that the voters have real viable alternatives.

For example, my preferred major party is slightly right of the other major party. I prefer their economic plan for my country, but I want to let them know that their environmental policy is far too right for me. I can do this by shifting my vote to the far left Green party. When their analysts find that they are losing a significant number of voters due to this specific issue, they will address their own environmental policy.
In the meantime, my vote is not wasted, because the Green party actually gets the 5% they get to have a voice in Parliament.

In this way the make up of Parliament more accurately portrays the mindset of NZ. In a First Past the Post majority system, my vote is wasted unless I choose one of the two main parties, so I invariably end voting for the lesser of two evils... and most people would do the same resulting in a parliament that doesn't really reflect the true mindset of the people.

I'm actually probably MORE of a fan of the "Transferrable Vote" type system, PV or STV or one of those; - (I think I actually voted for STV in that referendum) although the thing that concerns me with that is the logistical reality of all those MPs over time, accruing all those perks and costing us money while not achieving terribly much. I think our MMP system works best.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 10 2014 2:40 PM
I think that by definition, the most democratic system has to be the one that wastes the least number of votes.
In other words, everyone is able to vote for the party they feel best represents their views, and that party actually gets in.

The system that can get closest to that ideal is the most democratic system.
admin
By admin | Jun 10 2014 3:22 PM
nzlockie: I voted for MMP in that referendum.

I think the biggest concern people have with MMP is actually a concern people have with democracy itself. Most of the big parties of the world are typically more moderate because society is generally not very extremist. When extremist parties end up having a say in policy, that annoys the more moderate majority of the people. But democracy is all about compromise - you have to respect the views of all people in a democracy, and that means working with both majority and minority viewpoints to get an outcome that's good for everybody.

So the bigger issue is whether we really want a democracy, or whether we want to think that the majority knows best, the so-called "tyranny of the majority".
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 12 2014 1:15 AM
admin: My big problem with the two party, "majority" system, is that since the parties are so large, they end up being SO moderate that they really only represent the theoretical average person's views. In other words, no actual people at all.

That's lame and I don't think it's the spirit of democracy.
Tophatdoc
By Tophatdoc | Jun 25 2014 5:00 AM
nzlockie: I noticed you and admin stuck to theoretical arguments rather than offering practical arguments. There are overwhelmingly practical reasons why a multiparty system is horrendous and has only worked efficiently in a few countries. If you hadn't noticed many of the military coups in the 20th century have to do with overthrowing the governments because the multiparty system is inefficient(Pakistan, Syria, Thailand, and many more) where the country has become ungovernable. The two party system encourages for strong coalitions to be built. The multiparty system encourages one issue voters and one issue parties(Beer-Lover's Party, Five Star Movement, The Church Party, etc.). That inevitably will lead to inefficiency due to weak coalitions and parties who have no interest in governing the country.

There is also a reason why no large country would ever adopt such a system(United States, India, China, Russia) with more than two strong parties. First and foremost it would be inefficient, possibly impossible to manage when the country would just break up into sections or religious blocs voting on what would help them or advance their cause. For example, the only significant four party presidential election in the United States was in 1860. It was the most divisive election in American history with two parties voted for in the North(Northern Democrats, Republicans) and two parties voted for in the South(Southern Democrats, Constitutional Unionists) . This inevitably led to the American Civil War.

I have many more examples of why the multiparty system is currently horrendous in many developed countries as well(France,Italy, Spain, Ukraine).

I am not interested in a debate on the topic(at least currently). I am just offering the mere facts of the results of multiparty elections. The multiparty system is enourages weakness not strength.
"Don't respond to my posts. Don't read my debates. Don't read my messages. Thanks for reading this message. " A Quote from Tophatdoc
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 25 2014 6:08 AM
Tophatdoc: Hmmm. Certainly there have been examples of countries which have adopted a multi-party political system and then spiralled into a tragic state, but I think to write off the concept of a multi-party system on that evidence alone is pretty harsh. There were obviously many other factors involved in some of the examples you gave.
It could even be said that in the case of some - like the US one for example, a multi-party system has accurately reflected the internal political conflict going on and the resulting civil war, while unpleasant and nasty at the time, was a faster and more efficient way of resolving some issues that needed to be addressed.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 25 2014 6:15 AM
Oops, accidental post.

While I'm not sure we were being too theoretical, being as we were being very specific about NZ, part of the reason may have been because the topic was not, "which system is the most efficient", it was, "which system is most democratic".
I think you'd have to agree that a two party system generally results in two parties which are forced to be very moderate in order to appeal to the masses.
Its also fair to suggest that there could be a significant minority who end up with no representation at all.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 25 2014 11:08 AM
Just did a little research and according to the Econmist Intelligence Unit's Democracy index, which ranks countries based on how democratic they are, Australia is the highest 2 party democracy at rank 6. The top 5 countries, (which obviously includes NZ) are all Multi Party systems. In fact with the exception of Switzerland who basically hold a referendum to decide every issue, every other country in the top 10 is a Multi party system.

I'd say that's some pretty compelling evidence to suggest that a Multi-party system is more democratic...and that NZ is better than Australia. (again)
admin
By admin | Jun 25 2014 3:24 PM
nzlockie: I wouldn't say a two-party system is efficient compared with a multiparty. Bigger parties means more power of those parties to introduce deliberate inefficiencies into the system so they can stifle it if need be. That's why they had a government shutdown not too long ago. Harder to do that with multiparty systems. Also, less oversized conventions/rallies and more small, local ones.

India would be the biggest example I can think of of a working multiparty democracy. Not a very democratic one due to corruption etc, but it shows that it isn't necessarily impossible.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Tophatdoc
By Tophatdoc | Jun 27 2014 9:07 AM
nzlockie: Which one is more democratic? I think you may be confusing liberalism with democracy. The two are often confused in modern times due to liberal democracy. I would argue that democracy as originally practiced in Greece is illiberal. I would argue the existence of a party system itself is not democratic.
"Don't respond to my posts. Don't read my debates. Don't read my messages. Thanks for reading this message. " A Quote from Tophatdoc
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 27 2014 9:24 AM
Tophatdoc: I wondered if that's the way you were thinking. Wouldn't you agree that the spirit of democracy is that the government represent the will of the people?
The only real area of contention is exactly who, "the people" are.

How is reducing the options to only two parties, MORE democratic than providing a system that allows more lights and shades?
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 27 2014 9:32 AM
By the way, you'd agree that a multiparty system is more democratic in a liberal democracy right?
Tophatdoc
By Tophatdoc | Jun 27 2014 9:41 AM
nzlockie: Of course, democracy is the will of the people.

The two party system is the closer of the two systems to being more democratic. This is because the two party system represents the will of the majority over the will of the minority. A multiparty system allows for minorities and minority views to have a better voice. That is why I said you are confusing liberalism and democracy. Democracy itself has nothing to do with giving voice to minorities nevertheless respecting them(the death of Socrates for example). That is why I tried to explain democracy historically speaking was illiberal.
"Don't respond to my posts. Don't read my debates. Don't read my messages. Thanks for reading this message. " A Quote from Tophatdoc
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 27 2014 10:04 AM
Tophatdoc: Right I got that. The only thing is that the SPIRIT of democracy is to provide a government that most accurately represents the will of the people as opposed to a single ruler or small group of people.

You're right that there are a lot of variants of democracy. The common thread they all share is that they let the people decide. If you stack the deck by giving the people only two choices, neither of which represent the wishes of the majority... Is this still in keeping with the spirit of democracy?
Contrast this with a multiparty system. If it is true that the majority support one of the two major parties, this will be reflected in the numbers.

From your logic - referencing Athens as the standard for most democratic, would I be correct in saying that you think Direct Democracy is the MOST democratic system?
Tophatdoc
By Tophatdoc | Jun 27 2014 11:03 AM
nzlockie: Athens is the standard for which we measure what a democracy is(at least, I think). The two party system is the close as you get appealing to the majority of people. Two parties, one of which will receive majority of the votes. With a multiparty system there is no majority, therefore it does not represent the will of the people. For example, if a party or coalition in the multiparty system wins 35% of the seats and controls most of the house and the executive office; they did not win on a mandate from the majority of the people. A multiparty system does not create a majority. The multiparty system is characteristically against creating a majority.

Yes, I believe direct democracy is the most democratic system. That means from my point of view, Switzerland is one of the most democratic countries in today's time.
"Don't respond to my posts. Don't read my debates. Don't read my messages. Thanks for reading this message. " A Quote from Tophatdoc
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 27 2014 11:30 AM
Tophatdoc: OK, leaving aside the fact that having multiple parties to choose from doesn't negate one party gaining more than 50% of the vote and also leaving aside the fact that in a two party system its niave to think the a significant proportion of the people are being forced to vote for a party they don't believe in, AND leaving aside the fact that countries with a multiparty system typically get voter turnout percentages of around 80% (88% in NZ) compared to two party systems with figures around 50% (48% in USA)...
You would have to agree that a multiparty system is closer to a direct system than a two party system. Purely on the basis that the voters are given more options of people to vote for. The Swiss have at least 5 major parties represented. Even though they implement a direct democratic system, it is closer to a multiparty model than a two party model.
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 27 2014 11:31 AM
PS: I wasn't really leaving all that other stuff aside, I'm tabling all of it. ;)
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Jun 27 2014 11:33 AM
Also, *"... niave NOT to think..."

Facepalm.
Tophatdoc
By Tophatdoc | Jun 27 2014 1:51 PM
nzlockie: The majority comment is a viable point but it it is theoretical. In practice the multiparty system has resulted in the majority of countries where the governing coalition or party usually has no more than 45%. There have been multiple political science studies done on the proportional representational system that have shown there usually is no majority. I can show you two studies commissioned in the last decade of which studied European and Asian parliaments historically. But this merely a minor point nevertheless.

"the fact that in a two party system its niave to think the a significant proportion of the people are being forced to vote for a party they don't believe in"
On what basis did you arrive at this conclusion?

"You would have to agree that a multiparty system is closer to a direct system than a two party system. Purely on the basis that the voters are given more options of people to vote for. "

Absolutely not, the Australian ballot is not intrinsically democratic. That is a product of liberalism and the fancy to protect minority voting voters. I am not convinced that in a public forum that multiple factions will develop with open ballots because of the coercion, bullying, threats, and other sorts of violence that ensued during the times of open ballots in recent history(18th and 19th centuries). Democracy as traditionally practiced in the Ekklesia required a simple majority not proportional. The two party system is closer to a simple majority. The multiparty system does not even require a majority. In fact it, it is diametrically opposed to creating a majority as I mentioned previously. Henceforth the existence of multiple parties.

" The Swiss have at least 5 major parties represented. Even though they implement a direct democratic system, it is closer to a multiparty model than a two party model. "
I more inclined to ask, since it is a direct democracy, what is the need for the existence of parties at all? I would say and strongly suggest there is no need for political parties at all in a direct democratic system.
"Don't respond to my posts. Don't read my debates. Don't read my messages. Thanks for reading this message. " A Quote from Tophatdoc