Lets meet in the middle

I read a lot of comments by people who complain that there isn't enough difference between Republican and Democrats (replace with whatever parties dominate your country's elections).

To me this seems a bit naive - what do you think is going to happen in a proper democracy? Parties don't compete on radicalism, they compete for the center. Even when parties have some distance between them, they campaign in the center (wherever that may be).

And no party is elected to absolute power. They win maybe one of the two houses, the presidency (in presidential systems), and party voting may or may not be strict. So after competing for the center, they are forced to compromise to get things done. Again, they head for the center.

Yet people think the system is somehow wrong because their dream socialist/libertarian/whatever party isn't elected to carry out some sweeping transformation of society. Obama is a sellout because he hasn't turned your world upside down. But how does that make sense?

Am I wrong here? Why?

 

And who defines "the center"? The people, or the elites in charge via the media?

Also, the US is supposed to be a constitutional republic -- not a "democracy." There is nothing written in the US Constitution about democracy.

 

Voters decide.

 

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.

- Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

 

Rat please re-read my original post and contribute to the debate in your own words. I don't need you to regurgitate what other people told you to think, that's not very interesting.

 

This whole idea of there being a "center" only has to do with the fact that the ruling elite want a consensus, and they do this by administering two parties that are nearly identical, so no matter which party gets in they can move ahead with the same agenda, with nothing drastic ever changing.

Does this serve to benefit the people or the elite?

 

In a proper democracy, the parties from whatever stance on the ideological scale they happen to be from, co-operate and corroborate in order to pass bills and keep the functions of government wheels turning.

There will be moments when party lines commit political suicide when they are faced with the choice to:

A) Vote to defeat a bill that would bring down the government and trigger an election
B) The elected member votes against party lines and outcasts himself as being contrary to the will of the party.

In either or any number of these situations - the balance between passing good laws that coincide with your party's policy and the need to go along with the will of the majority to actually get things done - is how a functioning democracy is achievable.

I mean, we can't bring down government and stop everything the moment an elected member votes "No".

The idea that there is a center in politics and political ideology is very, very real. In order to gain support for the policies that you are presenting you need to see beyond party line and your own partisanship to be able to garnish enough support. Ideally, every person in House that presents a bill wants the entire elected officials to vote "Yes" so wherever they sit on the ideological linear system, it matters to gain their support. It means that you're making everyone happy.

 

Most people in government require a consensus in order to pass laws. It's not really the elite that have to do anything to make this a reality.

 

Arguably, this is a by-product of a failed presidential system that is a two-party state.

 

But I was not talking about that kind of a consensus. I am talking about a consensus in the way people view politics and government. Most people feel pressured into joining Team A or Team B, voting for the "lesser of two evils," while nothing ever really changes because they're never given a real choice, but rather the choice of who they're given.

 

That mentality is largely the results of a flawed two-party electoral system. It's the Coke or Pepsi selection debate.

 

And yet, nobody here knows a a democracy is. It's sad that people think they live in a democracy, yet there is not a single one one earth. A true democracy is where the people vote in each law, and that simply has not been the case for thousands of years. Everybody who doesn't know believes a democracy to be that you get to elect a person to voice many conflicting opinions when they, the politician, are only one that get to voice THEIR opinion after a majority vote them to be (your) opinion. How many times does it fail? It depends on the politician, but they are there to serve those that pay them enough. Most voters never even realize this, they just look at a blank wall that will lie, cheat, or steal to pass laws in THEIR favor while the politician is safe for a few years. Anybody who believes in this lie they spin, will end up being the third class in a two class system. Those that don't will also be third class, just a bit sooner.

 

But what's wrong with the presidential system?

 

Have you ever considered that there is more than two sides to any argument? Especially when they are both lying to you?

A third or fourth party may help, but probably not.

 

I don't think most people realize that. I think most people have a hard time seeing outside of the two sides that are presented to them.

 

I'm not talking about the difference between a democracy and a republic. That clearly isn't my point.

My point is that parties compete for the center because that's how you get elected.

In a Parlaimentary system, where there are multiple leading parties which may be further distributed along the political spectrum, it doesn't end up being that different. Since no one party ever wins a majority, you get endless coalition governments which - you guessed it - end up compromising with each other to get along , and the result is centrist.

 

Paradoxically however, parliamentary system political parties have niche policies and work hard to implement policy that is unique and specific to their party line - in order to get elected. The Bloc Quebecois is good example of this. They focus on specific interests and policies that keep garnishing them votes and, these policies are not necessarily targeted to appeal to centrists - they aim to represent a specific group or interest.

When they are elected the multiple parties then have to work together to pass laws and establish federal policy. The multiple party system allows for more checks and balances. The parties can go back to the drawing board and re-write a bill 50 times before everyone is happy and it gets passed.

The presidential system is flawed in many ways that are quite obvious, I personally think that the mindset that "both parties are the same" is because of its very nature. Either party is required to appeal to the centrist voters in order to get elected.

 

It's all about marketing and gaining the largest market share. If either party were to maintain strict radical viewpoints then they would alienate that portion of the electorate that doesn't agree, by seeking the center they widen the scope and number of their potential share. They have to maintain their current membership, while trying to convert those of their adversary and you just can't do that by insisting on one radical viewpoint.

On a more basic level though all things in nature seek balance. Extremes just can't be maintained, eventually they all seek a level that can be reasonably maintained or they cease to exist.

 

A "proper" democracy hasn't existed since 508 BC, in Athens.

They were conquered by Macedonia.


That was the end of Democracy.

 

Let me repeat - I'm not talking about the difference between a democracy and a republic. That clearly isn't my point. Please take the sematics somewhere else.