Posted on 11/02/2018 10:23:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
THIS, for example, is a description of the 1932 German elections that were to usher in the Nazis. Note: 61 listed parties receiving votes, 14 of which actually had seats in the Reichstag. Yes, according to parliamentarian doctrine there was something there for everyone. In practice, there was - it was one party that turned out to be for everyone, or else. And the reason a party receiving only 37% of the vote was able to do that was that the rest couldn't form a coalition in time to prevent it. Being a revolutionary party, the Communists weren't going to form a coalition with anyone because they wanted the form of the government to be forcibly changed - so did the Nazis, and so due to the 51% of the vote they had between them, the rest didn't matter.
As others have pointed out, there is no provision in the Constitution for a two-party system, nor do we really have one. I have a number of personal friends who voted for Jill Stein in the last Presidential election. In a de facto two-party system those votes may be captured by whatever party proposes policies conforming with their preference, so that de facto two-party system is, in fact, coalitional in practice. Different system, same result. Both systems have imperfections.
You are so right! I can still sing the Preamble to the Constitution thanks to Schoolhouse Rock (I even taught my boys the same song)!
Consider that Muslims, as a minority, vote as a block - hence a Muslim Mayor in London. They don’t need to be in large numbers either, especially if the rest are mostly in one of two other major parties. They can swing elections and get everyone to pander to them.
This is what is happening in the UK IMO.
but the song was wrong.
it left something out..
I read this article earlier and couldn’t figure out what point he was trying to make other than he hates Trump.
Well Canada has the parliamentary system and IS far superior to anything except a Republic. All the proportional systems in Europe are just nuts and prevent strong and responsible government. People here want to change the Parliamentary system to a proportional representative system to which I say hell no.
Yes the Prime Minister has much more authority than a President. In Canada the Senate was meant to be that check, however was dominated by the same party so pretty much rubber stamped everything coming from Parliament.
Harper tried to change that but was resisted from every corner.
Laughably Trudeau has said he is creating a Senate that has independents. Which is a ruse. The so called Independents he appointed actually vote more with the Party in power than the Liberal Senators do.
Because we don’t have an elected Senate this is what we have to live with.
True, but the deadlock was due to an 1866 congressional law which required a majority vote in the state legislatures rather than a plurality. Bribery and corruption were also way over-hyped.
The Progs intended and succeeded in blowing up limited government. First of a three part series:
Ping to post #48 regarding the 17th Amendment.
thanks
Goldberg offered a glimpse into a great book by Randy Barnett, in which the rats believe, like the majority party in parliamentary systems, they get to ramrod whatever they want as if the US Constitution did not exist.
Or we could just make house districts square, and encourage states to split their electoral votes by %.
bump
And that’s why I would hold him complicit in every instance of obstruction, or attempted obstruction, aimed at the President and what he’s trying to accomplish.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.