|
steinrokkan posted:However, once he retired in 2002, he changed and became a sort of ghost fueled entirely by Becherovka.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Thanks for that! Is there any clear reason why the Czech system is so fragile? We have a proportional system which means no party usually gets much more than 30% of representatives. So when you take into account that there's also a large number of Communists, over 10%, who are basically dead weight, and that there is usually an opposition party that also has something like 30% representatives, there isn't much of a maneuvering space for the election winners to form a stable government. Let us see the 2002 election for an illustration: SOCDEM gained 70 MPs Their mortal enemies, the ODS, gained 58 The Communists had 41, and because nobody was remotely willing to work with them, those 48 votes were worthless for forming a majority coalition. All the other parties got 31 MPs. Together, that's 200 MPs. The ODS can't form a government, because 58 + 31 = 89, less than 50%, and they can't join up with the Communists. The Social Democrats can join with all the minor parties, and get 101 MPs, resulting in a grand majority of 50.5%. They also can't buddy up with the Communists. So there's exactly one combination of parties that gives you a ruling majority, and it's a combination that is ideologically inconsistent, and very, very, very slim. In fact, during the 2002-2006 period two MPs defected from the SocDem, which was enough to turn the majority government into a gimped minority government that was only able to get things done by buttering up their own enemies. And this situation repeats itself every time. Every time people poo poo the first past the post system, I have to ask myself, is it really worse than this bullshit? steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:Fixed a typo. Don't forget tree hugging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Ill try to add something of value after that effort post. The elections yesterday+today were actually 2nd round of Senate election -- if any candidate didn't get >50% of votes in the 1st round, the two most popular candidates continue to the 2nd round -- with pretty bad turnout, at ~15%. The 1st round was last Friday+Saturday and was combined with local elections, which were considered won by ANO (gently caress those guys), which is a relatively new party. However, because the local elections use proportional system, it seems* that some places ended up with coalition of "gently caress ANO", so they ended up with less influence than they should have purely based on numbers and being the strongest party in 9 out of 13 regions. Also there seems to be refusal of the far right parties on the local level, as the various anti-islam / anti-immigrants parties got a big fat 0, with <1% of votes. Also I want to note that to me personally its amazing that Communist Party (KSČM - Komunistická Strana Čech a Moravy) has any voters at all, seeing how they refuse to distance themselves (or openly want return to) the former non-democratic regime, with people getting hosed for wrongthink, or having relatives in western countries. * I should check how it ended up soon, so far I only really bothered with my own region
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Every time people poo poo the first past the post system, I have to ask myself, is it really worse than this bullshit? Ehhh, it probably is, but not by much. FPTP voting means that at no point you have to listen to opposition, just to your plurality of votes, and also that you have to appease the more crazy parts of your plurality -- this is how the Tea Party in the US got to gently caress around with Republicans, and if Republicans somehow win at some point, they will have insane power over acceptable policy, compared to how many of them are there. On the other hand, our voting system means you always have to listen to other people (and get hosed by them, as they discover that they also have disproportionate power over you  ).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Every time people poo poo the first past the post system, I have to ask myself, is it really worse than this bullshit? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
I'd say that having a government is generally better than having no government, especially in the majority of countries where the opposition party differs mainly on fiscal policy, and not at all on social issues. And in many cases the emergence of radical right wing parties is the result of mainstream parties being crippled by coalition governance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Like in France
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Xarn posted:Also I want to note that to me personally its amazing that Communist Party (KSČM - Komunistická Strana Čech a Moravy) has any voters at all, seeing how they refuse to distance themselves (or openly want return to) the former non-democratic regime, with people getting hosed for wrongthink, or having relatives in western countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I'd say that having a government is generally better than having no government, especially in the majority of countries where the opposition party differs mainly on fiscal policy, and not at all on social issues. And in many cases the emergence of radical right wing parties is the result of mainstream parties being crippled by coalition governance. In FPTP the radical right wing elements just take over the mainstream parties like in the US, or to a lesser degree the UK
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Andrast posted:In FPTP the radical right wing elements just take over the mainstream parties like in the US, or to a lesser degree the UK Only in the case of a catastrophic failure of the political mainstream, which isnt just something that naturally happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
I would also very much prefer not having a govenment/the government being ineffectual over having far right or neoliberal government with a majority power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
You are saying you'd literally rather have the most fertile breeding ground for fascism than a government that's slightly right of center, but respectful of being able to lose in the next election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Only in the case of a catastrophic failure of the political mainstream, which isnt just something that naturally happens. give me a government that isn't a catastrophic failure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:give me a government that isn't a catastrophic failure. the five good roman emperors?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
steinrokkan posted:You are saying you'd literally rather have the most fertile breeding ground for fascism than a government that's slightly right of center, but respectful of being able to lose in the next election. European countries are managing to breed fascism just fine even with governments that are effective. I would argue that the rise of fascism is a result catastrophic failure of the political mainstream in a proportional system also, just like in FPTP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
blowfish posted:the five good roman emperors?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:give me a government that isn't a catastrophic failure. If all governments are catastrophic failures, then maybe the fascists have a point. People like to hate on their elected officials, but you can't deny that lots of them do decent job, and that when push comes to shove, popular opinion reflects that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You are saying you'd literally rather have the most fertile breeding ground for fascism than a government that's slightly right of center, but respectful of being able to lose in the next election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Andrast posted:European countries are managing to breed fascism just fine even with governments that are effective. My point has been that FPTP or the French mixed system give the government more of a chance to show off their better side, and even if a particular government fails, the aggregate result over long term is more likely to be positive than with strictly proportional systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I'd say that having a government is generally better than having no government, especially in the majority of countries where the opposition party differs mainly on fiscal policy, and not at all on social issues. And in many cases the emergence of radical right wing parties is the result of mainstream parties being crippled by coalition governance. steinrokkan posted:Only in the case of a catastrophic failure of the political mainstream, which isnt just something that naturally happens. steinrokkan posted:You are saying you'd literally rather have the most fertile breeding ground for fascism than a government that's slightly right of center, but respectful of being able to lose in the next election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What? The UK has basically developed in the same fashion politically as its continental neighbors, despite their political system being based on FPTP while the rest of Europe runs more proportional systems. (All the way to The Netherlands having 17 whole parties represented between the upper and lower house.) So there's not really much evidence that political systems really change how people and their governments act.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:My point has been that FPTP or the French mixed system give the government more of a chance to show off their better side, and even if a particular government fails, the aggregate result over long term is more likely to be positive than with strictly proportional systems. And I think it's the opposite with FPTP system being very polarizing by it's very nature and resulting in extreme opinions gaining ground in mainstream parties over time. Also I just think it's super lovely that a 30-40% vote percentage can result in a majority in a democracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Just because one system is more stable than another doesn't mean there's a clean binary delimitation of where the far right rules and where it doesn't exist. Both systems are open to failure, especially when the ruling party fucks up as royally as the Conservatives did when they basically funded the greatest election campaign of the nationalist right in history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Andrast posted:And I think it's the opposite with FPTP system being very polarizing by it's very nature and resulting in extreme opinions gaining ground in mainstream parties over time. FPTP encourages consensus, not polarization. European PR systems have much more polarized parties than the US or UK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What? The UK has basically developed in the same fashion politically as its continental neighbors, despite their political system being based on FPTP while the rest of Europe runs more proportional systems. (All the way to The Netherlands having 17 whole parties represented between the upper and lower house.) The right wing papers are soooo close to calling for "remoaners" to be jailed. Exciting times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:FPTP encourages consensus, not polarization. European PR systems have much more polarized parties than the US or UK. Those polarized parties tend to be really small and have barely any say in how things are run. The actual major parties tend to be much less polarized, especially if they often have to govern with each other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Andrast posted:And I think it's the opposite with FPTP system being very polarizing by it's very nature and resulting in extreme opinions gaining ground in mainstream parties over time. Parties will meet where the pivotal middle voter lies. In a normal country not worked up into hysterics that would be in the traditional political centre, and moving away from that is a losing proposition which only empowers parties where there is a strong incentive to form coalition governments. Unfortunately right now we are seeing a political version of moral panic where I don't think any electoral system could help, but hopefully this is just a temporary state of affairs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:give me a government that isn't a catastrophic failure. Iceland I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Parties will meet where the pivotal middle voter lies. In a normal country not worked up into hysterics that would be in the traditional political centre, and moving away from that is a losing proposition which only empowers parties where there is a strong incentive to form coalition governments. Unfortunately right now we are seeing a political version of moral panic where I don't think any electoral system could help, but hopefully this is just a temporary state of affairs. I really can't disagree with this. European politics are really awful right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Only in the case of a catastrophic failure of the political mainstream, which isnt just something that naturally happens. Counterargument, literally the entire modern world as of 2016.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Those polarized parties tend to be really small and have barely any say in how things are run. The actual major parties tend to be much less polarized, especially if they often have to govern with each other. The point of proportional representation under normal circumstances is that policy is dictated by the small parties, whether they are radical or centrist, because they are the force that can make or break a government. THe major parties tend to concentrate around the middle on core issues. In the UK it's also the minor parties and anti-establishment intraparty splinters that would have been disregarded under traditional two party system that made Brexit a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Every time people poo poo the first past the post system, I have to ask myself, is it really worse than this bullshit? Thanks again. It seems like the Dutch system is going to evolve into something similar then, except with Geert Wilders's party in the role of the communists. However, with the long tradition of coalition governance we have I think we'll be fine (I'm expecting that Wilders won't get more than 1/6 of the seats in parliament, which is not enough to completely gum up the works; also, a number of 'splinter groups' are likely to disappear from parliament after the election next year).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Haha You can easily make the case for communist parties being conservative, in the sense of them having a tradition that they stick to much more strongly than parties associated with other ideologies. The rhetoric of many communist parties feels almost static and very much resistant to change. steinrokkan posted:I'd say that having a government is generally better than having no government, especially in the majority of countries where the opposition party differs mainly on fiscal policy, and not at all on social issues. And in many cases the emergence of radical right wing parties is the result of mainstream parties being crippled by coalition governance. You remind me of a Swedish friend, who, after a budget crisis a couple years back, said the 50 bonus seats to the first party in Greece are nice. Catastrophic failure breeds fascists everywhere, no matter the political system. Look at Greece. But hell, you also have poo poo like Germany, which is about as much proof as you can get that you can be the main beneficiary of an economic crisis and have a relatively stable political scene and still grow a strong fascist movement. steinrokkan posted:In 2010 there were new elections, and victorious emerged a right wing coalition headed by Petr Nečas. However he got involved romantically with his PA, who ended up using the secret service to spy on his wife, and to run personal errands. This is nuts. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The point of proportional representation under normal circumstances is that policy is dictated by the small parties, whether they are radical or centrist, because they are the force that can make or break a government. THe major parties tend to concentrate around the middle on core issues. In the UK it's also the minor parties and anti-establishment intraparty splinters that would have been disregarded under traditional two party system that made Brexit a thing. At least in Finland the smaller parties in government usually get some token policies on their pet issues while the two major parties in the coalition dictate pretty much everything else. I really can't think of a time where a minor party got a major concession here. At best they can get some above average ministerial seats. Andrast fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Andrast posted:At least in Finland the smaller parties in government usually get some token policies on their pet issues while the two major parties in the coalition dictate pretty much everything else. I really can't think of a time where a minor party got a major concession here. Well, if the ruling party can't form a voitng majority without them, they must provide at least a tacit approval for every policy, and so they form a sort of a corridor within which the major coalition party can act. In some cases the major party is entirely out of this corridor (maybe not in Finland) which leads to tragicomic results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Andrast posted:At least in Finland the smaller parties in government usually get some token policies while the two major parties in the coalition dictate pretty much everything else. I really can't think of a time where a minor party got a major concession here. steinrokkan posted:Well, if the ruling party can't form a voitng majority without them, they must provide at least a tacit approval for every policy, and so they form a sort of a corridor within which the major coalition party can act. In some cases the major party is entirely out of this corridor (maybe not in Finland) which leads to tragicomic results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, if the ruling party can't form a voitng majority without them, they must provide at least a tacit approval for every policy, and so they form a sort of a corridor within which the major coalition party can act. In some cases the major party is entirely out of this corridor (maybe not in Finland) which leads to tragicomic results. I guess the thing with Finland is that we have three "big" parties of similar size and our governments have two of the three in it. This means the government policy is almost always a big pile of compromises and generally the smaller parties don't have that much say. For example, our Green Party that loving hates nuclear power has in the past allowed new nuclear power permits to go through the government while they were in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
That is no longer true Andrast have you blocked out Persut from your mind or something? Small parties have disproportionate influence if they are needed to form a functional government, and no influence if the electoral math works out so that they are not needed. Still prefer this to any 2 party system as voters get to choose a party closer to their real opinion, which is good because democracy and all that. doverhog fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
doverhog posted:That is no longer true Andrast have you blocked out Persut from your mind or something? They are going to have like 10% vote share when the next parliamentary election comes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 22:20
|
|