There's a difference between a one-party system and a no-party system. In a no-party system, all MPs would officially be independent candidates.
Multi-party vs. 2-party system
- Thread starter Adriatik
- Start date
I think you and I would have to agree to disagree on this one. It's actually quite simple- a plurality in a multi party system should be just as good as a majority in a two party system. This coalition nonsense that's under discussion right now is just a bunch of sore losers wanting to convert to a "two party" system when it's convenient for them. (The Bloc agrees with Dion and Layton on one issue- getting rid of Harper)
I'm not following you. In fact, we have three independents in parliament right now as we speak, and they each get a vote. In a no-party system, we'd essentially ave the same thing, but with more independent candidates.
How would that lead to one man running the show unless you're porposing additional changes to the electoral system beyond just de-officializing parties.
In fact, in a no-pary system, you'd still have conservatives, socialists, liberals, greens, etc. And many of them might still be members of political parties on their own time, and might even get sponsored by parties in elections for funding, etc. However, no party name would appear on ballots, and parties would not be officially recognized in parliament.
The advantage with this is that candidates could not be voted in on brand names anymore (e.g a voter checking a box because of the party name under the candidate without even knowing the candidate's name). nd in parliament, with parties not being officially recognized, they'd have to be more de-emphasized. Of course some candidates might suck up to the party for funding for the next election. But with the party not being officially recognized and getting no government funding, the party would hold much less sway on its MP's than it does now. So I suppose parties would still exist, but candidates would officially be independents, in law and on th ballot. That would give them more freedom.
The advantage with this is that candidates could not be voted in on brand names anymore (e.g a voter checking a box because of the party name under the candidate without even knowing the candidate's name). nd in parliament, with parties not being officially recognized, they'd have to be more de-emphasized. Of course some candidates might suck up to the party for funding for the next election. But with the party not being officially recognized and getting no government funding, the party would hold much less sway on its MP's than it does now. So I suppose parties would still exist, but candidates would officially be independents, in law and on th ballot. That would give them more freedom.
I'm saying don't recognize parties officially. Officially, parties shoudln't exist. Of course they'd still exist in a candidates personal life, like religious affiliation, and we'd recognize that it influences him, but since it's not official in any way, parties get no government money, they're not mentioned on ballots, etc. In this way, though parties would de facto exist, they would not officially exist. They would still serve their purpose, but to a much more limited degree. This would also help level the playing field with independent candidates that don't want to belong to any party.
Well put!
However, in addition to that, one must remember that with multi-party, you have more choices. If you generate a list of issues (abortion, war, gay marriage, military intervention....) and you only have 2 parties, the 2 parties are bound to agree on some of these issues, while being opposing on others. So what if you are against the issues that they both agree on?
In some ways, a no-party system would be equal to a 300+ party system, each candidate being his own party of sorts. If you want multi-party, beat that!