In the United States we have developed a two party system by tradition and with the help of Governmental units.
While other parties exist the rules pretty much dictate that the two major parties are dominant, and in fact State Governments have passed laws concerning how they choose their candidates. The other parties, i.e. Liberal, Conservative, Green etc., seldom get a candidate elected.
It doesn't have to be this way and it isn't in most Western parliamentary countries. Generally you have parties that band together to form a Government. This allows people who support specific causes to have more say then here, although to some extent we can have party rebels exercising influence.
So the Green Party in Great Britain can negotiate terms for its support if a party is putting together a Government.
It also allows for a party to switch allegiances if the terms of that agreement are violated.
In that sense it makes the Government more flexible than ours.
Is it better? I sort of think it is since extreme positions get muted more effectively driving a more national approach. Our system is just more immovable, but of course I'm looking at our current state of affairs where stalemate have become the norm.
Enough are dissatisfied that we see talk of forming a third party. Of course we already have more than two parties, so it wouldn't be a third party. We ahve just learned to ignor the minor parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment