Re: OT: For information only !

Tristan Mc Leay wrote:

> Joe wrote:
>
>> Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  It solves just about every problem you care to
>>>> mention with both "normal" and IR voting. Trouble is, it's likely to
>>>> lead
>>>> to the two-party duopoly being broken, and that means it will never so
>>>> much as reach committee (or the equivalent stage) in most countries.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In what way is that a bad thing? ;) Well, you may rethink your "most".
>>> Most democratic countries I know have more than two main parties.
>>> Anglo-Saxon countries (especially the US) are an exception rather than
>>> the rule.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it's almost entirely the US.  Most countries have a 3+ party
>> system.  The UK has the Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems(plus Seperatist
>> parties - the SNP and Plaid Cymru), Canada the Liberals, the Tories, and
>> the New Democrats.  Australia the Liberals/Nationals, Labour, and the
>> Australian Democrats(and some other, smaller parties).
>
>
>
> Firstly, it's spelt Labor (or in full the Australian Labor Party), not
> Labour, regardless of how you prefer to spell 'labor'. Two reasons:
> Labor vs Labour wasn't standardised in Australia in the 1910s when the
> spelling of the name was, and the party was formed under the influence
> of the US Labor movements (or something like that). Secondly, anyone who
> considers the Democrats to be anything other than a minor party deserves
> to be laughed at, so HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Firstly, I don't think the
> Democrats have ever had any representation in the House of
> Representatives, which is what counts. And secondly, they're getting
> smaller and smaller. Now, if you'd said the coallition (Libs/Nats),
> Labor and the Greens, then I couldn't've criticised you. But I doubt the
> Greens will do anything but hold the balance of power in the Senate any
> time soon, and even if they held the balance of power in the Senate, all
> that means is it'll be harder for Government bills to be passed...
> (Note: In spite of the fact that we have a Westminster lower house, our
> upper house is _very_ powerful, thanks in part to it being modelled
> after the US Senate rather than House of Lords.)


Alright, I'm not exactly knowledgable of Australian politics.  But the
Australian Democrats and the Greens are fairly evenly balanced in the
Senate  Is it really modelled on the US senate?  It seems a lot more,
well, democratic - proportional representation, etc.  Just out of
curiosity, was there ever an Australian Conservative Party?.

>
> Australian is mostly a two-party system really, though, with minor
> parties who have more influence than their American equivalents. But
> that's all they have: Influence, not Power. Though as I've said, the
> Greens are growing and its entirely possible that they'll have some
> amount of power one day... Though I imagine it'll just be as a part of a
> coallition with Labor; I don't see them getting any Liberal seats...
>
Okay, I take that back.

>>   The US is the
>> only nation I know of that only has two parties represented in its
>> Parliament(Yes, it's called Congress, but it's still a Parliament).
>
>
>
> No... the Congress is a congress. There's two distinct systems: the
> Parliamentary system, which has parliaments, as used by Britain and most
> Commonwealth countries, and the Presedential system, which has
> congresses as used by America and various other countries... I think the
> difference is that the executive is kept separate from the legislature
> in one and mixed in with the other, but it could be that I'm focussing
> on the wrong distinction...

In general, that's the excuse given.  But France has a Presidential
system, and has a Parliament.  I think it's just that they like to be
difficult.

Reply