Skip to main content

Is a multi-party system a mockery of democracy?

As with most questions, this one can be answered in many ways.  Let us look at arguments for and against the idea that a multi-party system is a mockery of democracy.


The most logical argument for this idea is that multi-party systems give too much power to small minorities of the populace. In a system that has many parties, is relatively easy to have a situation in which no major party wins a majority of the seats in the legislature.  At that point, the larger parties have to start building coalitions to attract the support of the smaller parties.  Often, the larger parties have to give up significant concessions in order to get support from the smaller parties.  The smaller parties, with very little support in the populace, can hold up the agendas of the larger parties that have much more support.  As the links below show us, some in Australia feel that this is a problem with their system.  We can argue that it is a mockery of democracy when a small percentage of the people can (through their representative) thwart the will of a much larger percentage.


On the other hand, we can certainly argue that a multi-party system is even more democratic than a two-party system.  In a two-party system, voters have only two choices.  When they choose one of the parties, they often have to choose a party which does not agree with them on many issues.  For example, in the United States, a person who wanted both abortion rights and less government regulation of the economy would not feel comfortable in either the Democratic or Republican party today.   In a multi-party system, it is much more likely that a voter can find a party that agrees with his or her beliefs much more completely.  This gives voters a better chance to make their voices heard, which makes this system anything but a mockery of democracy.


Which of these arguments makes more sense to you?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more