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

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more