Multi-party democracy

[Stephen Colbert]

Would having more than just a two party corporate democratic system benefit the left over the long term because of new paradigms and ideas from say, green party, SPUSA etc, or would it foster more divisiveness and create less solidarity amongst working class people?

[Sosa]

Screw parties. It would be better if there were no parties and individuals ran independently.

[Stephen Colbert]

I agree, but thinking practically here...

[Sosa]

I agree, but thinking practically here...

Ah yes...of course, I think it would be better than what we have right now, especially if smaller parties formed coalitions.

[Post-Something]

Would having more than just a two party corporate democratic system benefit the left over the long term because of new paradigms and ideas from say, green party, SPUSA etc, or would it foster more divisiveness and create less solidarity amongst working class people?

This is a very good question, and Id love to know some possible solutions. Whenever Ive been to a demonstration or something, there are always lots of different organisations which take part, but arent really connected in any way. You have trade unions, socialist parties, independent candidates, everyday objectors, people on benefits, unemployed, environemntalists etc, and they are there are all there for the same reason, but then everyone goes home at the end of the day seperately. I think diversity is great, because it means lots of different interests can be voiced, but the problem is how you pool them all together on the issues that matter to them well enough.

[Post-Something]

Screw parties. It would be better if there were no parties and individuals ran independently.

Screw individuals. It would be better if there were no individuals and organs/body parts/phlegm ran independently.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Which begs the question, what is the difference between social-democracy (capitalist oriented) and socialist-democracy (post-capitalist)?

I personally think that what the US has now, 2 parties (really one) is a complete joke and sham of a democracy. Esp when both so-called parites have the same donors and masters. So, of course more parties would be better. Also, direct democracy and proportional representation would be a step forward too.

[Sosa]

Screw individuals. It would be better if there were no individuals and organs/body parts/phlegm ran independently.

your analogy is lost on me :confused:

[Post-Something]

It was just a joke :D

[Widerstand]

Multiparty systems are just as fucked up.

[Crux]

Screw parties. It would be better if there were no parties and individuals ran independently.
No. No it wouldn't.

[Sosa]

No. No it wouldn't.

Can you explain?

[Post-Something]

Can you explain?

Seriously, are you kidding? Countries arent run by single individuals fighting for the representation of their constituency. Politicians are mainly just a brand image to represent the interests of a specific group of people. You cant just elect one person to go and represent your area or whatever without them being networked in a way with other people fighting on behalf of that interest group in the larger area. It cant work that way because that would be too ineffective a way to plan for the wider community.
Of course, there are rifts within parties. An obvious example would be in the US, where the democrats in the north sometimes break with the democrats in the south because the southerners usually have quite different interests. For example, upping defence spending usually goes down really well in the south, and they benefit from it because their industry is geared towards it. But in the north, it would just look like a waste of taxpayers money because they dont get that much out of it.

[Sosa]

Seriously, are you kidding? Countries arent run by single individuals fighting for the representation of their constituency. Politicians are mainly just a brand image to represent the interests of a specific group of people. You cant just elect one person to go and represent your area or whatever without them being networked in a way with other people fighting on behalf of that interest group in the larger area. It cant work that way because that would be too ineffective a way to plan for the wider community.
Of course, there are rifts within parties. An obvious example would be in the US, where the democrats in the north sometimes break with the democrats in the south because the southerners usually have quite different interests. For example, upping defence spending usually goes down really well in the south, and they benefit from it because their industry is geared towards it. But in the north, it would just look like a waste of taxpayers money because they dont get that much out of it.

at a local/regional level it is possible and does happen in the US. Are you saying that an Independent politician cannot win without belonging to a party?

[Post-Something]

No, Im not saying that, because it has happened before in small cases. What Im saying is that it would be pretty strange if everyone voted for an independent politician and they didnt combine into a party or coalition of some kind to address issues which couldnt be addressed by individuals/constituencies in that situation.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Why would we need those kind of parties ? Are they supposed to represent someone , or the be simply the political organizations with no purpose ? How would we justify the necessity for these parties to exist ?

[Peace on Earth]

Parties is general are a waste. They teach people to vote for a set of lofty goals (created by the corporate elite who own the politicians) instead of voting for the candidate who best represents their ideas. Far too many people vote either Republican or Democratic simply because they are running on the party line. If a candidate cannot win based solely on their ideas and proposed solutions to problems, they do not deserve to represent the public.

[The Hong Se Sun]

Well while a multiparty would help to a small extent I think it would take a run off process for it to actually benefit the left in the states.

[Crux]

Can you explain?
Sometimes individuals are easier to buy than parties. We operate on the right to recall our representatives at any time, of course I think the community should have that right too, but you can't organize solely on an individual basis. Even an individual independent campaign would have more people than just that one person involved, constituting a party to fight for those ideals and issues strengthens the campaign. In fact if you'd have a significant number of independent left wing candidates elected they would most likely form a party, or at least an alliance anyway. But the most important thing about parties, in my opinion, is not really electoral. Many people are stuck in this kind of misconception about what a party, or at least a left wing party based on the working class and community, should be all about.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Sometimes individuals are easier to buy than parties. We operate on the right to recall our representatives at any time, of course I think the community should have that right too, but you can't organize solely on an individual basis. Even an individual independent campaign would have more people than just that one person involved, constituting a party to fight for those ideals and issues strengthens the campaign. In fact if you'd have a significant number of independent left wing candidates elected they would most likely form a party, or at least an alliance anyway. But the most important thing about parties, in my opinion, is not really electoral. Many people are stuck in this kind of misconception about what a party, or at least a left wing party based on the working class and community, should be all about.

The election of an individual, as opposed to a candidate on a party list or someone who is financially and politically backed by a party, has to go hand in hand with other political changes.

It is something which, at a local level, has worked fairly well in Cuba, in that local politicians seem not to be corruptable.

[hobo8675309]

We would benefit greatly from a strictly nonpartisan political system. When a politician runs for a party, they are miserably bound by the restraint of "party loyalty". The same powers that prevent Obama from endorsing Rand Paul and Bernard Sanders is just what makes Iran a shitty country. Without parties, candidates are free to create a platform based on waht is right, not based on argumentum ad ignorantium.