Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:Well simply, no. The constitution makes no provision for political parties...which may have been one of the more naive oversights by the founding fathers.

Anyway I've already told you, with the morons we have running around loose anything they do will make it worse not better.

As we observe right now.
But then: it has to get (a lot) worse before it will ever get better. And it will. It is actually happening as we speak: http://www.usdebtclock.org/. That is exactly the decline of the US empire we are now witnessing.

The idea that people can get together to do something rational is one of your more naive beliefs.

No it's not 'naive belief'. It is very real: I have all western coalition systems, including the EU, for proof. But American citizens will have to want to see it. Which is kind of impossible with self-imposed blinders on...

Hmmm! I've tried! But frankly I can't think of state that employs RS's policies, they must all be doomed together it seems.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Hmmm! I've tried! But frankly I can't think of state that employs RS's policies

Small wonder with those blinders on.

He's off again.
RS your country has enough political parties to start a Rugby team, convince the rest of us that they all cooperate and don't indulge in party politics.
And try and remain calm and polite.

Roy.

Digit wrote: RS your country has enough political parties to start a Rugby team, convince the rest of us that they all cooperate and don't indulge in party politics.

If you knew how it works you wouldn't have made that remark.

First of all: they don't all cooperate!

The largest parties (plural) and the parties (plural) that won the most in the last general election sit together and form a coalition, a range of deals on important political topics for the next 4 year period. A 'road map'. What they will do/take on together, and what they won't do/take on together. When they have that deal, in black and white, including proposals which party will provide which ministers, but no names yet, only then, after that deal, the 'roadmap', do they propose specific people to fill those ministerial posts. The other parties in the coalition cannot veto these people. Unless there are legal reasons (criminal records) preventing those people to fullfill those jobs they will then be the government for the next 4 years, governing within that 'roadmap'!

We have had two-party coalitions for more than a century. The current government is a three-party coalition. The next one may well be a four-party coalition.

The parties that are not in government (8 today; so we have 11 in total; enough for a soccer team, not for a rugby team!) are the opposition. All parties, whether they are coalition or opposition, can propose laws, summon ministers to parliament to account for their (execution of) policies, and propose to send ministers away (whose [execution of] policies) they don't like. Or even the entire government/council of ministers*. Voting decides.

* which automatically means new general elections, of course.

So party politics within a coalition are limited by the boundaries of the coalition 'road map'. Usually that works well, but sometimes they explode anyway. Which means that the coalition has disintegrated. In those situations the government must resign and organize new general elections to see what government/coalition the people want next.

And try and remain calm and polite.

If you can be less suggestive.

So party politics within a coalition are limited by the boundaries of the coalition 'road map'.

That's once the coalition is formed. At a general election party politics still reign and within the coalition some parties have to give up some of the things they campained on!
And according to Wiki the list is 20 parties.
That's enough for a Rugby team plus reserves.

Roy.

Digit wrote:

So party politics within a coalition are limited by the boundaries of the coalition 'road map'.

That's once the coalition is formed. At a general election party politics still reign

Of course. As they should. If there weren't any differences voters wouldn't have anything to vote for.

and within the coalition some parties have to give up some of the things they campained on!

Absolutely!
Like Mick Jagger sang: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0jyKabLHVc
Which is why forming a coalition and agreeing on that 'road map' is not easy. But it is doable. As the past century-and-a-half have demonstrated.

And according to Wiki the list is 20 parties.
That's enough for a Rugby team plus reserves.

Yes, 20 political parties were registered and could thus take part in the (last) general elections in The Netherlands.
But only 11 have collected enough votes for 1 or more 'seats' in the 150 member parliament.

If there weren't any differences voters wouldn't have anything to vote for.

Which of course was my point.

But only 11 have collected enough votes for 1 or more 'seats' in the 150 member parliament.

Yep! But still people voted for them, the beauty of your system is that it is, IMO, far more democratic than ours.

Roy.

We have one party with just one 'seat'/representative in parliament: the 'Party for the Animals' (on the premise that animals don't have the right to vote, so people must do that for them). To be sure, I'm not a supporter! At all! (Although I love animals and nature at large!) But I think this is a wonderful - even if peculiar – demonstration that our system enables minorities to be heard and represented at all levels in the government/conduct/management of society!
That, to me, is one of the hallmarks of true democracy: that minorities are represented too.
Think about it.

Ron Paul is a good example of the redundancy of the US political system. What he says is pure social democracy, and an amazing number of thinking people, in- and outside of his district, agree with the man, yet he runs on a conservative GOP ticket, whom he clearly does not represent!

No it's not 'naive belief'.

Yeah, it is. This is not Holland. Half of America would shit a brick at such a comparison because Holland is (gasp) "SOCIALIST!"

Ron Paul is a one-man cult.

Minimalist wrote:

No it's not 'naive belief'.

Yeah, it is. This is not Holland. Half of America would shit a brick at such a comparison because Holland is (gasp) "SOCIALIST!"

That just proves that "Half of America" goes on blissfully ignorant prejudice, doesn't it?

So if that would need to change, knowledge and awareness would need to change.
And guess what I'm doing...?

Minimalist wrote:Ron Paul is a one-man cult.

And a demonstration of the redundancy of the system that got him there.

That just proves that "Half of America" goes on blissfully ignorant prejudice, doesn't it?

Why do you think I don't want those idiots anywhere near a constitutional convention. Really, R/S haven't you been paying attention to what has been going on over here?


You'd have people demanding gun rights for fetuses and getting it if they supported a flat tax.

Have you seen that corner that 'public opinion' (a.k.a. Joe Blow, Jane Doe, and Auntie Meredith) has painted itself in: the conflict between body scanners and strict paedophilia laws?

They want both, but alas, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0jyKabLHVc, unless you have an unbalanced, arbitrary, justice system.