Hacker News Reader

Comment by ronaldx | Hacker News Reader

I find it bizarre that you think a left-right two-party system is good.

People should have the right to vote for whatever they value, and should have the right for that vote to count (via representation of those values). A two-party system suppresses those rights. It's 'efficient' if you happen to agree with one of the two parties - but, it is not fit for purpose if you think the point of democracy is to represent the people in political decision-making.

A political system which implies that there are only two valid points of view (or one valid axis) is the poorer for it.

View on HN

It might not be good in the sense of maximizing the value of the franchise, but it might be better along other axes, such as creating long-term coherent policy objectives. It can take a long time to change things in the US, which is sometimes bad, but also sometimes good.

Interesting. I think that long-term coherent policies are best supported by strongly multi-party systems: when the power is shared by several parties, you don't get the political swing after each election that can happen with two-party systems.

To take it to the extreme, consider Switzerland, where the largest party has only 26.6% of the votes. 11 parties are represented in the parliament, and the executive power is shared equally among 7 ministers representing 4 different parties. The system offers an unusual continuity in the executive branch:

The Swiss executive is one of the most stable governments worldwide. Since 1848, it has never been renewed entirely at the same time, providing a long-term continuity. From 1959 to 2003 the Federal Council was composed of a coalition of all major parties in the same ratio: 2 each from the Free Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party and Christian Democratic People's Party and 1 from the Swiss People's Party. Changes in the council occur typically only if one of the members resigns (merely four incumbent members were voted out of the office in over 150 years); this member is almost always replaced by someone from the same party (and often also from the same linguistic group).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland#Executi...

Appreciate your point, but I don't think it's obvious that two-parties are better at creating long-term policy, just as I don't think it's obvious that a two party system is better on other axes generally.

For example, if neither party has a strong interest, certain government departments can act without proper accountability to the public.

Clearly the US has been a successful country, but there are several problems with using the US as an ideal model: the benefits of this success are not necessarily distributed in the best way. And, with the US's huge resources, it's not obvious that the choice of political system is the biggest factor in its success.

It's not obvious to me that multi-member district schemes and coalition governments have produced anything significantly different than what we have. I mean, if you think we (the US) have a severely polarized party alignment, I'm just not sure you're paying attention.

Within the same party you can have representatives who are both for and against nearly every important issue! In the UK they need to form a coalition (sometimes) to run the government, but when they have that coalition, pretty much the only things which get voted on are those which are guaranteed to pass. Or if you want real crazy, go look at 2003~2007 Israel, where coalitions would need to be formed from several radically different parties.

I don't see any evidence that requisite inclusion of diverse stakeholders lead to better outcomes for the public.

> I mean, if you think we (the US) have a severely polarized party alignment,

Oh! I absolutely don't think that.

The two parties in a two-party system (US; UK normally) are often poorly distinguished, straddling two sides of a dividing line but essentially at the same point. This is even worse for the franchise as voters don't have a real choice at all: just the illusion of one.

My point wasn't that Argentina should have fewer parties - historically, there have been two main ones (PJ and UCR). I think more viable parties would have helped.

But, if you are going to have a two-ish party system, left-right is IMHO a more efficient way to organize it than personalities, culture clash and historical grievances - especially if you then also have left and right as factions within the historical parties. Which is how the US and Argentina organized their parties until very recently, Ireland still does. I think that's a bad system and creates too many opportunities for arbitrage and corruption.

Plus, multiparty systems tend to work on a left-right spectrum anyway.

The election system determines the party system.

In winner takes all elections, a two party system will form. Because aspirants want to form the smallest winning coalition (ideally 50% + 1 vote).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Just peeked at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Argentina

The executive is elected thru runoffs, requiring +45% of the vote to win. That's better than "winner takes all", but still a pretty high bar for new parties.

The legislative is elected thru a (mostly) proportional representation, by their provinces of origin. That's pretty good. The barriers to entry for new parties are comparatively lower (e.g. vs the USA).

I'm not a polysci prof, so I can't say if a separate executive & legislative or a parliamentary system is better. I've seen it argued between stability and adaptability.

And I know nothing about Argentina's campaign and election laws, so can't comment on its fairness, or barriers to entry for new parties.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com