Party Politics?

[Thinking Aloud]

Well, it's polling day here in the UK.

We've had a few threads on the various voting systems, and a few about how we're going to vote. But it seems to be taken as read that party politics is the way things have to be. There's usually a "left wing", a "right wing" and (as here) the "middle ground". These days the left wing party seems to be a little to the right of the middle ground, but let's pretend.

I know little to nothing about how politics works in practice, so could anyone explain why we need to have political parties at all?

Would it be feasible to have a no-party system of elected representatives? Is this done anywhere? Has it been tried? Would it be too nebulous a concept for the average person to engage with? Would the lack of a "tribe" to belong to mean nothing ever got done?

Just naïvely wondering.

[AshtonBlack]

Well, it's polling day here in the UK.

We've had a few threads on the various voting systems, and a few about how we're going to vote. But it seems to be taken as read that party politics is the way things have to be. There's usually a "left wing", a "right wing" and (as here) the "middle ground". These days the left wing party seems to be a little to the right of the middle ground, but let's pretend.

I know little to nothing about how politics works in practice, so could anyone explain why we need to have political parties at all?

Would it be feasible to have a no-party system of elected representatives? Is this done anywhere? Has it been tried? Would it be too nebulous a concept for the average person to engage with? Would the lack of a "tribe" to belong to mean nothing ever got done?

Just naïvely wondering.

A very good question deserving of a reasoned response, but it's 6mins before I have to leave the house for work. But in short, human nature evolved to like groups. It think the flaw is, we've rigged the game so only two of those groups ever have a controlling voice.

[normal]

In Norway we are a bit closer to this idea than in the UK or US. We have several parties, ranging from the right wing (which is closer to the middle of the US scale) to the left wing. Each party gets a number of votes, and to make a working government they have to form a coalition (since a one party government is almost unthinkable with all the different parties).

But even though we have so many parties, party politics still seem like an idiotic idea. Not one of the parties represent my view on things, so I have to compare them and choose the lesser of all the evils.

I would like to see a system where you didn't have parties, because parties will ultimately inhibit your decision making, and it will colour your opinions, and you will have to more or less change any differing opinions to that of the party's opinion in order to defend your party from rival parties (stand together, you know).

[Trolldor]

Athens did it, it worked well for those in power.

[normal]

Athens did it, it worked well for those in power.

I think we should have a benign dictatorship. Possibly with me in charge. And good advisors who back their advice with hard science. As a failsafe for bad advice we'd have the advisors being tested by a second team of sciency people. Those who gave advise based on bad science would be out of the game.

[Thinking Aloud]

Athens did it, it worked well for those in power.

I think we should have a benign dictatorship. Possibly with me in charge. And good advisors who back their advice with hard science. As a failsafe for bad advice we'd have the advisors being tested by a second team of sciency people. Those who gave advise based on bad science would be out of the game.

Benign dictatorships aside, wouldn't it be fascinating to see people "in charge" of government departments be actually qualified in their subjects, or at least have some relevant experience?

[normal]

Athens did it, it worked well for those in power.

I think we should have a benign dictatorship. Possibly with me in charge. And good advisors who back their advice with hard science. As a failsafe for bad advice we'd have the advisors being tested by a second team of sciency people. Those who gave advise based on bad science would be out of the game.

Benign dictatorships aside, wouldn't it be fascinating to see people "in charge" of government departments be actually qualified in their subjects, or at least have some relevant experience?

That would be very fascinating and interesting, indeed. Why can't we have it?

[Thinking Aloud]

Athens did it, it worked well for those in power.

I think we should have a benign dictatorship. Possibly with me in charge. And good advisors who back their advice with hard science. As a failsafe for bad advice we'd have the advisors being tested by a second team of sciency people. Those who gave advise based on bad science would be out of the game.

Benign dictatorships aside, wouldn't it be fascinating to see people "in charge" of government departments be actually qualified in their subjects, or at least have some relevant experience?

That would be very fascinating and interesting, indeed. Why can't we have it?

Probably because of politics.

[normal]

Athens did it, it worked well for those in power.

I think we should have a benign dictatorship. Possibly with me in charge. And good advisors who back their advice with hard science. As a failsafe for bad advice we'd have the advisors being tested by a second team of sciency people. Those who gave advise based on bad science would be out of the game.

Benign dictatorships aside, wouldn't it be fascinating to see people "in charge" of government departments be actually qualified in their subjects, or at least have some relevant experience?

That would be very fascinating and interesting, indeed. Why can't we have it?

Probably because of politics.

Yep. Is there any feasible way of changing the whole system? Without a bloody revolution, I mean

[Thinking Aloud]

Probably because of politics.

Yep. Is there any feasible way of changing the whole system? Without a bloody revolution, I mean

Let's set up our own nation.

[normal]

Probably because of politics.

Yep. Is there any feasible way of changing the whole system? Without a bloody revolution, I mean

Let's set up our own nation.

Should we perhaps consider the dictatorship solution? Who do we invite as citizens?

[Pappa]

Well, it's polling day here in the UK.

We've had a few threads on the various voting systems, and a few about how we're going to vote. But it seems to be taken as read that party politics is the way things have to be. There's usually a "left wing", a "right wing" and (as here) the "middle ground". These days the left wing party seems to be a little to the right of the middle ground, but let's pretend.

I know little to nothing about how politics works in practice, so could anyone explain why we need to have political parties at all?

Would it be feasible to have a no-party system of elected representatives? Is this done anywhere? Has it been tried? Would it be too nebulous a concept for the average person to engage with? Would the lack of a "tribe" to belong to mean nothing ever got done?

Just naïvely wondering.

In other countries where PR is used, there are many more parties to choose from and voting for a smaller party is not a wasted vote. So you really can choose a tribe that represents your views. The problem we have is our Westminster system, which creates a two party choice wherever it is used in the world.

The first advantage of parties is that you can more easily choose a candidate based on their policies... as in general, people who want to be MPs join the party which most closely matches their views.

Secondly, without parties, not only would you be forced to individually quiz all your local candidates on their personal views and policies, but you'd also be unaware of the secret gangs they'd form anyway. Imagine all the unknown coalitions and secret agreements if all MPs were independents? It would be like a huge game of Paranoia (RPG). They'd form gangs anyway, but the result would be far less transparent than the party system.

[klr]

"Vote early and vote often" was the old Sinn Féin motto.

But to judge by the (apparent) current level of abuse of the postal vote system in the UK, maybe that should be changed to "Post early, vote often ...".

[Pappa]

But to judge by the (apparent) current level of abuse of the postal vote system in the UK, maybe that should be changed to "Post early, vote often ...".

That is a concern. I've also heard much about it's abuse in Muslim communities too... that Sheikhs get the community to let them sort their postal ballots for them, and cultural pressure stops them from refusing.