What do you think of the parliamentary minority coalitions

Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

01 Mar 2015, 9:18 am

The point is that the Prime Minister is not designated by the largest party, but it is shut out by a gang of smaller parties :-)

In May, Poland will be the parliamentary elections, but the polls are not good. Everything indicates that the ruling here in Poland that is a political party Civic Platform, which it once belonged unfortunately, before I realized that a large part of these were members of the Communist Party, but the liberal wing commie is a commie, commie always remain. :-).
Everything indicates that the Civic Platform will remain in power, and it's a bad scenario for Polish.

Parliamentary and presidential elections are in May, current polls show that the PO received by 31% of the vote behind them is the Law and Justice (PiS - Conservative Party) Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) and
Polish Peasant Party (PSL - agrarian party - leftist orientation) have a tie after 9%, then the Congress of the New Right (KNP) (party with which I sympathize) 3%, and "Your Movement" formerly "Palikot's Movement) founded by Janusz which is a leftist Palikot.

In Poland, the election threshold is 5%, and is used d'Hondt system.

I wonder what would happen if he became a tragedy and the Civic Platform won this election and the KNP finally crossed the threshold of the election.

I wonder if PIS and formed a minority government with KNP :D



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

01 Mar 2015, 10:08 am

In principle I don't see how its immoral, or undemocratic, for a bunch of small parties to gang up to counter a big party.

But here in the USA we dont really have "coalition governments". And we dont have a parliamentary system either. So its all kinda foreign to me.

Instead of having a zillion little "splinter parties" like countries on the mainland of Europe tend to have- we have two big parties (with some fringe little parties on the ballot that virtually no one ever votes for).

But our two big parties could be thought of as permanent coalitions of splinter parties because there tends to be a certain amount of ideological strife within both Democrat and Republican parties.



pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

01 Mar 2015, 11:19 am

naturalplastic wrote:
In principle I don't see how its immoral, or undemocratic, for a bunch of small parties to gang up to counter a big party.


English is a foreign language to me but uses it pretty good, but could you clarify your thought?

It think it's a good or a bad thing if the smaller party outsmart the big ones.

Small parties electorate are matter too, maybe not in USA but in Europeans countries like Poland are.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

01 Mar 2015, 11:39 am

pawelk1986 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
In principle I don't see how its immoral, or undemocratic, for a bunch of small parties to gang up to counter a big party.


English is a foreign language to me but uses it pretty good, but could you clarify your thought?

It think it's a good or a bad thing if the smaller party outsmart the big ones.

Small parties electorate are matter too, maybe not in USA but in Europeans countries like Poland are.


What I mean is that I dont see what's wrong with a bunch of small parties banding together to counterbalance a big party, and to even run the country for a term.

Or for that matter: there is nothing wrong with one coalition of small parties ganging up against another coalition of small parties if there are no big parties.

I suppose a person could think of some situation where that would be bad, or undemocratic (though I cant think of such a situation off the top of my head). Be in general it seems okay to me.

But I was also saying that that situation doesnt even happen in the USA anyway so there isnt much reason for me to have to worry about it.

Hope that that makes it more clear.



pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

01 Mar 2015, 12:24 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
In principle I don't see how its immoral, or undemocratic, for a bunch of small parties to gang up to counter a big party.


English is a foreign language to me but uses it pretty good, but could you clarify your thought?

It think it's a good or a bad thing if the smaller party outsmart the big ones.

Small parties electorate are matter too, maybe not in USA but in Europeans countries like Poland are.


What I mean is that I dont see what's wrong with a bunch of small parties banding together to counterbalance a big party, and to even run the country for a term.

Or for that matter: there is nothing wrong with one coalition of small parties ganging up against another coalition of small parties if there are no big parties.

I suppose a person could think of some situation where that would be bad, or undemocratic (though I cant think of such a situation off the top of my head). Be in general it seems okay to me.

But I was also saying that that situation doesnt even happen in the USA anyway so there isnt much reason for me to have to worry about it.

Hope that that makes it more clear.


Thanks :)



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

01 Mar 2015, 2:06 pm

Your Polish parties seem like a load of crap. I can't really think of one that I'd vote for.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

01 Mar 2015, 5:59 pm

Why coalition systems don't happen in the US is because of the old fashioned first-past-the-post system. If you are a socialist or libertarian or whatever and the majority in your district vote R or D, then your vote is essentially wasted. If they used proportional voting the socialists and libertarians would probably get a substantial minority of people elected, so much so that the major parties would need either them or the other major party to form a coalition.
A big plus of a coalition system in my opinion is that the PM is forced to call new elections whenever he loses his majority in the house. That way you'll never have a President that can't pass anything but can still sit out his term.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

01 Mar 2015, 6:12 pm

trollcatman wrote:
Why coalition systems don't happen in the US is because of the old fashioned first-past-the-post system.


IMO electoral reform is something we need urgently in the UK. Elections to the House of Commons are run on the First Past the Post system, and it leads to a very skewed form of representation. If you don't have the most votes in a particular constituency, you don't get the seat. That means that you could have 10% of the vote and yet not have any seats. It also means that, like in the U.S., two parties (Labour and Conservative) dominate. If we had a form of proportional representation, we'd have a whole bunch of parliamentary seats. We won the European elections last year on a PR-based list system.

How is the PVV doing in the Dutch opinion polls, trollcatman? Last time I checked, they were the largest party, and on course to take about 30 seats in the Tweede Kamer.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

01 Mar 2015, 6:17 pm

trollcatman wrote:
Why coalition systems don't happen in the US is because of the old fashioned first-past-the-post system. If you are a socialist or libertarian or whatever and the majority in your district vote R or D, then your vote is essentially wasted. If they used proportional voting the socialists and libertarians would probably get a substantial minority of people elected, so much so that the major parties would need either them or the other major party to form a coalition.
A big plus of a coalition system in my opinion is that the PM is forced to call new elections whenever he loses his majority in the house. That way you'll never have a President that can't pass anything but can still sit out his term.

Britain uses FPTP and is probably going to form coalition governments for the foreseeable future, admittedly after not having one since WWII... Of course, prop rep would help, but it is by no means necessary.

Your problem is that you have a president. You can't elect 5% of a president. As a result, people think D and R are the only options. Scrap the office of President, then the Greens or Libertarians can focus really hard on a few key seats.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

01 Mar 2015, 7:20 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
Why coalition systems don't happen in the US is because of the old fashioned first-past-the-post system. If you are a socialist or libertarian or whatever and the majority in your district vote R or D, then your vote is essentially wasted. If they used proportional voting the socialists and libertarians would probably get a substantial minority of people elected, so much so that the major parties would need either them or the other major party to form a coalition.
A big plus of a coalition system in my opinion is that the PM is forced to call new elections whenever he loses his majority in the house. That way you'll never have a President that can't pass anything but can still sit out his term.

Britain uses FPTP and is probably going to form coalition governments for the foreseeable future, admittedly after not having one since WWII... Of course, prop rep would help, but it is by no means necessary.

Your problem is that you have a president. You can't elect 5% of a president. As a result, people think D and R are the only options. Scrap the office of President, then the Greens or Libertarians can focus really hard on a few key seats.


Have tried to visualize how Americans politics would work if Bush, or Obama, had been prime ministers instead of being presidents (hard for an American to visualize).

We wouldnt directly vote for the guy who goes to the Oval Office. We would still vote for our local senators, and representives to the house. And then our senators and congressmen would get together to pick a leader from among their own within their party. And which ever party gets the most members in congress on election day gets to have their leader be prime minister (Obama would still serve as a senator from Illinois in addition to being the prime minister).

The British, and European, prime ministers have fixed terms- but theyre NOT fixed- because "governments" can "fall" in mid term, and the opposition party can step in and take over. Not sure I get how THAT works.

Then some countries have both a president AND a prime minister(like Russia). From what I gather the countries that do that do so because they dont have a figurehead monarch to serve as a ceremonial head of state like Britain. So I guess the Russian president is also just a figurehead.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

01 Mar 2015, 7:50 pm

Tequila wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
Why coalition systems don't happen in the US is because of the old fashioned first-past-the-post system.


IMO electoral reform is something we need urgently in the UK. Elections to the House of Commons are run on the First Past the Post system, and it leads to a very skewed form of representation. If you don't have the most votes in a particular constituency, you don't get the seat. That means that you could have 10% of the vote and yet not have any seats. It also means that, like in the U.S., two parties (Labour and Conservative) dominate. If we had a form of proportional representation, we'd have a whole bunch of parliamentary seats. We won the European elections last year on a PR-based list system.

How is the PVV doing in the Dutch opinion polls, trollcatman? Last time I checked, they were the largest party, and on course to take about 30 seats in the Tweede Kamer.


I've seen a few different polls since there are provincial elections in a few weeks, which are important because the provincial politicians elect the people in the Upper House (Eerste Kamer). In some polls the PVV is the largest, in others D66, and in others VVD. I'd guess on average all of those three parties poll at 25 seats or so, which is not a lot considering a coalition needs 76/150 (and preferably a bit more, since sometimes party members drop out or are kicked out).
Next election for Tweede Kamer is in 2016, unless this coalition falls. This VVD/PvdA coalition is hugely unpopular, and has been for a very long time. Their support in the polls is only 41/150 seats. They didn't have a majority in the Eerste Kamer for the last two years, so they have to beg other parties to support them there, but from the polls it looks that they will lose so much that even this "coalition of the willing" is not enough to get them a majority in the Eerste Kamer. The PVV will probably not support them after the election this march, because they have made it clear that their goal is to get rid of this VVD/PvdA cabinet. It doesn't help of course that lately there have been a bunch of terrorist attacks in Europe, jihadis going to Syria and coming back, and the current government sends another load of money to Greece, all things that are major issues for the PVV.

A few years ago Geert Wilders from the PVV was prosecuted for remarks that were labeled anti-Muslim or racist or whatever, and he was cleared of charges, but it probably worked out in his favour since many people felt the trial was ridiculous. Now they are preparing to do it again for his "Do you want more or fewer Morrocans?" remark, and that will just mean more television time for him.

I can't really guess which party will be the biggest this election, and the election campaigns are just starting, but it will be a bloodbath for the coalition.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

01 Mar 2015, 8:18 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
Why coalition systems don't happen in the US is because of the old fashioned first-past-the-post system. If you are a socialist or libertarian or whatever and the majority in your district vote R or D, then your vote is essentially wasted. If they used proportional voting the socialists and libertarians would probably get a substantial minority of people elected, so much so that the major parties would need either them or the other major party to form a coalition.
A big plus of a coalition system in my opinion is that the PM is forced to call new elections whenever he loses his majority in the house. That way you'll never have a President that can't pass anything but can still sit out his term.

Britain uses FPTP and is probably going to form coalition governments for the foreseeable future, admittedly after not having one since WWII... Of course, prop rep would help, but it is by no means necessary.

Your problem is that you have a president. You can't elect 5% of a president. As a result, people think D and R are the only options. Scrap the office of President, then the Greens or Libertarians can focus really hard on a few key seats.


Have tried to visualize how Americans politics would work if Bush, or Obama, had been prime ministers instead of being presidents (hard for an American to visualize).

We wouldnt directly vote for the guy who goes to the Oval Office. We would still vote for our local senators, and representives to the house. And then our senators and congressmen would get together to pick a leader from among their own within their party. And which ever party gets the most members in congress on election day gets to have their leader be prime minister (Obama would still serve as a senator from Illinois in addition to being the prime minister).

The British, and European, prime ministers have fixed terms- but theyre NOT fixed- because "governments" can "fall" in mid term, and the opposition party can step in and take over. Not sure I get how THAT works.

Then some countries have both a president AND a prime minister(like Russia). From what I gather the countries that do that do so because they dont have a figurehead monarch to serve as a ceremonial head of state like Britain. So I guess the Russian president is also just a figurehead.


When a coalition falls it not that the opposition "takes over", what happens in the Netherlands is that once Prime Minister loses his majority because one of his coalition partners pulls out, he can ask another party to step in, and of none do he goes to the king to resign (a formality, the king no longer influences politics). Then the government is known as a demissionary cabinet (caretaker cabinet) and they will essentially do nothing except oversee things until the next election, which will be called ASAP.
I think the last time a Dutch cabinet made it to the finish line was 1998, with the next cabinet making a good effort and resigning twice, recovering their majority the first time, and then resigning right before the end of their term in 2002 over the disaster at Srebrenica. Since there were already elections coming up the resignation was pretty much symbolic.

And one thing that is very different from the US is regional representation. I never understood that, I want to vote for people with the same ideology, not for people who are from my region. There is not really any regional representation here, they just pile up all the votes and count them. Of course people can choose to vote for someone from their region, but they don't have to. If people want to contact one of their representatives they just pick one from a party they agree the most with. No politicians on the national level have a regional electorate. The concept of a "senator from Illinois" does not exist here, there are just senators.

And I'm not sure Russia is a good example, since Putin and Medvedev have just been switching their jobs as PM and President when their term limits ran out. And Russia is essentially a democracy without any opposition. Germany and Italy are better examples where the PM and ministers run the country and the President is just there as head of state so they have someone to shake hands with foreign royals and such.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

01 Mar 2015, 8:19 pm

For a while, we in Australia had a good thing going with a minor party known as The Democrats. Their whole premise was "keep the bastards honest." In other words, they held the balance between left and right, and didn't push their own agenda. Unfortunately, the Democrats came undone when they struck a deal during one election, removing their neutrality. The Democrats fell from grace and lost a lot of seats.

Since then, we have had good and bad as a result of independents and minor parties holding the balance. But too often it means that minority strikes a deal for their own seat rather than for the whole state or the whole country.

The flip side is that the independents and minor part reps are far more entertaining than the rest.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

01 Mar 2015, 8:21 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Britain uses FPTP and is probably going to form coalition governments for the foreseeable future, admittedly after not having one since WWII... Of course, prop rep would help, but it is by no means necessary.

Your problem is that you have a president. You can't elect 5% of a president. As a result, people think D and R are the only options. Scrap the office of President, then the Greens or Libertarians can focus really hard on a few key seats.


You are right that it is not necessary, but it is much less likely. And I think we now have 12 parties in the Lower House in the Netherlands, that is extremely unlikely to happen in FPTP (and I'm not saying having 12 parties is desirable either).



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

02 Mar 2015, 12:10 am

naturalplastic wrote:
In principle I don't see how its immoral, or undemocratic, for a bunch of small parties to gang up to counter a big party.

But here in the USA we dont really have "coalition governments". And we dont have a parliamentary system either. So its all kinda foreign to me.

Instead of having a zillion little "splinter parties" like countries on the mainland of Europe tend to have- we have two big parties (with some fringe little parties on the ballot that virtually no one ever votes for).

But our two big parties could be thought of as permanent coalitions of splinter parties because there tends to be a certain amount of ideological strife within both Democrat and Republican parties.


In European terms, the Democrats can be thought of as a permanent coalition of social democrats, greens, and labour and the Republicans can be thought of as a permanent coalition of Christian democrats, liberal democrats, and conservatives.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

03 Mar 2015, 2:28 pm

BTW, please be aware that the USA is a federation. In a federation, the constituting regions are almost always important. Now, there have been in the past de jure federations which were de facto unitary states, like Germany from 1934-1945 (when the interior minister rendered the German states irrelevant and gave more power to the Gaue) and the Soviet Union until about 1990 (because the central government controlled everything just about).


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin