General Politics Thread

One day, the election day. The campaigning can last for several months.

There are massive differences in election laws and protocol though, so any one answer is useless.

edited 22nd Feb '17 8:58:54 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

Thanks

Speaking of parliaments, how could one party gain majority?

Depends on the system. Pick a country and do the research. There are massive differences in how seats are allocated, are all seats even up for election etc.

edited 22nd Feb '17 9:12:32 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

And getting the most seats isn't the same?

If the system is bicameral, it wouldn't be. You'd have to gain a majority in both houses, and sometimes to pass particular initiatives you need a supermajority (2/3 of the seats) in both of them.

Japan is a bit of a bizarre case study in this as not only has the LDP ruled in government for over 50 years, they had alliances with other parties that assured that they still had the majority of votes to pass laws. I think they only ever lost the government once. And they engaged in an almost criminal degree of obstruction during that time.

edited 22nd Feb '17 10:01:33 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

LDP is also important that a lot of politics in Japan happens intraparty not interparty.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Getting the most seats doesn't mean a majority all the time if you have 3 or more parties in play. Then you can end up with minority governments that have to form coalitions or work with the opposition parties.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

For the Danish parliament, gaining a majority is nigh-impossible purely because the barrier for entry is quite low (you need 2% of the vote to gain a seat in Parliament) and it uses a preferential voting system.

The two largest parties put together would only have 45% of the vote - not enough to form a coalition on their own.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

French elections take two rounds (at least the direct ones), separated by 1 week (2 for the presidential election). Various critera are used to decide which candidates (or lists) can advance to the second round (the 2 candidates with the most vote always advance - they're the only ones in the presidential election, other elections use threshold of registered voters and/or valid ballots), which is first past the post. It's possible for a candidate to be elected in the first round (this requires getting more than half of valid ballots). Negociations and alliances are expected between the two rounds.

Unless you're Le Pen.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I'm sure the FN expects negociations and alliance to happen between the other parties. It just doesn't expect to be part of any of them.

edited 23rd Feb '17 5:32:27 AM by Khudzlin

That's what I meant. We don't negotiate with terrorists.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

How does a country like Bangladesh not get identified as a Communist country despite calling themselves the "People's Republic of Bangladesh," whereas China (People's Republic of China), Laos (Lao People's Democratic Republic), and North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) are identified as Communist countries?

Because they're not Communist. The name of a country means nothing. Not only that, they're over 80% Islamic so a Communist regime wouldn't even survive for long. Seems to me a case of literal translation to English which loses some of the nuance.

All the other countries you mentioned are actually run by a Communist party (of different sorts).

edited 1st Mar '17 12:24:15 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

Yeah, it's just a name. Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy, though there is a Communist Party in Bangladesh. They don't run things though.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Laos is communist?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Yeah and North Korea kind isn't anymore, it's disavowed Marxist-Lenism and removed references to Communism from its constitution. Vietnam is still officially communist aswell by the way. Nepal is apparently in the weird position of having a Communist government but not being a Communist state, it's a multi-party democracy, the communists just happen to hold a parliamentary majority.

edited 1st Mar '17 5:24:55 AM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Erdoğan accuses Germany of 'Nazi practices' over blocked political rallies

What a surprise.

Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.

Crossposted from the Canadian politics thread, where Russia is speculated to target Canadian elections next.

In some ways, I miss the Cold War. Sure, the world exploded in bloody proxy armed conflicts, but at least Soviet interference in foreign democracies went to aid (alleged/aspiring) progressives and internationalists struggling for the little guy and against xenophobia ("WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!").

Now it's like a competition for what kind of right-wing ideal to support:

• an international, cosmopolitan, Capital-run globalized economy with extreme labor mobility where it doesn't matter where you're from so long as you got wealth. Run by billionaires.
• a nationalist, xenophobic, isolationist, compartmentalized economy with neo-serfdom where your origins and pedigree are essentially everything. Run by billionaires.

Honestly, I like option 1 much better (option 2 invites WAR, and what is that good for?), but they're both fucking depressing, especially as automatization and wealth disparity keep increasing.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Option 1 does sound better, but I think you're missing a key word there, "homogenized" (as opposed to compartmentalized); the kind of Mc Donald's-effect that has long been a criticism of neoliberal economics.

edited 13th Mar '17 5:20:37 AM by Eschaton

Eh, the Lesser of Two Evils...Option 1 still sucks but at least nuclear war is less likely.

At least with Option 1 the billionaires running things are probably not anti-intellectual bigoted assholes.

edited 13th Mar '17 7:33:56 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised

There was a book Jihad vs. Mc World on that very contradiction. Haven't read it yet. And it seems like each option exists in the shadow of the other, eternally swapping and promising a glorious new era.

My own question grown out of a recent issue in the European Politics thread (and well, the times...): Would a polity do best to explicitly point out the type of discrimination it prefers?
Take this:

• A nation is an imagined community (and therefore there are people outside of the community)
• The main forms of national cohesion are based upon are:
  • ethnic (exclusive, by birth, but innately cohesive);
  • religious (self-explanatory, and theoretically only allows membership based upon people sharing the same values by default); and
  • civic (of which I've never seen a pure example but joined by belief in societal/political values, which based on my experience can be as different as Sol and Neptune and which, in some senses does form a ''political religion," so can be seen as a subset of religion.

Most recently, the former President Clinton brought up that being unaccepting of alternative viewpoints is the last acceptable form of discrimination. (And seeing things at home, I can't disagree with that). An article also brought up the point that tolerance is not a moral function but a peace treaty, meant to allow people differing in customs but willing to share overlapping values to live together. Alternatively, the UN recognizes self-determination and there is more than one state on Earth.

So, rephrased, is there ever a right way to say these types of human beings do not belong among us? And would it be based on civic nationalism as illusory as it seems?

edited 27th Mar '17 1:18:25 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives

We are not obligated to tolerate the intolerant, nor give dishonest people an equal consideration of their views.

edited 28th Mar '17 10:20:37 AM by DeMarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I don't doubt that one, but it still has implications. Ethnic states are (in propaganda) all kin, religious states are (same thing) all believers. So, what does one do with a civic polity?^note And civic polities are theoretically groups of believers in their own way
It would have to have fundamental values or else it would not exist for very long...Unless one believes that their own civic polity is the ideal arrangement for all human beings, is there a place to say one is not wanted? And, if so, can that be equated (or soundly distinguished from) the invidious discrimination against ethnic groups or separate religions?

NOTE: If I'm using odd-looking terms, I'm borrowing from three types of nationalism (ethnic, religious, civic), that all have Wikipedia articles. (There is "constitutional patriotism" but that's civic nationalism with cosmetic changes).

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives

I personally can't stand the idea of being forced to leave Europe, despite cultural and ethnic differences, on civic grounds alone. Specifically freedom of religion and sexual freedom. The alcohol I am indifferent towards.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.