this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
364 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19118 readers
2680 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The filing itself is here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 71 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (24 children)

When only 2 parties take turns ruling the country, the checks and balances don't really work well when stressed. Because the party that needs to be checked, control half the apparatus, and can disrupt large parts of the other half.

Countries with maybe 10+ parties in parlament like many European countries have, will never have a single party with control of half the apparatus responsible for the checks and balances.

This is a huge reason first past the post is bad for democracy, apart from also not representing the population as fairly as is possible with numerous parties of influence.

This problem permeates throughout the entirety of the system, including the judicial, where judges belong to one or the other party, enabling an imbalance with total control for one party in for instance the supreme court.
With a multi party system, a single party would NOT be able to take control in the way we have seen happen in USA, which obviously shouldn't be possible, and also doesn't help to prevent corruption.

[–] user134450 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?
I learned in school – not sure if this part is entirely accurate but its an interesting idea anyway – that this situation was precisely why there is a ~5% of votes, lower barrier for parties sending representatives in many modern European democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_threshold

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?

No I didn't, that's very interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_political_parties

What I don't get is, how Hitler managed to take control with that many parties? He should not have been in a position with power to do that?

[–] user134450 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Trying to remember what i learned in history here, i hope i get at least most of it right:

  • the political institutions of the Weimar republic were not as balanced and protected from interference as in other democracies
  • many parties were against the existence of the Weimar Republic
  • they differed a little in what they wanted instead though, ranging from reintroducing the monarchy with a few republican elements, to full fledged socialism
  • the difference between the parties made finding compromises very difficult and often resulted in stalemates in the legislative, because of missing checks this did not affect the executive as much though
  • especially the monarchists liked the idea of heaving a leader that can overrule the parliament if needed and so it was easy for Hitler to get them to agree that they would all be better off with him breaking the stalemate so to speak. So they formed a coalition
  • see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harzburg_Front
  • Those parties also had no qualms with banning other parties just because they disagreed on something, which Hitler was very happy to do, starting with the communists and ending with a complete ban on forming political parties after every serious contender was eliminated
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Thanks that's a very nice summary.

especially the monarchists liked the idea of heaving a leader that can overrule the parliament
I especially noticed this as probably the key practical part in how it was possible.

It's interesting because I've always considered multiple parties to be an important way to protect democracy.
But I guess that ultimately it depends on the people being willing to protect it.
Still having 10 parties represented, makes for a better chance that minority views are represented. And I still believe it helps against corruption and strengthen democracy relative to only 2 parties.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)