<unless our neighbours elect the wrong 45%>
It seems on major factor for UK to reform to a basic multi-party system, with three
major parties, is to be able to function (politically and in practice) within EU.
That is, EU already has a fairly well defined m-party system, extreme left and right, regular
right and left and even a little center. (plus greens,etc)
Trying to function within that system is almost impossible with only two major domestic parties.
Looking at it the other way, it is difficult to ones domestic two major parties cooperating with both
the extreme lefts and rights of other member states, plus the more center-based.
That is, any Canadian debate on how Canadian connections to UK will work with the new
party-structure in UK??
What about Canadian connections to
- US, strict 2-party system
- Mexico, already a PR-multiparty system.
However, two of the most important reasons for UK reforming their system was (maybe)
1. voter frustration (with the winner-takes-all, FPTP two-party system)
2. This fairly simple example
two parties, A and B, trying to keep their extremes happy
- A wants solution AA which B cannot agree on (like doubling their taxes)
- B wants solution BB which A cannot agree on (like doing the same to them)
introducing the (centrist, moderate, common sense) third party:
-C proposes CC wich a majority of A, B and C thinks is fairly great
Result:
- Both A and B soon need to start adopting enough common sense, both
produce their own independent extreme-parties (which they still need every
now and then but now their debate is out in the open)
- if one gets frustrated on both A,B and C, it is easy to vote for the extreme ones
That is, the systems "breaths" and "adapts" |
