The key-word is "representation", which means access to those seats in congress, access to what
is done in congress, access to media,etc. The point is that through those mechanisms the
opinions and goals of the party gets better defined as well as "spoken" that in a two-party system
The feeback to and through the voter is also "functional" through elections as well as candidates.
That is, both voters and politicians get more "informed" when this process cycles on for some
elections or generations, for those (extreme or otherwise odd) parties who survive.
The smaller parties are also more willing and capable to "jump on new things", which then might
or might not be picked up by the major parties. Ref the green parties,etc..
For example, actually electing candidates is one result of elections, in the long run the
"adult education" is more important (as elections should intensify public debate on important
issues during the campaign and debates)
--
The issues of "corruption" seem also be easier to handle with multi-party systems, as it is
easy for two parties, although opposing each other, to silently "agree" on some things
which mutually benefits them, or when they have a strangle-hold on each other.
However, already with three parties the possibility that all three will "agree on corruption"
is much lower. With some really wild, extreme, and thus free from responsibility, but
still official parties, one can be sure one of them are going to "jump on the possibility".
Same thing for local politics.
On elected vs employed leaders,etc, the general rule is that the elected ones _represent_
the population, both in terms of insight and oversight.
The socalled "center-based consensus multiparty systems" have an additional feature
that a total flip-flop of the elected ones is less likely. Normally smaller adjustments
are done, and moderate ones can usually continue. That is, the question of
"continuity" as well as "expertise". (ref 2-party systems which should flipflop
back and forth not to become one-party systems)
One interesting result is that all USA bills "disappear" when a new congress, administration is
eleted, while many multiparty systems use the opposite, two consecutive administrations,
congresses must approve of them, especialy if controversial or constitutional.
Ilmarinen
Another aspect is that is "worth something" to have insight and oversight of "public affairs and monies".
Corporations,in general, only handle "their own money" and can be more dictatorial internally.
IMO, one reason why multiparty system citizens have more "trust" in how taxes,etc are
handled and large consensus-majorities can be found on many things (education,
healthcare,etc,etc,etc)
Btw, the Enron-Andersen thing is typical, accounting rules as well as all regulations,laws in 2-party
systems are usually done so that the party in power does as much as it can, after next election
the other party in their turn makes new regulation and laws, opposing the earlier ones.
Very seldom does anyone clean up the mess, the competition is mostly on planting as many
loop holes as possible (good job-opportunities for lawyers, quoting one paragraph opposing
another paragrap, or one case against another one, or just making lists of "don't doos" ).
That is, the question of "continuity" |
