To: Solon who wrote (2283 ) 7/30/2003 5:59:50 PM From: 49thMIMOMander Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7834 For the fifth time - consensus systems have the consensus mechanisms written in the rules as well as the constitution in terms of socalled consensus-mechanism - this is based the principles of ruling a nation with consensus starting from 1. the consent of the ruled (just to pick one starting point), evolved much further into 2. the majorities rules with the consensus of the minorities Try to first learn the basics of proportional representation and multi-party systems, the process of forming the "ruling government" by forming coalitions of many parties to, for example, achieve a 50% majority (not just plurality) for small daily or yearly decisions and a 5/6 majority for more important decidions. How do they differ from what makes a political system an adversarial two-party system?? 3. plus a lot of other consensus-mechanisms, implemented to avoid what two-party system are designed to be, adversarial, mud wrestling and dogfights, perpetually.. 4. Why does Israel and Italy (just to pick the regular US examples against multi-party systems) have multi-party systems but not cnsensus-systems?? Ilmarinen Some food for the road, it has been my experience as well as that of others that above 1-2-3-4 steps is like first climbing a hill and then seeing what is one the other side (for two-party people). Some call this the "catch-22" of two-party systems. For France, one can apply the concept of "two-block" systems, until they can produce a "viable center party" (the reason they take their reforms slowly and in an incremental way, to be sure to be able to handle the Le Pens,etc, not only in presidential election, but also in elections for paliament as well as how the coalition for government is formed) Another example of consensus-mechanisms is the french system of "co-habitation", which once was a possible goal for USA too. (still is in theory, but hasn't happened, but happens regularly in France) And additionally the simple mechanism of "party-lists", on the way uphill after "proportional representation" Btw, all of these concepts are well documented by anything written on these issues since the start of the 1800s. (except that famous 1971 voting act US document and mathematical proof that a two-party system is the best) Ouch, to achieve the opposite, proportional representation, through district manipulation and gerrymandering through local maximum disproportional representation. Well, doesn't make much regular sense anyway... But "the (adversarial) two-party system has been good for USA", some estimate it will take at least another 100-150 years for US to get to where UK is now. (for some very good reasons) One interesting issue of today and tomorrow is if UK will manage to kind of suddenly achieve a consensus-system, although the public has no idea of it, debate is banned, but the political elite has turned around similar tricks. (UK already uses PR for EU-members) before, or have they??