Thread: After the election

While I did say they voted wrong I do acknowledge that the outcome of everyone voted for what I consider the right choice would be just as bad.

Also, I didn't mean to compare Obama to the current political situation in Thailand. I just wanted to illustrate what it feels like to not get your own way.

Lastly, the very best way I see this all working out is this. I would like to see the red shirts, or PTP, be given the opportunity to do the job and then fail. After that the people can realise that in a democracy they have the choice to get rid of them at the next election.

A look at world history will show how often people go and vote in the wrong person and the results have been disastrous for their country and in many cases the world. Most people who vote don't cast a vote based on a thoughtful decision of what the candidates will do for them and the country. They do it based on ignorance, slick media campaigns, biased reporting by alleged news media, personal prejudice and hatred and a stick it to the other guy mentality. In the end the get what they bargained for.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

They do it based on ignorance, slick media campaigns, biased reporting by alleged news media, personal prejudice and hatred and a stick it to the other guy mentality. In the end the get what they bargained for.

I won't say our politicians are cut from better cloth than yours, but at least in our political arena, there is less 'black or white' arguing, simply because we have multiple parties, and they overlap ideologically with some of the other parties. And in a way, you only have to thank yourself for that. Our system is designed to end up with a government with more or less moderate ideology.

If you (in the US) see 2 candidates being idiots to each other, the general reaction is not 'you're both idiots, I vote for someone whom I agree with', but either 'YEAH! You say it!' or 'I vote against the guy I hate most, instead of for the guy I like best (who might not win).' Especially with the latter argument, the end result is just a race to the bottom.

That is why i like multi party system so much. Even the winners must negotiate with their political opposites if they want to rule the country. Winners must pay attention to those who didn't vote for them as well. Of course there are flaws in it and no system is perfect, but i think it is better than most other systems there is. It is not 51 ignoring 49. Even the losers have their responsibilities.

Generally speaking, no party gets beyond 20 or 30 %. In order to get a comfortable majority, you need 2 large parties agreeing, with 1 or 2 smaller parties in case they are aiming for reformations that need a 2/3 majority. But those little parties become very important at that point, because they are needed to make the cut without having to invite a 3d big party. So they do have a good amount of power to make sure that their party goals are at least not run over by the bigger parties.

Generally speaking, the biggest hurdle for multiparty systems are the coalition negotiations.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Generally speaking, the biggest hurdle for multiparty systems are the coalition negotiations.

Recently those negotiations here took about month. I thought it was pretty long time until i remembered reading about the ones going on in Belgium

Originally Posted by Sailor

Recently those negotiations here took about month. I thought it was pretty long time until i remembered reading about the ones going on in Belgium

Dude... don't get me started.
Just yesterday, the talks pretty much blew up again. They're talking about having new elections, but that is not going to help. If anything, it will make things worse because by now, the population is pretty polarized.

For the laymen: Belgium consists of 2 states (actually, more than that but it's already complex enough and there are 2 big ones). One side (mine) produces the majority of the GNP, and we also pay the majority of the taxes. However, the other side receives proportionally more than they produce. We are fed up with this, and my state wants to cut back into that difference. The other side doesn't want this because they like things as they are now. There are also other issues playing which have been building as long as Belgium has existed, and which now are coming to a boil. Explaining all this would take us too far. Let's just say that for practical purposes, it started here, and has been going on ever since.

In the past, our politicians used to dance around this issue, but now the population has spoken very clearly in the vote, and the coalition talks are held by people from the 2 states who are almost the polar opposites on this issue. And this time, my state is not likely to back down It will be political suicide for the coalition partners from my state who flinch first. In fact, my state would possibly seccede by now if it could.

There is one huge, honking problem though.
Our constitution is set up in a way that requires a coalition consisting of a majority representation on both sides (meaning of the resulting coalition, the representatives of each state have to represent > 50%) or even a 2/3 majority in cases where a constitutional reformation is desired. For us to legally seccede, we need that majority, but we'll never get it because the other states will die. And they know this. And we can't unilaterally declare ourselves independent because the EU will not recognize us in that case, which will be a disaster for our economy. Yet there also cannot be a government without a majority representation of my state.

We are truly deadlocked, and I don't see it getting any better until the politicians of the other state agree to meet ours at least halfway, which so far they don't seem to intend to do.