Uhmm things......
Party politics really ruin "democracy" or in reality res-publica, because lets face it we copy our system more out of the old roman methods of government. Sure there is Westminster, but lets face it its "res-publica" again this time in its imperial incarnation. Any how lets jump back to the main point. Party politics ruin the system, by effectively isolating the needs of the constituency by that of the party. Some would suggest thats what party diversification is for.
O'rly?
Lets see the trends shall we, in most (I know of) system of party politics in play, there in reality on 2 major political forces (parties or coalitions). The rest have to divy up their votes or hand them up to the larger Fish. In Australia the preferential system means that a vote goes to the major parties either way. The major forces have more resources to call upon to crush the smaller competition, which brings me to the third and biggest issue, that of lobbies and contributions, let face who are we kidding right the parties loyalties are mainly to those who contribute (example the US Democrats and Republicans) the biggest piece of the election time budget. It also makes it far easier to lobby the current government in power (or incoming) this leads to higher corruption in the system.
I remember once somebody saying tha a Liberal party dissenter was a victory for democracy (rmit.cs.general), I disagree and with a fellow colleage pointed out why this was a Failure of Democracy. That is if members really represented the constituents they would not have allowed that to pass that in the first place (referring to the country vote on the sale of Telstra - long before the attention seeking Barneby Joyce). This brings another point party systems make sure that elected members only act in the self-interest of the party not their constituents it adds a buffering zone, as well we have no direct accountability of members (except election time apparently), people not happy with their rep cannot just remove him from office (something that should be allowed).
Loyalty, once a party member is elected his/her loyalty is to the party not the people he/she represents, oooh thats really the kicker.
Another thing to note is that the way elections are done, you can pretty much guarantee safe zones, because people will be known to vote in that perticular trend. So the main battle lines for the parties become petty marginal issues on swining seats, not to mention the obvious pampering happening on those seats.
Now the failure of the system also lies in it citizenry, I mean sure you become a citizen and vote every third year or (or when ever the government feels like calling an election) but in reality do people really study their choices? Really active in their political system? No. Apathy rules supreme!
So now this brings me to this point only citizens should vote, and a person who is a citizen is somebody who will be willing to put up time to become active in politics. Please note this is still compulsory for a citizen to vote. Also by having the members of parliment directly accountable to those citizens you can remove a lot of baggage we see nowdays, having active greek-forum style (how ever bad the example is) b/w the parilimentarian and his constituents.
All of this is pretty much a brain dump on things I've discussed with friends in the past year or so, dont expect to be in detail.
O'rly?
Lets see the trends shall we, in most (I know of) system of party politics in play, there in reality on 2 major political forces (parties or coalitions). The rest have to divy up their votes or hand them up to the larger Fish. In Australia the preferential system means that a vote goes to the major parties either way. The major forces have more resources to call upon to crush the smaller competition, which brings me to the third and biggest issue, that of lobbies and contributions, let face who are we kidding right the parties loyalties are mainly to those who contribute (example the US Democrats and Republicans) the biggest piece of the election time budget. It also makes it far easier to lobby the current government in power (or incoming) this leads to higher corruption in the system.
I remember once somebody saying tha a Liberal party dissenter was a victory for democracy (rmit.cs.general), I disagree and with a fellow colleage pointed out why this was a Failure of Democracy. That is if members really represented the constituents they would not have allowed that to pass that in the first place (referring to the country vote on the sale of Telstra - long before the attention seeking Barneby Joyce). This brings another point party systems make sure that elected members only act in the self-interest of the party not their constituents it adds a buffering zone, as well we have no direct accountability of members (except election time apparently), people not happy with their rep cannot just remove him from office (something that should be allowed).
Loyalty, once a party member is elected his/her loyalty is to the party not the people he/she represents, oooh thats really the kicker.
Another thing to note is that the way elections are done, you can pretty much guarantee safe zones, because people will be known to vote in that perticular trend. So the main battle lines for the parties become petty marginal issues on swining seats, not to mention the obvious pampering happening on those seats.
Now the failure of the system also lies in it citizenry, I mean sure you become a citizen and vote every third year or (or when ever the government feels like calling an election) but in reality do people really study their choices? Really active in their political system? No. Apathy rules supreme!
So now this brings me to this point only citizens should vote, and a person who is a citizen is somebody who will be willing to put up time to become active in politics. Please note this is still compulsory for a citizen to vote. Also by having the members of parliment directly accountable to those citizens you can remove a lot of baggage we see nowdays, having active greek-forum style (how ever bad the example is) b/w the parilimentarian and his constituents.
All of this is pretty much a brain dump on things I've discussed with friends in the past year or so, dont expect to be in detail.