PDA

View Full Version : Which Party System Do You Believe In?



Dagna
Saturday, February 7th, 2009, 04:40 PM
Which party system do you believe in and why?

A party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system) is a concept in comparative political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science) concerning the system of government by political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party). The idea is that political parties control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations.

A single-party state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-party_state), one-party system or single-party system is a type of party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system) government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) in which a single political party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party) forms the government and no other parties are permitted to run candidates for election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election). Sometimes the term de facto single-party state is used to describe a dominant-party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system) where laws or practices prevent the opposition from legally getting power. Some single party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing subordinate allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition) such as a popular front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front). Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over single-party states are often referred to simply as the Party.
A dominant-party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system), or one party dominant system, is a party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system) where only one political party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party) can realistically become the government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), by itself or in a coalition government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government). Under what has been referred to as "electoralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoralism)" or "soft authoritarianism", opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Opposition) parties are legally allowed to operate, but are too weak or ineffective to seriously challenge power, perhaps through various forms of corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption), constitutional quirks that intentionally undermine the ability for an effective opposition to thrive, institutional and/or organizational conventions that support the status quo, or finally, and most controversially, inherent cultural values averse to change.
A two-party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system) is a form of party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system) where two major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_party) political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties) dominate voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote) in nearly all elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election), at every level. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by one of the two major parties. Coalition governments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government) occur only rarely in two-party systems.
A multi-party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-party_system) is a system in which three or more political parties have the capacity to gain control of government separately or in coalition.
Unlike a single-party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-party_system) (or a non-partisan democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy)), it encourages the general constituency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituency) to form multiple distinct, officially recognized groups, generally called political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party). Each party competes for votes from the enfranchised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage) constituents (those allowed to vote). A multi-party system is essential for representative democracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy), because it prevents the leadership of a single party from setting policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy) without challenge.
Non-partisan democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy) (also no-party democracy) is a system of representative government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) or organization such that universal and periodic elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election) take place without reference to political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party).

TheGreatest
Saturday, February 7th, 2009, 04:57 PM
I guess single, dominant and non-partisan.

I don't really care about an election between the parties. As the saying goes, we're voting in one Presidential Dictator and cabinet every four years. I think democracy (as it was like in Rome and Greece) would be more efficient if we kept the voting along a non-partisan line, and restrict the elected seats to the institutional bodies (I.E. Senate)
But that's because I am very frustrated to be living in a country in which we have an ineffective multi-party system system, seems we must have a coalition government and very little happens. And when something does happen, it can be very hard to change even decades later

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, February 7th, 2009, 05:45 PM
I'm not so sure. Because a single-party system is in danger of abuse, like it happened with the communistic systems, and a multi-party system proves to be ineffective nowadays. Maybe a two-party system as compromise?

Gustavus Magnus
Saturday, February 7th, 2009, 08:17 PM
One party. NSDAP. The one party that was never corrupted or infiltrated, and stayed true.

There can always be factions, though. Competition is good. But one party with core beliefs that you never alter.

Hierwend
Saturday, February 7th, 2009, 08:46 PM
I'm pro monarchy.

Norrøn
Saturday, February 7th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Multi-party system with a longer timeperiod for each gouvernment. Four years are not long enough to make a difference. The goal for the gouvernment will in that case be re-election instead of real change. Popualistic, short changes and party-loyalty are the results. What we need are more veterans in politics, who have a broader perspective and represent the nation instead of political parties.

And as a sidenote. Political parties are not the way for ethnic, cultural and moral survival of Germanics. There are other and far better ways of achieving our goals. The project called nations will soon cease to excist, and from the ashes a more tribal/regional form of identity will arise.

Koenigsberg
Saturday, February 7th, 2009, 10:49 PM
One party. NSDAP. The one party that was never corrupted or infiltrated, and stayed true.

There can always be factions, though. Competition is good. But one party with core beliefs that you never alter.

I agree. One party system or no party system.

forkbeard
Sunday, February 8th, 2009, 10:16 AM
I used to like National Socialism when I was a kid but now I think the Soviet system was the best ever devised system. (of course it had a messy start)
In Soviet Russia you had a free health care system, eugenics, ethnic segregation in various republics, national government working in the interests of the people. Everybody had a job. Everybody had two homes; A flat in the city for working during the week, a country Dacha for the weekend and land for growing vegetables.
You had a command economy, a command system to get things done and good environmental credentials. A first class education system with free education for all up to and beyond degree level.
The whole system was based on Platos Republic. In that; the best qualified people to produce pottery are potters. The best qualified people to produce furniture are carpenters.
You don't appoint potters to run the nation. For the task of running the nation you appoint people that love the nation the most (from the gaurdian class). I.E The military, security services, patriots etc. You don't allow capitalists, money worshippers, foreigners and professional conmen (democrats) to run the nation and be gaurdians of the people.
Fortunately Russia now has leaders from the "gaurdian caste" again.

I think Americans in particular have to get through the pavlov dog "anti-communist" programming that they are fed since birth. If you look at all the communist countries now, they are the only ones that don't permit immigration. They all have their own brand and nominally hate each other thereby neutralising the original Marxist intent on internationalism.

Thusnelda
Sunday, February 8th, 2009, 01:07 PM
Maybe a two-party system as compromise?
I don´t think the USA are running that well with their two-party system. :|

I prefer a multi-party sytem, but it should be balanced. And the elected government should be able to run a clear course without any compromises. Because the biggest disadvantage of multi-party systems is the possibility that the opposition blocks everything and ruins the smoothness.

Ashera
Sunday, February 8th, 2009, 01:39 PM
I think we need more democracy at the basis of political administration, such as communal and district layers - and to motivate people to get more interested in their environment.
The more ascending to the top of political hierarchy, the more stringency is needed to cope for example better with suddenly "catastrophic" changes of environment, economic and/or social conditions etc.
To do so more pragmatism and less belief/ideology is needed; and my utopia would be that political discussions could become obsolete one day, and be replaced by humanistic and "anthropic" sciences.

Love is the Law,
Ashera

Gustavus Magnus
Sunday, February 8th, 2009, 03:55 PM
I used to like National Socialism when I was a kid but now I think the Soviet system was the best ever devised system. (of course it had a messy start)
In Soviet Russia you had a free health care system, eugenics, ethnic segregation in various republics, national government working in the interests of the people. Everybody had a job. Everybody had two homes; A flat in the city for working during the week, a country Dacha for the weekend and land for growing vegetables.
You had a command economy, a command system to get things done and good environmental credentials. A first class education system with free education for all up to and beyond degree level.
The whole system was based on Platos Republic. In that; the best qualified people to produce pottery are potters. The best qualified people to produce furniture are carpenters.
You don't appoint potters to run the nation. For the task of running the nation you appoint people that love the nation the most (from the gaurdian class). I.E The military, security services, patriots etc. You don't allow capitalists, money worshippers, foreigners and professional conmen (democrats) to run the nation and be gaurdians of the people.
Fortunately Russia now has leaders from the "gaurdian caste" again.

Have you ever been to Soviet? My dad was to Soviet, and he didn't see all of that lovely stuff you're writing about.

Patrioten
Sunday, February 8th, 2009, 09:38 PM
I voted non-partisan. I am very sceptical about parties and the party system in general. I am not a supporter of democracy, but I would not want to see a situation like the one they had back in NSDAP Germany either where a political party dominates all fields of society, with its symbols and rituals, identity and all the rest. There is a real danger there of the party replacing the nation, even if at first the party claims to be in the service of the nation. Once it becomes a "state-bearing party", the nation and the party often begin to merge, becoming one unseparable unit. You can see this taking place in supposedly democratic countries such as Sweden where the social democratic party has had a state-bearing position for decades and has shaped and influenced almost all aspects of Swedish society, the Swedish nation, to the point where few things today in Swedish society can be said to be actually Swedish. Sweden has become a product of the social democratic workers party manifesto.

Now, if you think that NSDAP in fact embodied Germany and everything German, authentic and genuine, then you might not see a problem with this. In my opinion, many things about the NSDAP were good and sound, but it was still a party, and parties are still the product of a group of individuals that have taken on the task of interpreting the needs of the nation and tailoring a political party and political program based on these percieved needs. Politics are needed but when a political party starts to define a nation, it has gone too far in my opinion. At the same time I do not see that there is really a viable alternative to today's parliamentary politics, the days of the Monarchy are passed us I'm afraid.

forkbeard
Sunday, February 8th, 2009, 11:29 PM
It seems to me that Democracy is all about vested interests persuing corruption. It is about fraud, lies and the wealthy lining their own pockets. No wonder nothing is ever changed or achieved.
What the world needs now is an eco fascism.
http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism/
Its just a question of who should be eliminated. The West should initially sever funding the third world population explosion then engage in its own eugenic programme.

Sigurd
Monday, February 9th, 2009, 12:09 AM
I am not a believer in "party politics" as it were. Even within the democratic framework that we have today, they are clearly not the best option: If you are going to have a parliament, then MPs should be elected as representatives of their constituents rather than as members of a certain ideological faction, who get into parliament on a quota system.

The British were the pioneers in enacting such a system - but it was then hindered and stifled by the advent of party politics and whips to make sure party policy is followed, which is probably the stage when the First Past The Post system's advantages effectively became useless.

Of course parties will be needed to further our interests in the present system - but in the long run, a state on the basis of a Folkish ideology at large, at the stage when it comes directly from the blood of the people --- as any organic ideology will --- there is no need for partisanism and all partisanisms can be kept to pro/contra lobbies for each issue at discussion.

But beyond that, I am not a pure believer in democracy. Whilst I am a great fan of the "pure democracy model" - the will of the people, for good or for ill - there must be a way to control that the will of the masses do not go against common deceny, morality or the nation itself. Which is where the monarchistic "leader principle" comes into play.

I must say that I am a bit of a believer in the Philosopher King in the position of an overseer. This Philosopher King need not concern himself with local matters immediately or petty matters immediately, but he should be in a position to act as a mediator, and to have the final say when the population votes for its ill. This should stretch from a Philosopher King to a Philosopher Village Chieftain, perhaps even.

Basically the people of a village vote upon a matter concerning that village. The will should not usually be interfered with, but the Philosopher Chieftain can veto a bad move, or offer to take an unsettled matter to a more regional meeting.

Let's say maybe 10 of these Chieftains then meet with each other. Again, they debate as a "Moot of the Wise" the matters of regional importance. Presiding over this meeting is yet another man, the Philosopher Chieftain of Philosopher Chieftains, let's call him the Philosopher Earl.

Then any matters not yet settled are taken by these Earls to a more national assembly. Again, they debate these matters and settle them as they please. Here they are heard by the Philosopher King who shall act as a mediator if anything goes amiss or if he decides that this is not conducive to this Tribal Commonwealth.

Technically the Philosopher King, as the highest and rightful leader of the pack - accountable in how he has gotten himself into that position amongst the Philosopher Earls when the old Philosopher King has died - has any right to veto any bad decision at a lower level, but he can assume that this has been dealt with by the Philosopher Chieftains and the Philosopher Earls: As the Wisest amongst the Wisest of the Wise, these Philosopher Earls should have been able to settle most of this.

In short, you take combinations between old Germanic democracy, old Irish Kingship, and to some extent the supreme Philosophic Leader Principle of the NS State - based itself upon this platonic idea of the Philosopher King ... and there you go: You have democracy in matters between neighbours, efficient one at that - and the matters of grand scale are taken on in "Elder Moots" as it were, all with a type of "Philosopher King" presiding thereover.

Or in even shorter - it is a mixture between local democracy and philosopher kingship under the natural leader principle. This to me would seem the most organic way of dealing with matters. :)

PS: I am still unsure though about the amount of "democratic levels" and the amount of "council of kings" levels needed to make this work efficiently, but ideas can always be expanded upon. :P

harl
Monday, February 9th, 2009, 04:57 AM
A single party system that recruits members at the lowest ranks through democratic means, as to still allow a certain degree of choice for the general citizenry. These members would then rise through the ranks by virtue of their merit and accomplishments. The highest seat of governance would be that of a dictator who would be able to serve a maximum of one six-year term. Members of the party would of course be obliged to conform to a strict policy of germanic preservation and national loyalty, with any deviation resulting in termination from the party and banishment from any political process. This tough standard would be essential in keeping out judeo-bolshevik subverters. Although it is my belief that a single, strong party should control things in the national stage, I advocate more democratic means for smaller municipalities and townships since it would be much easier to manage and localization would ensure more participation and less corruption. Of course there are a lot of other details I have left out, but this is just a general outline of my ideal form of government.

triedandtru
Monday, February 9th, 2009, 05:18 AM
I tend to believe that either 1 or 2 would be very effective, but 4 or 5 would be more ideal sorts of party systems for the people.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, February 9th, 2009, 03:15 PM
One party. NSDAP. The one party that was never corrupted or infiltrated, and stayed true.

It would have eventually though, after Hitler died. Every power-hungry dickwad would have joined the NSDAP and done his damnest to move through the ranks.


The whole system was based on Platos Republic. In that; the best qualified people to produce pottery are potters. The best qualified people to produce furniture are carpenters.


But who decides who is the 'best carpenter' and so on? Maybe my cousin is the deputy assistant commissar for the region, and therefore I am 'the best' for sitting at my desk issuing orders and drinking vodka all day?

The contest seems perhaps the best system to resist entropy, the one to prolong the most the inevitable stagnation, decay, and violent rebellion and destructive conflict.

Various attempts at control have been made, representative democracy with a voting class strictly limited seems to have been the best mode to allow those from 'underneath' to rise up without letting the system descend into 'mob rule'. The US in particular made a good run of this for a while, before anything & everything was allowed the vote, all but ensuring the descent into 'rule by the underclass'.

Gustavus Magnus
Monday, February 9th, 2009, 06:56 PM
It would have eventually though, after Hitler died. Every power-hungry dickwad would have joined the NSDAP and done his damnest to move through the ranks.

Several authorities would have prevented that. NSDAP wasn't the only authority, a new leader would've been approved by OKW, SS, SD, Gestapo, NSDAP, etc. I'd reckon the political will of Adolf Hitler would've been higher than law, like his word, and complied as such.

forkbeard
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 01:42 PM
But did not Borman infiltrate himself next to Hitler preventing even Himmler having access? Where not the nazi leaders often in conflict and full of contempt for each other? In the long term it would have been a repetition of the ambitious princes of medeival times.
In his table talk Hitler speculated that in the future the Nazi party could loose its way and become corrupt and fossilised in which case a counter revolution would have to be initiated again. The problem then is how is this possible in a police state.
I don't think proper Germanics are comfortable with anyone having authority over them. I certainly would not submit to a police state. Nor permit a militaristic state to conscript my children to fight in a war, the outcome of which was doubtful.
Ideally I believe in a combination of Kingship, theocracy, meritocracy. A pacifist, eugenic ecological society. Folk based but with a techno military just in case.

Gustavus Magnus
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 05:07 PM
But did not Borman infiltrate himself next to Hitler preventing even Himmler having access? Where not the nazi leaders often in conflict and full of contempt for each other? In the long term it would have been a repetition of the ambitious princes of medeival times.

Yes, but Hitler's word was higher than law, and I believe his political will would have been effective when he died and appointed a successor.

Ashera
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 05:26 PM
... Hitler's word was higher than law, and I believe his political will would have been effective when he died and appointed a successor.

In such a system a successor is not appointable, because this would imply deduction. As well it would be unkownable what a self-emergent successor would do...

As Crowley once stated: "beyond the word and the fool"

Ashera

forkbeard
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 05:46 PM
How come Hitlers will did not survive defeat then? How come Germans are so anti-Hitler now? If Hitlers will had taken root in the German people they would not be in the crisis they are now.
At minimum they could have carried on three generations of racial expansion. If all Germans had a habit of having four children the population of Germany would have doubled every 25 years. In 1970 there would have been 140 million. In 1995 280 million and growing.
What was missing was enshrining Germanism as a Religious system so that people could obey on autopilot.

Ashera
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 06:11 PM
How come Hitlers will did not survive defeat then? How come Germans are so anti-Hitler now? If Hitlers will had taken root in the German people they would not be in the crisis they are now.
At minimum they could have carried on three generations of racial expansion. If all Germans had a habit of having four children the population of Germany would have doubled every 25 years. In 1970 there would have been 140 million. In 1995 280 million and growing.
What was missing was enshrining Germanism as a Religious system so that people could obey on autopilot.


You do not really understand the principle of evolution. You cannot deduce an evolutionary event, because that would imply that you could take in a future position to judge a present state. But this is logically and empirically impossible. It only functions within a system of belief. But what is a system of belief good for when we have to deal with real problems and their solutions?

Today*s problems are mainly the result of the inertial thinking you demonstrate above.

I personally prefer quality to quantity.

Ashera

Gustavus Magnus
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 08:48 PM
How come Hitlers will did not survive defeat then? How come Germans are so anti-Hitler now? If Hitlers will had taken root in the German people they would not be in the crisis they are now.

60 years of brainwashing. Hitler was in power for nearly 12 years, and most of those years was occupied by the war.

forkbeard
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009, 02:13 AM
Quantity has a quality of its own.
http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp234/wilhelmII/cj6cz8.jpg

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009, 06:40 AM
It only functions within a system of belief. But what is a system of belief good for when we have to deal with real problems and their solutions?

Today*s problems are mainly the result of the inertial thinking you demonstrate above.

That does seem to be the main purpose of religion though, to get people to follow along with a set of principles set in the past, often at the expense of short term gratification.

Ashera
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009, 07:46 AM
That does seem to be the main purpose of religion though, to get people to follow along with a set of principles set in the past, often at the expense of short term gratification.

I would say, often at the expense of reality loss. But I have to remark that I distinguish religion and myth, understood as an emergent structure based in primordial dreamtime.


Quantity has a quality of its own.

... if individual consciousness is involved.

Ashera

Eoppoyz
Monday, February 23rd, 2009, 12:46 AM
I should have read before I voted. Now I voted wrong. I voted for "Dominant-party" when I should have voted for "Multi-party".

Frank_Tutone
Friday, February 27th, 2009, 03:57 AM
Multi-party parliament or advisory council,

(with or without an Official National Party to which the parliamentary parties are in some way accountable - I'm not sure about this yet),

- with guaranteed seats (as in Germany) for any party receiving a certain percentage of votes nation-wide regardless of whether they otherwise win any actual seats;

- with qualifications to include direct experience in manual labor for a given number of years, and probably in some other type of work for a given period of time;

- as well as intense study of history, the nation's political foundation and reasons therefor (in America, that would be the Federalist Papers, all of them, and memorize some of them so you're not getting some ignorant, brain-dead buffoon like Barney Frank or Jo Biden in there), economics, the nation's cultural history and values;

selected not from career politicians but from well-educated (yet to be defined) successful businesspeople, entrepreneurs, researchers (not do-noting propaganda-professors), farmers, clerics (!), no attoneys - they can serve as secretaries to help phrase legistlation but not vote on it;

balanced intellectually and through experience, by "functional senators" from at least the areas of
1. Agriculture,
2. Industry,
3. Military,
4. Local Police
5. Universities,
and perhaps:
6. Ranching,
7. Fishing,
8. Information Technology (Computers, etc.),
9. Forestry and Mining,
10.Medical Field.
11. Churches (maybe);

also balanced - patriotically (presumably) - by allowing past Chief Executives and "vice chief executives", Independent "Senior Senators for Life";

and balanced geographically by strong provincial governorships.

Okay, I've gone beyond the party question. Parties and government structure are inseparable, to me.

Ralf
Friday, January 22nd, 2010, 08:43 PM
A little explaination of how the party system works here in the UK and probably all over the so called free democratic world for those of you who might not know.

A whole bunch of people in a given area who dont agree with the Iraq war for instance, vote for thier MP who is in one of the major political parties, the MP himself also doesnt agree with a war in Iraq.

Said MP gets elected to represent the people who elected him, enters Parliament where he finds there is a vote going on as to wiether we should go to war with Iraq or not.

The MP doesnt want too, nor do his electors, but he is a member of a political party who do want to go to war so they employ a 3 line whip that means said MP has to vote yes for war, weither he likes it or not, if he doesnt do what he is told, he will lose his carreer with that party or even worst, skeletons will be brought out of the cupboard.

Now who does the political party want to please?, how about its big money financiers, without which they will not be able to finance thier next election.

So the backers control the whips, the whips control the elected MPs, the backers back and control both partys.

Sound like democracy to you?

"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy." ~Woodrow Wilson


Vote independant!

Witta
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 07:49 PM
Single party. A homogenous country has no need for warring party politics.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 08:03 PM
Single party. A homogenous country has no need for warring party politics.

A homogenous country is a happy country. :)

you have the right idea...

Méldmir
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 08:38 PM
Parlimentary democracies seem to lead to corruption. I would prefer a more straigt-forward democracy, either direct-democracy like in Switzerland, or some sort of democracy inspired a bit by the old Germanic Things, where people from different families/villages would get together and discuss problems. Of course it would need some changes to fit into the society today. Political parties aren't really necessary.

Drottin
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 08:57 PM
No party system on the planet is good, none!

First of all, the people must own the law. All laws and regulations are to be made by the people for the people. Laws made by lawyers, politicians, UN, strangers, capitalists, judges and such can never be the basis of governance.

Local people must choose their leader in the community. And the people must find a common king for the land to be managed. But even the king must obey the law. One of the laws is that if the king does not follow the law he must die. It must be prohibited, to change the law. Only the people can change the law.

A system for governance must always start with the laws, not party system i think.

KasparHauser
Monday, July 26th, 2010, 01:23 PM
One party, one direction!

Lone Rebel
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 03:17 AM
Non Partisan for me. I would rather elect someone based on what they stand for rather than what party they are with

SpearBrave
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 11:32 AM
I don't much like the idea of a single party system, because if that single party becomes corrupt then you have to most likely have a violent revolution to make them accountable to the people.

There should be term limits on all politicians, parties and judicial appointments. I like the idea of multi party system, but all politicians, parties,and judges should be held accountable to the laws of the people.

An example of would be if a political party over a period of generations constantly tries to go against the laws of the people the whole party should be held accountable. If they place a person in power who is not of the nation or has questionable birth they should be tried by the people as criminals. If they appoint judges that are activist and don't follow the rule of law, they should be tried by the people as criminals.

You may ask how do you try a whole party? Easy you have a separate judicial branch that is not appointed by any party but elected by the people and has term limits. If the party in question is found guilty then they should be de-funded and not allowed to participate in politics for set number of years. If the offense is real severe they( like supporting a marxist negro ) they should face criminal charges and serve prison time or execution for treason.

NatRev
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 08:05 PM
I'd opt for a referendum based policy rather than a representative one.

It's not an ideal system but in theory you would vote on a series of policies; education, welfare, immigration, health etc. and your vote for them goes to shape the policies of the leading government instead of you voting for party X, Y or Z.

I also believe that people should have a greater say in their local community and their representatives should come from that respected community.

“The law is an adroit mixture of customs that are beneficial to society, and could be followed even if no law existed, and others that are of advantage to a ruling minority, but harmful to the masses of men, and can be enforced on them only by terror.”

Peter Kropotkin

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 08:38 AM
What are the advantages of a single party system?

What are the disadvantages of a single party system?

Would it make sense for a nation to have a single party system?

Why are multiple party systems desirable?

What do multiple party systems accomplish?

How are multiple party systems needed?

Don't multiple party systems revolve around dominant party systems anyways where one political party dominates?

Wouldn't it be easier to have a single party system?

If not, what is ever accomplished in multiple party systems?

For me multiple party systems revolve around ineffective forms of democracy.

Rev. Jupiter
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 09:09 AM
A single party system negates itself by still acknowledging partisanship as politically legitimate. This instill in it a witch-hunt mentality that eventually causes its own demise.

A truly functional State doesn't acknowledge the very notion of a "party" as legitimate.

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 09:11 AM
A single party system negates itself by still acknowledging partisanship as politically legitimate. This instill in it a witch-hunt mentality that eventually causes its own demise.

A truly functional State doesn't acknowledge the very notion of a "party" as legitimate.


A truly functional State doesn't acknowledge the very notion of a "party" as legitimate.

How so?

Rev. Jupiter
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 08:30 PM
How so?

I wasn't speaking in terms of opinion. I was observing a historical fact.

See: pre-French Revolution Europe

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 08:38 PM
for me one is better than "multi"

I prefer homogeneity to a mix, since a mix is like a septic tank. One race and one political ideology (meritocricy)

Ardito
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 08:47 PM
Further to what Rev. Jupiter said, the existence of a political party implies that anyone can join it, and thus anyone can rise to power. It inevitably leads, therefore, to people moving away from their proper social ranks and roles and into improper positions. Thus, it necessarily breeds social disharmony.

Æmeric
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 09:29 PM
You mean a one-party system as in the Soviet Union & the Waraw Pact nations? As in Nazi Germany & North Korea? A single-party system means no freedom of political expression. A two-party system is not much better. A one-party system (or two-party) exists to protect the status quo. And the current status quo isn't working to well for preservationist interests, it is working against it.

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 10:01 PM
You mean a one-party system as in the Soviet Union & the Waraw Pact nations? As in Nazi Germany & North Korea? A single-party system means no freedom of political expression. A two-party system is not much better. A one-party system (or two-party) exists to protect the status quo. And the current status quo isn't working to well for preservationist interests, it is working against it.

If the status quo of multiple parties isn't working, how would adding more multiple parties change anything?

The solution is to have one single national party where there is one voice and reason for all disputes.

Rev. Jupiter
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 11:23 PM
The solution is to have one single national party where there is one voice and reason for all disputes.

Or, you know, we could get rid of the whole bullshit concept of partisan politics.

You seem to think that petty modern dictatorships, like those of the one-party states of the past century or so, are representative of a non-partisan unified State, when in fact they are nothing but a crude mockery.

Wynterwade
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 11:32 PM
I'd like to see the party system done away with- and instead let each individual run based solely upon his own views.

And a few other things....
1) Campaign financing halted to bare minimum.
2) I'd like to see more multi-hour long debates between candidates about high level economics, finance, government, laws, foreign policy and goals for the future. (the debates we have on TV today are childish ridiculousness)
3) We also need a group to catalog clearly and concisely the different views of each candidate on a website, and media debates recorded and posted online for all to easily see.

Politics should be based upon ideas not upon personal looks, image or cheap catch phrases.

Schattenjäger
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 11:43 PM
In none. I believe that society is one living organism and everyone must learn his place in the order of things. There is always one state, one race and one leader and they are holy entity. Parties are unnecessary, the racial consciousness of the people, their military discipline and their education performance is what decides about the future.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010, 11:46 PM
The solution is to have one single national party where there is one voice and reason for all disputes.

While that could work that way, or it could also work this way:

" One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them ..."

I think the better idea would be have multiple parties that are all pro Germanic race and culture, meaning get rid of the racial others and their influences. You need a system of checks and balances.

Elessar
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 12:20 AM
There is no modern political party worth supporting. I would rather support a basic authoritarian government, one which doesn't even recognize concepts as a "party"
activate TL;DR
Authoritarianism, as I see it, goes hand in hand with meritocracy, since it is hierarchical and meritocracy works through hierarchies. It is a system that allows the best in their fields to run respected branches of power, while the hierarchical order keeps the system together and everyone knows their place and responsibilities.

And take a look at the main opposition to authoritarianism - democracy, be it direct or representative. Direct democracy is impossible unless every person in a society is an expert in ALL fields that touch society as a whole and it's various groups and individuals specifically, so that includes economics, sociology, jurisprudence, psychology, history, politics in general and so on and so forth. Direct democracy is impossible unless all people are polymaths. That is actually one of the key goals of communism, as it is a direct democracy, so the infamous new breed of man that Marx referred to was a polymath that could successfully exist and prosper under such a system, hence where the Party as the Vanguard of the people concept comes from - a group that inspires people to be like them, to become polymaths. If you introduce direct democracy on a national scale (the smaller the group of people the easier it is to maintain a direct democracy full of idiots and average people as opposed to polymaths) you will get ochlocracy and an eventual fractionation of society and everyone fighting for their own little groups, so a society will eventually fall into anarchy.

And take representative democracy. It supposedly allows everyone a voice but in reality it, as any system, will want to preserve itself as it is, so in actuality nothing really changes. And if such a representative democracy, that does allow real drastic change, exists, it is soon enough turned into a different system altogether (how Hitler came to power). At best representative democracies allow political parties to "play with power" for a little while, due some minor legislations and laws and etc that don't change the grand scheme of the system, because it is not interested in such. And if you think about it, why would the parties want to change anything unless they are dedicated to some ideal? They will be happy with switching places so long as they can pretend to have power. Corneliu Zelea Codreanu also said something in this regard:

"... divided into parties, which rule for a year, two or three, it is incapable of conceiving and realizing long-time plans. One party will nullify the plans and work of another. That which was started and erected today by some, tomorrow will be destroyed by others. In a country, where construction is required, at this historical moment it is not a benefit of democracy - it is a danger, which changes ownership, each year coming with new plans, changing that, which was done by one and undertaking other goals, which also will be broken by those who come tomorrow."

The basic and strongest advantages of authoritarianism is that it provides unity through vision, order through hierarchy, a professional elite through meritocracy and clarity through all of those combined. Would one rather live in a system where he knows damn well what he can achieve and what the ultimate goal is, or in a system that just jogs in place in virtually all aspects that matter? The only reason people choose the latter is because it allows people to be lazy slobs, to lead a hedonist lifestyle and it provides distractions to make people feel good (entertainment, personal luxuries and such) in a system that achieves nothing, other than making sure that it keeps on working.

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 03:46 AM
Or, you know, we could get rid of the whole bullshit concept of partisan politics.

You seem to think that petty modern dictatorships, like those of the one-party states of the past century or so, are representative of a non-partisan unified State, when in fact they are nothing but a crude mockery.

By getting rid of partisan politics, wouldn't we not be creating a single party system?


WynterWade

I'd like to see the party system done away with- and instead let each individual run based solely upon his own views.

That is only conceivable in a existence of anarchy.


And a few other things....
1) Campaign financing halted to bare minimum.

That will never happen considering with whatever system you have the wealthy will always be affluent to some degree.



2) I'd like to see more multi-hour long debates between candidates about high level economics, finance, government, laws, foreign policy and goals for the future. (the debates we have on TV today are childish ridiculousness)

Most people are idiots so this will never happen either because the reason they make it basic instead of more indepth in political discussions is in order to make it more consumable for larger audiences who don't know any better in what they are being presented with.


3) We also need a group to catalog clearly and concisely the different views of each candidate on a website, and media debates recorded and posted online for all to easily see.

They already do this on youtube.


Politics should be based upon ideas not upon personal looks, image or cheap catch phrases.

Agreed it's just that again most people are too stupid to understand what is being put in front of them which is one of the reasons why the democratic concept is ineffective because it assumes the majority of people will be reasonable in their voting choices or political perceptions.


While that could work that way, or it could also work this way:

" One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them ..."

Poetic but I don't see how Tolkien has anything to do with this subject.



I think the better idea would be have multiple parties that are all pro Germanic race and culture, meaning get rid of the racial others and their influences. You need a system of checks and balances.

The more parties you have the more slower things are resolved to the point of being stalled in political theater and debate.

With more parties also comes the opportunity of even more infiltration by opposition forces who wish do a nation harm kinda like all those liberal political parties in the United States.

[Or with all those new political parties being formed by foreigners who are starting to make the new voting block in the democratic process when it concerns multiple parties.]

I say make it impossible for opposition to even exist in the first place by getting rid of multiple parties altogether.

As another user said here already one voice equals one direction.

One voice also equals one prime directive and objective for a nation too.

With all of this I believe a government revolving around command control to be the most efficient one.

The only problem with this is the ability in finding competent leaders to lead the single party system.

In order to fix that problem every chairman of the single party system should be chosen by a select level of qualifications, background, and intelligence limiting any chance of dictorial misuse in the hands of a party panel.

Rev. Jupiter
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 05:34 AM
By getting rid of partisan politics, wouldn't we not be creating a single party system?

A single party system is inherently partisan. While there may only be one ruling ideology, it got into that position by coming out on top in political battles.
This is not a legitimate way of determining who rules and who doesn't, thus invalidating the entire system.

The difference between a partisan system and a non-partisan system is the difference between a pack of feral dogs and a pack of wolves.

I would suggest reading Evola's Men Among the Ruins to get a clearer idea.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 07:08 AM
A single party system is inherently partisan. While there may only be one ruling ideology, it got into that position by coming out on top in political battles.
This is not a legitimate way of determining who rules and who doesn't, thus invalidating the entire system.

The difference between a partisan system and a non-partisan system is the difference between a pack of feral dogs and a pack of wolves.

That's pretty much true, look at the intra-party fights which we still have. The Chinese Communist Party for another, had big changes when Deng got control after Mao, probably some people got executed along the way, to say nothing of the periodic purges of executions of rivals in the USSR and Communist China. Even the NSDAP had this, with Hitler purging the SA 'brownshirts' and the Strasser faction.

Lone Rebel
Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 09:19 PM
1 or 5 works for me. I don't see a reason for a political party in a NS state.

norseking
Friday, June 24th, 2011, 04:14 AM
multiple party system so discussion can be formed and people can have opinions other than single party systems that are normally led by a centralized government that creates the minds of the people rather than allowing them to chose there own minds.

Eugen Hadamovsky
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 03:51 PM
I voted for the Single-Party system, but I mean NSDAP only! It is not a typical party, it is much more a Movement for unity and prosperity of the folk, the commandments of this movement are the foundation for a strong and healthy society!

A true revolution in the thinking and the mind of the masses could be achieved only by a Single-Party NS system! Of course it needs many years to complete this process, minimum one generation. Unfortunately the Third Reich had only 12 years, and only 6 years of peace. Nevertheless the achievements of the NS State were without analogue! Now we could only dream for such society and state. :(

DasWilhelm
Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 04:21 PM
I voted for the Single-Party system, but I mean NSDAP only! It is not a typical party, it is much more a Movement for unity and prosperity of the folk, the commandments of this movement are the foundation for a strong and healthy society!

A true revolution in the thinking and the mind of the masses could be achieved only by a Single-Party NS system! Of course it needs many years to complete this process, minimum one generation. Unfortunately the Third Reich had only 12 years, and only 6 years of peace. Nevertheless the achievements of the NS State were without analogue! Now we could only dream for such society and state. :(

I completely agree and sympathize with you. If another NS-Revolution happens in the future, I hope to be a part of that. It would be perhaps the most beautiful thing to happen to Germany in a very long time. It would be the re-birth of Germany.