How much power is "too much" for your side?

[Johanna]

@scr4

I’m comfortable with 100%, because if that happens, it would no longer be a monolithic organization. It would split into multiple factions vying for control of that side.

That’s exactly what happened between 1820 and 1824.

[naita]

That’s not how power or sides work in the real world, even if the republican party in the US is trying very hard to play that way currently.

I’be perfectly happy for every position in government, from high to low to be held by people who think somewhat like me, but they’d not be walking in lock step, cause they would be individuals with varying ideas and motivations. For it to be absolute power for “my side” I can only envision some sort of party dictatorship, party-before-country deal, and for that I’d have to say 0% power.

[Icarus]

Well, first let’s dispense with this ridiculous notion of “sides”. The argument presupposes that “sides” are necessary in order to measure “power”.

Instead, I would simply ask that representation in government be proportional to the actual arithmetic results of voting. If we could achieve that, I would say that’s a start.

[AHunter3]

@Acsenray

@AHunter3

I don’t have a side in the legislature. There’s a team I keep ending up rooting for over the other one, but they only look good because of the contrast. I’d like it if the Republicans had 20% and the Democrats had 30% and the rest was composed entirely of independents and 3rd-party folk.

What makes you think independents and third parties would moderate between them? More likely such a system would result in a Knesset-like situation, in which right wing extremists hold the balance of power.

I don’t want them to moderate between the Democrats and Republicans. I want them to listen to the ideas coming out of the mouths of the Democrats and Republicans and salvage what’s useful, ignore the rest, and keep the two parties as marginalized from actual political power as possible. I want them forming temporary coalitions on individual issues that dissolve in favor of other coalitions involving other assorted factions around other issues.

[Acsenray]

@AHunter3

I don’t want them to moderate between the Democrats and Republicans. I want them to listen to the ideas coming out of the mouths of the Democrats and Republicans and salvage what’s useful, ignore the rest, and keep the two parties as marginalized from actual political power as possible. I want them forming temporary coalitions on individual issues that dissolve in favor of other coalitions involving other assorted factions around other issues.

I can’t imagine such a system working on a scale larger than a town meeting, if that. But perhaps I’m wrong. Can you offer an example of a large, modern, complex state in which such a system functions?

My theory is this – in a social, technological, and economic system as large and complex as we are, we need rough stand-ins in the form of strong parties representing generalized, broad coalitions. I don’t think we can make a modern democratic state work with issue-by-issue coalitions.

Furthermore, issue-by-issue coalitions would make rational voting almost impossible. You can’t possibly choose a candidate rationally based on a list of single-issue positions that don’t map to broad, big-tent coalitions. You’d never know what you were actually voting for when you chose a party or a candidate, because everything would depend on a complex, weak-party legislative dynamic with chaotic results.