[Magdalen] Cruz on Trump

[Roger Stokes]

On 25/09/2016 22:29, Scott Knitter wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Lynn Ronkainen <houstonklr at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Twice in 45 years I've voted for candidates who were not Republicans or Democrats. They were however more viable and knowledgeable people than the alternatives available >this year to the two main candidates. I've decided that this election year presents too much risk for me to take a stand about the potential viability of 'extra-party' candidates. I >do hope that a viable and equal third party may arise on of these years.
> I think a third party will have to position and organize its way to
> some major wins in Congress:

It is very hard for a third party to become a potent force in an 
essentially two party democracy - and it carries risks.  This side of 
the pond the Liberal Democrats have power in some areas (in this Borough 
the elected Mayor who has executive aithority is one) where there has 
not been a dominant party.  In 2010 David Cameron invited them to join 
his coalition government as without them he did not have an overall 
majority so we had some Liberal Democrat ministers. The problem was that 
they were not able to get any of tyheir significant policies into law 
and they were seen as having sold out on their principles by accepting 
the trappings of power.  As a result at the 2015 General Election they 
lost many of their seats and are having to regroup.

Third (and more) parties are viable where you have a system of 
proportional representation (of which a poor form was defeated in a 
referendum during our coalition government) but will be hard-pressed to 
break an established two-party system.  It can happen, as it did here 
when the Labour Party became viable just over 100 years ago, but that 
will often result in the virtual demise of one of the previous major 
parties, the Whigs here.  With a First Past the Post system where 
someone is elected on a plurality rather than an overall majority of the 
votes I think a two-party system will squeeze out a third party.  We 
have parties who belueve in "strong government" so they can drive 
through their own policies despite the fact that most people did not 
vote for them.  In the UK the government party will typically have got 
about 40% of the popular vote but still have an overall majority in the 
House of Commons. They do not need to persuade others to support their 
Bills to get them through Parliament, and I think that is unfortunate.  
"Strong government" can mean that legislation is not subject to proper 
scrutiny of its implications.

Roger