Binary political systems evolve to end the democracy

[myata]

Another factual, empirical evidence is unfolding before our eyes: nothing lasts forever in the entropy world. Even much more sophisticated and intelligent political systems designed with much thought and care will degrade, deteriorate and decay eventually, if left without continuous, responsible and intelligent care by active and involved citizens.

British heritage "binary" political systems in contrast to the touted stability, have shown themselves extremely vulnerable to populism. When an all-out populist is presented as the only, sole alternative to the status quo, democracy is gravely challenged and nothing can be assured.

A brief window, in terms of historical scales was open to understand it and redesign the system bringing it in line with the reality and demands of modern societies. He who cannot adapt, must perish: this is a simple law of the evolution. Binary politics will end democracy, surely and unavoidably. Not if: when.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, myata said:

Another factual, empirical evidence is unfolding before our eyes: nothing lasts forever in the entropy world. Even much more sophisticated and intelligent political systems designed with much thought and care will degrade, deteriorate and decay eventually, if left without continuous, responsible and intelligent care by active and involved citizens.

British heritage "binary" political systems in contrast to the touted stability, have shown themselves extremely vulnerable to populism. When an all-out populist is presented as the only, sole alternative to the status quo, democracy is gravely challenged and nothing can be assured.

A brief window, in terms of historical scales was open to understand it and redesign the system bringing it in line with the reality and demands of modern societies. He who cannot adapt, must perish: this is a simple law of the evolution. Binary politics will end democracy, surely and unavoidably. Not if: when.

Around 100 years ago the UK system was similar to ours in the 1980s. Three major parties. The Liberals were squeezed out.  

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Three major parties.

Not three, two plus: the duo plus the dissent/unorthodox. Binary system cannot produce any other results. And this is a path to a demise of democracy. We can get it or we will live it.

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, myata said:

Not three, two plus: the duo plus the dissent/unorthodox. Binary system cannot produce any other results. And this is a path to a demise of democracy. We can get it or we will live it.

I would call the NDP. Major party, witnessed her influence they have at present. Even conservatives on here point out how much power they have over the governance. 

But that's a quibble. 

The UK political sculpture fractured into four or five or more parties ... Canada also has had seats in Parliament by small parties, independent MPS and tiny parties you've never heard of

Edited November 16, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Legato]

9 hours ago, myata said:

Another factual, empirical evidence is unfolding before our eyes: nothing lasts forever in the entropy world. Even much more sophisticated and intelligent political systems designed with much thought and care will degrade, deteriorate and decay eventually, if left without continuous, responsible and intelligent care by active and involved citizens.

British heritage "binary" political systems in contrast to the touted stability, have shown themselves extremely vulnerable to populism. When an all-out populist is presented as the only, sole alternative to the status quo, democracy is gravely challenged and nothing can be assured.

A brief window, in terms of historical scales was open to understand it and redesign the system bringing it in line with the reality and demands of modern societies. He who cannot adapt, must perish: this is a simple law of the evolution. Binary politics will end democracy, surely and unavoidably. Not if: when.

What you say could be true, however without the binary system you would not have had the ability to post the above.

[myata]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Canada also has had seats in Parliament by small parties, independent MPS and tiny parties you've never heard of

Oh come on. It's not about "has seats" but what they reflect. Do they reflect any reality, anything like it? It's a decoration that changes nothing. And cannot stop the populists once they made it into the duo.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, myata said:

Oh come on. It's not about "has seats" but what they reflect. Do they reflect any reality, anything like it? It's a decoration that changes nothing. And cannot stop the populists once they made it into the duo.

I'm not trying to debate whatever your theory is. I'm just adding historical context. Parties emerge, merge, surge...

Nothing lasts forever, you said it yourself in the op. And I'm bringing with that part. 

 

Maybe you should flush out a little more clearly What the problem with all of this is? Is it that the powers that be have have now Co-opted democracy? 

If so... How is the binary nature of what is coming up related to that?  

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Parties emerge, merge, surge...

I would argue that parties in a majority system is are not genuine parliamentary parties. A party in a democracy is not just a community of a certain political interest but also a correct and fair relationship between the power given to it relative to its actual support in the society. From this perspective, these aren't regular parties in a parliamentary democracy. They do not compete on equal terms. They are not represented anywhere near accurately and fairly. They are the duo of management corporations that drastically limit the voters meaningful choice, down to absolute bare minimum.

There was a reason for it, certainly. But it existed in the 17th century. The time has moved on since.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

I would argue that parties in a majority system is are not genuine parliamentary parties. A party in a democracy is not just a community of a certain political interest but also a correct and fair relationship between the power given to it relative to its actual support in the society. From this perspective, these aren't regular parties in a parliamentary democracy. They do not compete on equal terms. They are not represented anywhere near accurately and fairly. They are the duo of management corporations that drastically limit the voters meaningful choice, down to absolute bare minimum.

There was a reason for it, certainly. But it existed in the 17th century. The time has moved on since.

Okay, what are the differences they represented then versus now?

[myata]

Back then, masses were mostly clueless about politics. Quite possibly, it was the only form of political system that could be functional while having some democratic legitimacy. Otherwise, people would be electing gang bosses, priests and generals, etc.

And now, it just doesn't represent the society, only caricature, grossly simplified and distorted image. It creates divisions, skews the entire point of democratic governance from focusing on and addressing key interests and problems of the society to winning pageant contests. And they are helpless to populism and worse, once it makes it into the system. All facts, as seen. A desperately outdated system without a renewal will deteriorate and decay all the way to the factual end of democracy. Inability or failure to adapt means degradation and extinction. No miracles.

Nothing lasts forever in the entropy world. All things that keep working require reason, care, and work.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, well as per your description it's not a straight line down.  The masses weren't involved, in the same way.  It could lead to an awakening