Daryl wrote:Interesting information. I know that this is about the US and I'm not trying to hijack it, but our recent experiences may be helpful. We had a number of years of minority progressive government where all decisions had to be vetted by several independents in both houses. The current situation has the lower house controlled by the conservatives, but the upper house still requires the support of independents to pass legislation.
Generally speaking this had led to good governance. The party politicians naturally hate it as they can't pork barrel or rubber stamp stuff. When everything is debated and vetted under public scrutiny the people have some influence. Despite some Haven Dolist concerns, generally the people have proved to be reasonably sensible. When a proposal has to be debated publically over time rather than decided in a party back room before rubber stamping, the people through opinion polls can influence things.
General consensus is that when one party controls all levels they have too much power, so put in a few independents. I should mention that party discipline here is quite rigid and very few cross the floor to vote against their party as it is career limiting.
This is the type of situation the US voters are trying for when they vote for divided government. The structure of our governmental system is different, so we don't do it by the same process but we are trying for the same outcome.
Because of how things are currently structured, it is very difficult for anyone to be elected who is not part of the major parties. However our party discipline is usually a lot weaker than yours, so when the system is working as the voters wish, the centrists in both parties perform the same function as your independents. When the government is divided it is the centrists who take the lead negotiating between the parties.
Currently the system is not working well. Our executive is a lot more independent of party discipline than yours is and Obama isn't the negotiating type. It has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican, it's his personality. He is an true believing ideologue who views Republicans as the Evil Empire. The I am a Saint and they are Evil problem was compounded by the fact the the press treated him like Christ reborn and the Noble prize committee gave him the peace prize just for existing. The problem is compounded by the fact that he surrounds himself with yes men who tell him what he wants to hear instead of what reality is. As a result, negotiations of the type you are describing won't be able to take place until a new president is in office.
We also have a problem with Harry Reid, our negotiating system depends in part on the ability of the party members to break with the party line. He has managed through fund raising etc etc to establish unprecedented party discipline in the Senate. However, Senators from swing states who voted with him on his hardline liberal agenda against their better judgement are no longer Senators. Fortunately for us the voters, swing state senators who weren't up for reelection in 2014 seem to have learned from those who lost and are looking for ways to demonstrate their independence from the party's leadership (swing state voters like politicians who publicly oppose the Washington establishment, whichever party they belong to). So hopefully they'll start acting like independents again. Fortunately for us the voters McConnell doesn't seem to have achieved the same level of party control on the Republican side and the Republican mavericks feel free to vote the way they think best.
