6

10 comments

[–] Boukert 3 points (+3|-0) Edited
[–] TheRedArmy 2 points (+2|-0)

From the animal party Wiki page -

The party does consider itself to be a testimonial party, which does not seek to gain political power, but only to testify to its beliefs and thereby influence other parties.

It's a completely foreign concept to me. I mean, I understand it just fine, but the idea of any party here trying to pull that off...it just wouldn't happen. Having a two-party system rather than a coalition system, though, probably skews perception a bit.

[–] Boukert 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

Our politics are way more based on cooperation then yours. There have been plenty of initiatives proposed to our parliament by opposition parties the last 4 years for example. They got approved because they where good plans that could carry majority support

Also if you dont like a party you voted for, you have alternatives in your spectrum instead of having to make a 180

As shown by the left voters in NL, They abandoned Labor and went to Greens and Liberals who share similar vision but with other nuances.

[–] TheRedArmy 2 points (+2|-0)

I would much prefer that kind of system to what we have now. I rather like the idea of having many more voices in the room, and making it so that a vote for something outside the main two doesn't feel like a waste.

I need to consider it more, but I think I have more faith in a democratic structure set up more like ones in Europe than the near complete lack of faith I have for the one we have here in the US.

[–] Skyrock [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

There are several such splinter parties in Europe. Germany, for example, had for a long while the bizarre Autofahrerpartei (Motorist Party) that didn't actually seek for or expect political power, but just lobby for the interests of people who drive cars.