Display:
The contrast being with the British system where the leader of a 20% party, elected himself in one particular district, can hold considerable power by providing a coalition with either of the other two 40% parties...

There is no significant difference with the British system here: both are FPTP, and both could in theory keep even a 20% party outside Parliament. What makes Britain (or if I want to be more precise, England) different is two things.

One is the strong geographic differences in the vote, the strong local traditions behind one party or the other: a 15% national vote for LibDem could mean 50% vote in some districts.

The other is the reason why three parties with long-running traditions can exist: the historical two-party system of Liberals and Conservatives could be modified due to the dual impact of WWI and a massive expansion of the circle of voters, among whom Labour found a foothold.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 11:19:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought the difference was that Blair is actually only elected by his local district, while the French President is elected by the whole country.

Bush or Chirac can be voted out by the nation as a whole, while still keeping their respective parties in office, but Blair can't be removed (except by his own small district) unless the country rejects the whole Labour party.

by asdf on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 07:37:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series