Serbia barely had a second party, as far as I could see (from Croatia). Yeah, there was some opposition, but very few had any sincere trust in it, incomparably fewer than the number of Americans who actually like and support Democrats. The Student List tapped into this vacuum.
And European democracies are generally a bit more loose with having newcomer parties being at least somewhat viable, for better and for worse (AfD, UKIP…). The US electoral system just erases 3rd parties wholesale, it’s particularly abysmal.
Btw, the Student List is not terribly left-leaning. They’re trying to be “apolitical”, in order to attract both the left and the right.
It’s great that that worked. Was this groundswell a risk which now replaces half of a two-party system, or do they use ballots which make third-party support safe?
It was more of a question about this recent election. Was it first-past-the-post? Because if it is and they don’t fix that, they will be incorporated into a two-party system. Those don’t emerge because anyone wanted one.
They have proportional representation according to Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
The 250 members of the National Assembly are elected by closed-list proportional representation from a single nationwide constituency. Eligible voters vote for electoral lists, on which the candidates of the accepted lists are present. A maximum of 250 candidates could be present on a single electoral list.
Well the great thing about winning with a party that actually wants to change the system (if they do) is that regardless of whether it was FPTP before, it doesn’t have to be in the future.
Yeeeah a lot of third parties don’t seem aware that this is a thing to fix. Winning makes them even less likely to consider systemic change. It worked for them - what’s the problem?
Well, if the reason it “worked for them” is because they had promised electoral reform, then they could easily lose their support by breaking that promise.
In this specific situation, the coalition is very fragile without a clear ideological direction. It’s very possible that it will break apart, and so it’s in their interest to enact reforms that would allow smaller parties to hold influence.
Do you have historical examples to support that claim, btw? You say “a lot of third parties” but which ones?
Notably, this election was not won by the Serbian equivalent of “blue no matter who.” It was won by the equivalent of a third party.
It wasn’t one of the existing opposition parties that did it.
Hungary was also won by a new party (though the leader came from Fidesz), not the existing, discredited opposition.
Serbia barely had a second party, as far as I could see (from Croatia). Yeah, there was some opposition, but very few had any sincere trust in it, incomparably fewer than the number of Americans who actually like and support Democrats. The Student List tapped into this vacuum.
And European democracies are generally a bit more loose with having newcomer parties being at least somewhat viable, for better and for worse (AfD, UKIP…). The US electoral system just erases 3rd parties wholesale, it’s particularly abysmal.
Btw, the Student List is not terribly left-leaning. They’re trying to be “apolitical”, in order to attract both the left and the right.
It’s great that that worked. Was this groundswell a risk which now replaces half of a two-party system, or do they use ballots which make third-party support safe?
We will have to see what sort of reforms they make. I’ll be following it closely
It was more of a question about this recent election. Was it first-past-the-post? Because if it is and they don’t fix that, they will be incorporated into a two-party system. Those don’t emerge because anyone wanted one.
They have proportional representation according to Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Well the great thing about winning with a party that actually wants to change the system (if they do) is that regardless of whether it was FPTP before, it doesn’t have to be in the future.
Yeeeah a lot of third parties don’t seem aware that this is a thing to fix. Winning makes them even less likely to consider systemic change. It worked for them - what’s the problem?
Well, if the reason it “worked for them” is because they had promised electoral reform, then they could easily lose their support by breaking that promise.
In this specific situation, the coalition is very fragile without a clear ideological direction. It’s very possible that it will break apart, and so it’s in their interest to enact reforms that would allow smaller parties to hold influence.
Do you have historical examples to support that claim, btw? You say “a lot of third parties” but which ones?