Rising Political Extremism in East Germany Signals a Deepening Divide

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

Very squirrelly response which ignores the point that in 1929 this same German state voted in a politically extreme party which ended up having devastating consequences for Germany, and 100 years later they are doing the same thing again as if they have forgotten the lessons of history.

 

No, it didn't. As I said, in 1929 Thuringia voted  mostly for the SPD, 32.3%. The NSDAP came in third with only 11.29%.

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thüringer_Landtag_(Weimarer_Republik)

 

The reason the NSDAP was able to participate in government in 1929 was a backdoor coalition deal. So it was not the voters of Thuringia at fault, they had mostly voted for the SPD, it was the political system that had been put in place. A very similar political system which now again allows parties to make backdoor deals to arrange the state government.

 

This is the history that repeats itself, the main party that got the most votes in 1929, the SPD was ignored in Thuringia, just as in 2024 the party that got the most votes will be ignored in Thurinngia.'

 

[Cameroni]

11 hours ago, Middle Aged Grouch said:

Not surprising, The gang in charge of the EU in Bruxelles is plainly destroying Europe,  with it's identity and culture.

 

Even the moderate voters who never would have dreamed to vote for pro nazi or other far right parties are voting as they are the only ones who are prepared to take appropriate steps to Stop all the migrants comming in. Migrants who very often are involved in heinous crimes or rapes. The sad part is that it is due to a handful of such scum that the entire communities are flagged and given a bad reputation.

 

But the main anger all over Europe is now against America and their sanctions against Russia that are fueling inflation, increasing prices and putting Europe (and the world) in a continuous economic crisis. The only that benefit are those getting the ca$h in Ukraine and those selling the US built weapons all over the place.

 

Let's hope Trump will put and end to the circus, once elected at office ?

 

This is exactly the point, the bulk of the AfD votes are protest votes, because voters are so angry with the mainstream political parties.

 

This is also why a manifest fruitcake association like BSW can get so many votes. These are all protest votes.

 

The reason why the AfD won is because of the incompetence of the main political parties in Germany. If voters were happy with the Linke, CDU or SPD they vote them into power.

[Cameroni]

7 hours ago, RayC said:

 

A matter of opinion of course but I completely disagree. 

 

In the case of the UK, the recently elected Labour government gained 33% of the votes cast, but won 63% of the parliamentary constituencies. How is that fair and democratic?

 

That's different, the UK uses FPTP only for the lower house.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's different, the UK uses FPTP only for the lower house.

 

That has absolutely no bearing on the point which I made i.e that FPTP is undemocratic.

 

The UK government is formed by the party which wins an overall majority in the lower house (House of Commons). Fortunately, the upper house (House of Lords) only has delaying powers, as election to it is even more undemocratic: it is by appointment. 

 

Not since 1935 has a government in the UK won a majority of the vote. You are evading the issue i.e. that the FPTP is undemocratic.

[Cameroni]

18 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

That has absolutely no bearing on the point which I made i.e that FPTP is undemocratic.

 

The UK government is formed by the party which wins an overall majority in the lower house (House of Commons). Fortunately, the upper house (House of Lords) only has delaying powers, as election to it is even more undemocratic: it is by appointment. 

 

Not since 1935 has a government in the UK won a majority of the vote. You are evading the issue i.e. that the FPTP is undemocratic.

 

Why would the party who got the most votes being able to form the government be undemocratic?

[RayC]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Why would the party who got the most votes being able to form the government be undemocratic?

 

Are you trolling? 

 

Why don't you address my original question directly? How is it fair and democratic that a party which wins 34% of the vote gains 63% of the seats in parliament? 

 

In the case of this election in Thuringer, imo as the party which won the largest share of the vote, the AfD should be given the opportunity to form a coalition government. However, as that the other parties have already declared that they will not work with the AfD, an AfD-led government will not occur. Given this, another solution will have to be found.

 

As I stated previously, it is the prerogative of each individual party to decide who it will - or will not - work with. There is nothing undemocratic about this process. 

 

Do you believe that the other parties should be forced to work with the AfD?

[Cameroni]

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Are you trolling? 

 

Why don't you address my original question directly? How is it fair and democratic that a party which wins 34% of the vote gains 63% of the seats in parliament? 

 

In the case of this election in Thuringer, imo as the party which won the largest share of the vote, the AfD should be given the opportunity to form a coalition government. However, as that the other parties have already declared that they will not work with the AfD, an AfD-led government will not occur. Given this, another solution will have to be found.

 

As I stated previously, it is the prerogative of each individual party to decide who it will - or will not - work with. There is nothing undemocratic about this process. 

 

Do you believe that the other parties should be forced to work with the AfD?

Of course it's undemocratic for parties that are supposed to be vehicles for governing to blockade the will of the people by refusing to work with the party that got the most votes. The net result here will be that those voters who formed the largest voting block, who effectively won the  election in Thuringia, will have their vote effectively mean nothing. Not because another party won more votes, but because other parties simply refuse to follow the normal political and democratic process. How is this not undemocratic?

 

Are you trolling? What the hell are you talking about getting 63% of the seats? The AfD is getting 32 seats. Nowhere near 63%.

 

Why don't you answer the question, why would FPTP, which is used in countless countries, including Canada, the USA and the UK be "undemocratic"?

 

25 minutes ago, RayC said:

Do you believe that the other parties should be forced to work with the AfD?

 

That would obviously not work, however, there should be very severe financial penalties for parties that engage in this undemocratic and obnoxious behaviour of blocking the democratic process by refusing to engage in even negotiations. This is a clearly undemocratic and odious form of behaviour which should be sanctioned.

[RayC]

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Of course it's undemocratic for parties that are supposed to be vehicles for governing to blockade the will of the people by refusing to work with the party that got the most votes.

 

 

🤦Where to begin?

 

So you believe that Party 'A' which, for example, campaigns on a platform of lower taxation and lower public spending and then finishes second in an election behind Party 'B', which had campaigned on a diametrically opposite policy platform, should be forced to form a government with Party B? 

 

It doesn't work in theory and it is even less likely to work in practice.

 

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

The net result here will be that those voters who formed the largest voting block, who effectively won the  election in Thuringia, will have their vote effectively mean nothing.

 

 

Absolutely and utter cods, not least because the voters in Thuringia were well aware before they cast their votes, that the other parties would not collaborate with the AfD.

 

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not because another party won more votes, but because other parties simply refuse to follow the normal political and democratic process. How is this not undemocratic?

 

There is nothing normal about forcing political parties to work together if they do not wish to. THAT is anti-democratic.

 

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Are you trolling? What the hell are you talking about getting 63% of the seats? The AfD is getting 32 seats. Nowhere near 63%.

 

 

You stated that you favoured FPTP. I showed that there is, more often than not, a 'democratic deficit' attached to such systems. I used the example of the latest UK general election - where the Labour Party polled 33% of the vote but won 66% of the parliamentary seats - to illustrate my point. This was made very clear in my previous post.

 

You are either trolling or being deliberately obtuse because you know that your argument is inherently flawed.

 

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Why don't you answer the question, why would FPTP, which is used in countless countries, including Canada, the USA and the UK be "undemocratic"?

 

Already answered in previous paragraph and posts.

 

(Please don't mention the House of Lords again. It is completely irrelevant, not least because it is an unelected chamber).

 

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

That would obviously not work, however, there should be very severe financial penalties for parties that engage in this undemocratic and obnoxious behaviour of blocking the democratic process by refusing to engage in even negotiations. This is a clearly undemocratic and odious form of behaviour which should be sanctioned.

 

This is clearly nonsense which deserves to be sanctioned.

[Cameroni]

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

So you believe that Party 'A' which, for example, campaigns on a platform of lower taxation and lower public spending and then finishes second in an election behind Party 'B', which had campaigned on a diametrically opposite policy platform, should be forced to form a government with Party B? 

 

 

Of course not, but all parties have differing platforms by definition. When parties from the outset deny even the possibility of entering into meetings any form of compromise is made impossible from the outset. This kind of behaviour should be penalised.

 

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

Absolutely and utter cods, not least because the voters in Thuringia were well aware before they cast their votes, that the other parties would not collaborate with the AfD.

 

If the voters counted on the AfD getting an absoulte majority then and only then they have a grievance? Come on.

 

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

You stated that you favoured FPTP. I showed that there is, more often than not, a 'democratic deficit' attached to such systems. I used the example of the latest UK general election - where the Labour Party polled 33% of the vote but won 66% of the parliamentary seats - to illustrate my point. This was made very clear in my previous post.

 

The point is moot in the UK because in May 2011, there was a UK-wide referendum on whether to bring in an alternative voting (AV) system instead of first-past-the-post. It was known as the AV referendum. However, nearly 68 percent were against introducing AV. So the Brits want FPTP and decided to keep it. 

 

 

[RayC]

40 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Of course not, but all parties have differing platforms by definition. When parties from the outset deny even the possibility of entering into meetings any form of compromise is made impossible from the outset. This kind of behaviour should be penalised.

 

I still do not understand the problem.

 

Political parties are often criticised - quite rightly - for being less than forthcoming about how they would govern if elected. The SPD, CDU and Greens made clear that they would not enter into a coalition with the AfD. It is as much a declaration of policy as one which says we will cut taxes. If any of these parties were to now enter into government with the AfD, they would be betraying their voters.

 

40 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

If the voters counted on the AfD getting an absoulte majority then and only then they have a grievance? Come on.

 

Yes, given the stated policy of the other parties.

 

40 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

The point is moot in the UK because in May 2011, there was a UK-wide referendum on whether to bring in an alternative voting (AV) system instead of first-past-the-post. It was known as the AV referendum. However, nearly 68 percent were against introducing AV. So the Brits want FPTP and decided to keep it. 

 

 

 

The fact that the UK electorate voted against introducing PR does not make FPTP any more democratic.

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

I still do not understand the problem.

 

The problem is that the voting process should decide who gets to form the state government. Not some deals in some back rooms where politicians negotiate in secret. It just does not take account of the will of the voters. Clearly, the majority of voters in Thuringia wanted the AfD to form the state government. For those who lost the elections and got far less votes, to turn around and refuse to even negotiate with the party who won the vote, that's just undemocratic and there should be sanctions for that.

 

It would be easy to fix, whenver parties refuse from the outset to negotiate in good faith, the party that is the victim of such chicanery should automatically get the right to form the state government.

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

The fact that the UK electorate voted against introducing PR does not make FPTP any more democratic.

 

Well, the very vast majority of the people of the UK voted to retain FPTP. 

 

But anyway, let's look at why some claim FPTP is undemocratic. The main gripe is that with FPTP seats won do not accurately reflect the voting percentage. However, it is clearly more important to allow the party that won the most votes to form the government, to ensure the will of majority, even the simple majority, carries the day. A completely accurate correspondence of seats and voting percentage is far less important.

 

What is the alternative? That the majority of votes will just be thrown in the garbage, like happened with the SPD in 1929 and in 2024 will happen with the AfD. To completely disregard the will of the majority is far more serious than a lack of perfect corespondence between seats and voting percentage.

 

The British got it absolutely right when they retained FPTP.

[RayC]

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

The problem is that the voting process should decide who gets to form the state government. Not some deals in some back rooms where politicians negotiate in secret. It just does not take account of the will of the voters. Clearly, the majority of voters in Thuringia wanted the AfD to form the state government. For those who lost the elections and got far less votes, to turn around and refuse to even negotiate with the party who won the vote, that's just undemocratic and there should be sanctions for that.

 

It would be easy to fix, whenver parties refuse from the outset to negotiate in good faith, the party that is the victim of such chicanery should automatically get the right to form the state government.

 

Well, the very vast majority of the people of the UK voted to retain FPTP. 

 

But anyway, let's look at why some claim FPTP is undemocratic. The main gripe is that with FPTP seats won do not accurately reflect the voting percentage. However, it is clearly more important to allow the party that won the most votes to form the government, to ensure the will of majority, even the simple majority, carries the day. A completely accurate correspondence of seats and voting percentage is far less important.

 

What is the alternative? That the majority of votes will just be thrown in the garbage, like happened with the SPD in 1929 and in 2024 will happen with the AfD. To completely disregard the will of the majority is far more serious than a lack of perfect corespondence between seats and voting percentage.

 

The British got it absolutely right when they retained FPTP.

 

The point is that the AfD (or the UK Labour Party) did NOT win the majority of the votes cast. If they had then there should be no argument, they should form the government. The fact is that the majority of voters did NOT vote for AfD (or Labour).

 

As the party which gained the largest share of the vote, the AfD should be given the first chance to form a government. They cannot because other parties refuse to work with them. You believe that these parties should be forced to talk to the AfD, I do not.

 

As I stated in the first paragraph, the AfD did NOT win the majority of the votes. Therefore, it follows that it is factually incorrect to suggest that the will of the majority is being disregarded.

 

You favour FPTP. I do not. We disagree.

 

It is pointless to continue this discussion as we are going round in circles.

[Cameroni]

15 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The point is that the AfD (or the UK Labour Party) did NOT win the majority of the votes cast. If they had then there should be no argument, they should form the government. The fact is that the majority of voters did NOT vote for AfD (or Labour).

 

As the party which gained the largest share of the vote, the AfD should be given the first chance to form a government. They cannot because other parties refuse to work with them. You believe that these parties should be forced to talk to the AfD, I do not.

 

As I stated in the first paragraph, the AfD did NOT win the majority of the votes. Therefore, it follows that it is factually incorrect to suggest that the will of the majority is being disregarded.

 

You favour FPTP. I do not. We disagree.

 

It is pointless to continue this discussion as we are going round in circles.

Yes, they did. The AfD just won a simple majority, not an absolute one. But it was still the majority of the votes.

 

That's what I'm saying, even if a party just gets a simple majority they should just have the right to form the government. First past the post wins. All this wheeling and dealing is disgraceful, anything that comes out of such bazaar politics is nothing good.

 

If the CDU does form a patchwork coalition with extremists like BSW and the Linke it would be a disgrace, and it would certainly mean that the will of those who won the vote, the AfD voters, will be totally disregarded. I do not see this as democratic at all.

 

 

Edited September 4 by Cameroni