<story><title>Iceland, a land of Vikings, braces for a Pirate Party takeover</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/pwa/#https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-a-land-of-vikings-braces-for-a-pirate-party-takeover/2016/10/23/f1bfe992-9540-11e6-9cae-2a3574e296a6_story.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mseebach</author><text>&amp;gt; In America, as has so often been proven, the system is rigged to prevent alternatives to the established parties.&lt;p&gt;But the difference is that the parties in the US and the UK aren&amp;#x27;t very powerful in their own regard. Trump wasn&amp;#x27;t even a member of the republican party until very recently, and he won the nomination -- and Sanders forced Clinton very far to the left before dropping out.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the leaders of european parties are mostly selected through opaque backroom deals and yet are very powerful (through &amp;quot;party discipline&amp;quot;, another throughly undemocratic concept, all but unheard of in UK&amp;#x2F;US parties). Policy is made by these leaders (or their appointed nominees) meeting each other and negotiating a compromise, and then (except in very rare cases) &lt;i&gt;every&lt;/i&gt; MP of the parties in this negotiation defends in the media it as a solid and credible response to the issues faced by the country (despite, often to great hilarity, the compromise being orthogonal to several very firm positions and red lines drawn by that very same politician just days before) and then votes for it.&lt;p&gt;The mechanism for this power is that few individual MP carry their own seat, they&amp;#x27;re assigned proportionally, according to the national share of votes won by the party. Party leadership wields significant influence over who runs where (especially who runs in &amp;quot;safe&amp;quot; seats), and thus who gets in. MPs who cause too much trouble will find themselves campaigning in a difficult district, or next to a more popular&amp;#x2F;well-known candidate.</text></item><item><author>aedron</author><text>This kind of change could only happen in Europe, due to the multi-party system. In America, as has so often been proven, the system is rigged to prevent alternatives to the established parties.&lt;p&gt;I honestly believe this proves the superiority of this system, over the American one. The great advantage of democracy is that it provides an avenue for peaceful change, or, if you are more cynical, the appearance of such. This acts as a vent when the people are fed up to their neck with the powers that be - they don&amp;#x27;t have to storm the palaces and chop off heads but can engage in political activity. Unless the political system in the U.S. changes, how long before Americans will have to resort to this?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pjc50</author><text>This answer does not reflect reality in the UK. Party discipline is &lt;i&gt;extremely important&lt;/i&gt; in the UK system, maintained by the &amp;quot;whips&amp;quot;. Few UK MPs carry their own seat as an individual, although good constituency work can be worth a few thousand votes. One or two have managed to run as independents; Peter Law (ex-Labour protesting against all-women shortlists), Richard Taylor (Kidderminster Hospital).&lt;p&gt;Tony Blair was notorious for imposing ideological coherence from the top on the Labour party with pagers in exactly the way you are talking about: MPs were expected to keep exactly to the media line agreed by Blair and Campbell, and hide all dissent to avoid &amp;quot;PARTY SPLIT&amp;quot; headlines.&lt;p&gt;Note how the conservative party managed to campaign against itself for the Brexit referendum and has now seemingly zipped that right up again. Although the three Brexit ministers keep issuing daft announcements that have to be countermanded by the PM (this is called &amp;quot;cabinet collective irresponsibility&amp;quot;).&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s worth comparing UK parliamentary elections with the regional parliament elections, which are all run on different systems with very different results.&lt;p&gt;US parties have traditionally been extremely strong. What has happened is that the US rightwing media &amp;quot;bubble&amp;quot; has taken over doctrine and thrown away the doublespeak. Trump is winning because he can say all the unpleasant things that other Republicans feel they have to dogwhistle or hint at.</text></comment>
<story><title>Iceland, a land of Vikings, braces for a Pirate Party takeover</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/pwa/#https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-a-land-of-vikings-braces-for-a-pirate-party-takeover/2016/10/23/f1bfe992-9540-11e6-9cae-2a3574e296a6_story.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mseebach</author><text>&amp;gt; In America, as has so often been proven, the system is rigged to prevent alternatives to the established parties.&lt;p&gt;But the difference is that the parties in the US and the UK aren&amp;#x27;t very powerful in their own regard. Trump wasn&amp;#x27;t even a member of the republican party until very recently, and he won the nomination -- and Sanders forced Clinton very far to the left before dropping out.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the leaders of european parties are mostly selected through opaque backroom deals and yet are very powerful (through &amp;quot;party discipline&amp;quot;, another throughly undemocratic concept, all but unheard of in UK&amp;#x2F;US parties). Policy is made by these leaders (or their appointed nominees) meeting each other and negotiating a compromise, and then (except in very rare cases) &lt;i&gt;every&lt;/i&gt; MP of the parties in this negotiation defends in the media it as a solid and credible response to the issues faced by the country (despite, often to great hilarity, the compromise being orthogonal to several very firm positions and red lines drawn by that very same politician just days before) and then votes for it.&lt;p&gt;The mechanism for this power is that few individual MP carry their own seat, they&amp;#x27;re assigned proportionally, according to the national share of votes won by the party. Party leadership wields significant influence over who runs where (especially who runs in &amp;quot;safe&amp;quot; seats), and thus who gets in. MPs who cause too much trouble will find themselves campaigning in a difficult district, or next to a more popular&amp;#x2F;well-known candidate.</text></item><item><author>aedron</author><text>This kind of change could only happen in Europe, due to the multi-party system. In America, as has so often been proven, the system is rigged to prevent alternatives to the established parties.&lt;p&gt;I honestly believe this proves the superiority of this system, over the American one. The great advantage of democracy is that it provides an avenue for peaceful change, or, if you are more cynical, the appearance of such. This acts as a vent when the people are fed up to their neck with the powers that be - they don&amp;#x27;t have to storm the palaces and chop off heads but can engage in political activity. Unless the political system in the U.S. changes, how long before Americans will have to resort to this?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>cabalamat</author><text>&amp;gt; But the difference is that the parties in the US and the UK aren&amp;#x27;t very powerful in their own regard. Trump wasn&amp;#x27;t even a member of the republican party until very recently, and he won the nomination -- and Sanders forced Clinton very far to the left before dropping out.&lt;p&gt;True in the US, not true in the UK -- May and Corbyn had been MPs and members of their parties for years before becoming leader.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &amp;quot;party discipline&amp;quot;, another throughly undemocratic concept, all but unheard of in UK&amp;#x2F;US parties&lt;p&gt;Again, not true in the UK</text></comment>