Singapore election: Governing party secures decisive win

[garbon]

Meh, I think it's easily possible for a democratic state to run fair elections and have the same people/party win over-and-over.  Especially if they run the country successfully, keep the economy in good shape, and enforce rule of law.  We may not think of Singapore being all that enlightened as a society, and the laws as overly harsh, but I don't doubt that most of the people there probably think the government serves them well.

Well and also you end up with the machinery on your side. How else to explain how say Pelosi has remained in office so long?

[The Larch]

It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.

I think Japan also had a multi-decade period when voters chose the same party over and over, from the 50s to the 90s.  Can't deny that it is a democracy because of that though.

Singapore - I agree the system is unfair, but only to an extent.  The fact remains that voters can choose alternatives but they didn't.

I don't claim to know enough of the Japanese situation, but indeed a 1955-93 period of uninterrupted government by the same party is hugely worrying. At least in Japan there has been alternance in power since then (although very short lived, LDP lost power in 93, recovered it in 96, lost it again in 2009 and recovered it again in 2012) and the LDP never had such an overwhelming grip of power like the case in Singapore (it never had more than 59% of the votes and their parlamentary majorities were not as crushing).

Being a democracy is more than ocasionally casting a vote, and in the case of Singapore obviously the ruling clique has rigged the system to their advantage and are not going to allow a real opposition to challenge them.

[The Larch]

It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.

Is Mexico aware of how you feel about their history from 1929 until 2000?

The PRI for most of the XXth century is not exactly a shining beacon of fairness either. :p I mean, when you call yourself "Revolutionary Institutional Party" it's plainly obvious that you're not exactly big on coherence. 

[Syt]

The PRI for most of the XXth century is not exactly a shining beacon of fairness either. :p I mean, when you call yourself "Revolutionary Institutional Party" it's plainly obvious that you're not exactly big on coherence. 

Were their institutions revolutionary? Or did they institutionalize revolution?

[The Larch]

The PRI for most of the XXth century is not exactly a shining beacon of fairness either. :p I mean, when you call yourself "Revolutionary Institutional Party" it's plainly obvious that you're not exactly big on coherence. 

Were their institutions revolutionary? Or did they institutionalize revolution?

It was founded as "Partido Nacional Revolucionario" in 1929, in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution. In 1938 is was renamed as "Partido de la Revolución Mexicana" and then in 1946 it adopted its current name. They held power continuously during that whole period. It was basically the political body that the winners of the revolution created to create stability and keep the peace between their different factions (it was created after Álvaro Obregón, a general during the revolution and president of México afterwards, was assasinated in 1928 by a radical catholic while in charge).

[Admiral Yi]

Dude has freakishly long fingers.

[Syt]

He's popular with the ladies.

[Martinus]

He's popular with the ladies.

[Zanza]

One party state keeps electing the same party over and over. News at 11.

Singapore is many things, but the actual voting is clean.  Voters can choose alternative parties if they want to.

It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.

Bavaria has been ruled by one party since 1957 and it surely is a democracy.

[Valmy]

The PRI for most of the XXth century is not exactly a shining beacon of fairness either. :p I mean, when you call yourself "Revolutionary Institutional Party" it's plainly obvious that you're not exactly big on coherence. 

Were their institutions revolutionary? Or did they institutionalize revolution?

The latter.

[Habbaku]

One party state keeps electing the same party over and over. News at 11.

Singapore is many things, but the actual voting is clean.  Voters can choose alternative parties if they want to.

It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.

Bavaria has been ruled by one party since 1957 and it surely is a democracy.

Yep.  I tend to view the true test of a democracy as seeing a peaceful transition of power--holding power for that long might be a red flag, but it's not a guarantee of a rigged system.

[Razgovory]

Meh, I think it's easily possible for a democratic state to run fair elections and have the same people/party win over-and-over.  Especially if they run the country successfully, keep the economy in good shape, and enforce rule of law.  We may not think of Singapore being all that enlightened as a society, and the laws as overly harsh, but I don't doubt that most of the people there probably think the government serves them well.

Well and also you end up with the machinery on your side. How else to explain how say Pelosi has remained in office so long?

Because she is a talented politician that you just happen to be jealous of.

[garbon]

No, I don't think a) that's true as I can't think of what she has that I'd want (well maybe more money than me) and b) theoretical jealousy would have no impact on why she has stayed in office so long.

To expand upon what I was saying, it is rare that she ever gets less than 80% of the vote. Says something about the viability of opposing candidates.

[Eddie Teach]

Bavaria has been ruled by one party since 1957 and it surely is a democracy.

Regions are a different matter. Bavaria has been ruled by the opposition from Bonn and Berlin, so there's little reason to switch just because the grass is greener. Also, parties tend to find an equilibrium nationally, but that often leaves particular regions firmly in one camp or the other.

[The Larch]

One party state keeps electing the same party over and over. News at 11.

Singapore is many things, but the actual voting is clean.  Voters can choose alternative parties if they want to.

It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.

Bavaria has been ruled by one party since 1957 and it surely is a democracy.

Yep.  I tend to view the true test of a democracy as seeing a peaceful transition of power--holding power for that long might be a red flag, but it's not a guarantee of a rigged system.

And it would not be the first time that Bavaria is called a one party region. 

In Spain we have Andalucía and PSOE, they've been ruling there since 1982, 1978 if you count the pre-autonomy governments. They've been teetering to get kicked out for a couple of times but they have a real iron clad grip on power there.