One of the great advantages of democracy is that it allows for completely peaceful switches of who is in power. However, in my mind, some switches of power is also a necessity.

If a country is a democracy by the law of the land and has free, just, and secret elections within reasonable time spans, but one party keeps control of Parliament and the Cabinet decade after decade, I do not think it is a democracy in the true sense of the word. This one party would have all the power, and absolute power corrupts.

Would you agree with me on this? If so, how long should people allow this one party to stay in power, before they should vote for someone else, just for the sake of democracy? Is it possible to establish some kind of rule of thumb for the longest time a single party should be allowed to stay in power in a democracy?

I am not a fan of legislated term limits, I am just searching for arguments for and against voting against a party that has been in power for a very long time.

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I'm pretty sure most here are smarter than me on this subject but it seems to me that if the party in question is in line with your political views then there'll hardly be any arguments for voting against the party? If there is then it seems the system itself is suspect and then you'd be looking for arguments for and against a system, not "for or against voting against a party".

For those who live in a democracy, they should look first to themselves as responsible for their institutions of government. Democracy is government by the people. In theory, it is a representative form of government; but, in practice, it seldom is representative of the true will of the governed. It has been described as government by committee in which the chairman has his own agenda. At its best, it is rule by the popular majority, however wrong-headed. To work, a democracy requires an educated populace and an informed electorate - how else are the citizenry to fulfill the responsibilities of self-government? - how else shall they know how to vote? Indeed, it is a fundamental failure of democratic principle when elections are determined by apathy and ignorance. And who but fools can complain that their vote doesn’t count when they don’t vote? What is the value of the franchise but its exercise? But then who is to criticize them their decision? - who is to say that they are wrong or right? - who is to judge when every man is the final arbiter of the way, the truth and the light? It is fitting that, in a democracy, the people should have the government they deserve.

There are always hard-core followers of different political parties. My question actually does not concern them. It is more of an issue regarding the swing voters or voters who are not that sure what to vote for. These voters are usually the ones who determine the outcome of elections, anyway.

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

i dont have a probelm with moderate dems, but if they are too liberal i dont see how they get elected

__________________
[IMG]http://i7.tinypic.com/21km139.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i7.tinypic.com/21km35g.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i7.tinypic.com/21km640.gif[/IMG]

Our democracy is only representative, which generally means we do not decide anything, we only decide who decide anything. For a representative (false) democracy to work, those we vote for must hold their promises; which they of course don't.

A norwegian minister and leader for the Socialist Left party, promised loads, which she now said she didn't. She also promised her resignation by 2008 if she hadn't given full daycare coverage. I can't wait.

Democracy has become all about promising the best, and give the impression that they'll follow it through, and then if you get power... find an excuse. Democracy has become like selling commercials. Make up the biggest lie.

__________________
[I]It is dangerous to be right in matters where the established society is wrong.[/I]

[I]God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos: He will set them above their betters.[/I]
- Henry Louis Mencken

I disagree.

The representative model that we use (and pretend is actually democratic) is designed to constrain or limit meaningful changes of who is in power. In other words, the system is designed to let you choose "who" you want to represent you, not "how".

In other words, in the immortal words of Henry Ford, you can have any color you want, as long as it is black.

I think Henry's words apply equally well to our representative model of government.

In other words, switches of government are mostly irrelevant. The status quo of elite rule is protected and continues.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

I did write "switches of who is in power".

However, I believe your quote by Henry Ford is an exageration. I firmly believe switches of who is in power can make a difference. It takes long time, at least a decade, the people in charge of the new order must be determined to make a change, and the voters must give them the chance to do this.

Margaret Thatcher was PM for eleven and a half years. One may think anything about her politics, but she really made a difference.

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Not even on this part democratic people can boast. More and more it appears they can not get rid of a democratically elected if the latter is motivated enough in clinging to power.
The democratic us did not make the poorest choice after the democratic roosevelt event, limiting by law the number of terms. It helps to keep the face.

I think that one way of getting more democratic elections, is by having an alternative to (special interest) money when it comes to politics; which can be done by publicly financing elections to political office. By not having to make campaign promises (to special interests) in order to obtain money for an election, potential office holders will be more able to keep their campaign promises to the voters who actually cast ballots to vote people into office.