Single Party County

Submitted by dweller1 on Sun, 06/21/2009 - 23:10.

I watched the video on cleveland.com on Bob Frost's attempt to speak directly to County Commissioners, where Frost questioned Dimora's ability to rule on stuff, being that everyone and their dead-ancestors round here know where 'ol Jimmy is heading for 5-10 years.

Tim Hagan, deflecting the political hammering from the head of the "de-facto" Republican Party in this city, responded back with something like, "...this isn't North Korea..." harrumph harrumph...(okay i made the harrumph part up).

Interesting....

Single Party State
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A single-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a type of party system government in which a single political party forms the government and no other parties are permitted to run candidates for election. Sometimes the term de facto single-party state is used to describe a dominant-party system where laws or practices prevent the opposition from legally getting power. Some single party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing subordinate allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition such as a popular front. Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over single-party states are often referred to simply as the Party. For example, in reference to the Soviet Union, the Party meant the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; in reference to the former People's Republic of Poland it referred to the Polish United Workers' Party.

A one-party system should not be confused with a non-partisan democracy which prohibits all political parties. Also, some one-party states may allow non-party members to run for legislative seats, as was the case with Taiwan's Tangwai movement in the 1970s and 1980s.

In most cases, single-party states have arisen from Leninist, fascist or nationalist ideologies, particularly in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because one party has had an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.

Where the ruling party subscribes to a form of Marxism-Leninism, the one-party state system is usually called a communist state, though such states do not use that term to describe themselves, adopting instead the title of people's republic, socialist republic or democratic republic. One peculiar example is Cuba, where the role of the Communist Party is enshrined in the constitution, and no party is permitted to campaign or run candidates for election, including the Communist party. Candidates are elected on an individual referendum basis without formal party involvement, though elected assemblies predominantly consist of members of the dominant party alongside non-affiliated candidates.[1]
Contents
Arguments for and against a single party-system

Supporters of a single-party state often appeal to a sense of unity, strength and commonality that a single-party government can lend a state. They argue that multi-party systems introduce too much division and are unsuitable for economic and political development. This argument was particularly popular during the mid-20th century, as many developing nations sought to emulate the Soviet Union, which had transformed itself from a backward, agrarian nation into a superpower.

Proponents also argue that an advantage of a single-party state is the tendency to adopt long-term policies while multi-party states tend to favour short-termist policies for the benefit of periodic elections.

A common counter-argument is that one-party systems have a tendency to become rigid and unwilling to accept change, which renders them unable to deal with new situations and may result in their collapse. This counter-argument became more widely held as the 20th century drew to a close and the Soviet Union and the countries of the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Finally, one-party states have often been criticized for their disrespect towards human rights. However, proponents say that this is only a reflection on the ideology of the party (in most cases being Stalinism) in power, rather than on the system itself.

Democracy, dictatorship and the single-party system

Some do not consider a single party system to be truly democratic. This is due, in part, to the perception that a single party represents a single choice for a voter, which is seen to be no choice at all. While this is often true it is not necessarily the case. For example, under Mussolini's National Fascist Party numerous candidates ran for election in each constituency, albeit under the Fascist Party.

Furthermore, the single-party system is heavily associated with dictatorship. As there is only one party, political power tends to be concentrated solely within the ruling party. As a result it is usually easy for the party in power to disregard previous laws or the constitution of the state, creating a dictatorship consisting of the party. Further contributing to the association of dictatorship and the single-party system is the fact that many dictatorships have adopted a single-party system. This may be a means of legitimizing the dictatorship under that nation's constitution, or to present a veneer of democracy to other democratic nations, or the ideology of the party may require that the dictatorship rule "by the will of the people".

Although many dictatorships represent themselves as one-party states, a one party-state is not a requirement of dictatorships. Examples of a dictatorship that is not a one-party state includes military dictatorships wherein the political power resides with the military, who exercise their authority without regard to political parties or elections (such states are commonly no-party states). Other dictators may preside over a system in which political parties are legal and many exist, but the political process is slanted unfairly in favour of the ruling party and political plurality is limited. Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe until the coalition government was a good example of such a system (the dominant party structure).

Examples

The True Whig Party of Liberia is considered the founder of the first single-party state in the world. The party was conceived by the original Black American settlers and their descendants who referred to themselves as Americo-Liberians. Initially, its ideology was heavily influenced by that of the Whig Party in the United States. Over time it morphed into a powerful Masonic Order that ruled every aspect of Liberian society for well over a century until it was overthrown in 1980. While the True Whig Party still exists today, its influence has substantially declined.

Current single-party states

The following list includes the countries that are legally constituted as single-party states as of 2009 and the name of the single party in power:

People's Republic of China (Communist Party of China) - Eight minor parties are acceptable and Hong Kong, Macau are excluded.

Republic of Cuba

Eritrea (People's Front for Democracy and Justice)

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Korean Workers' Party leads the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland)

Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao People's Revolutionary Party leads the Lao Front for National Construction)

Syria Syrian Arab Republic (Baath Party leads the National Progressive Front)

Turkmenistan (Democratic Party of Turkmenistan)

Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Communist Party of Vietnam leads the Vietnamese Fatherland Front)

Sri Lanka (President Mahinda Rajabakshe is currently moving towards unifying all parties to build his war torn county)

 

 

( categories: )

The Scorecard

  Some of us over in Brooklyn Centre wonder who is keeping this great scorecard.  Collect them all and throw them out.  There are so many people who OWE their careers to Jimmy...the list just keeps on growing and growing. 

Who does this leave worth voting for in the fall-- Voto Nulo?
 

Hagan was referring to

 

Hagan was referring to innocent until proven guilty and that Dimmora is initialed to do process. Frost was referring to a state law that calls for public officials under federal investigation to be recused from voting on contracts. They are stubborn and the media is all over them, when the press asked; ‘is this a witch hunt’ Dimmora response was ’clean up’.

All an investigation can do is audit, checking what was paid and then on the work that was performed. Then they can also audit personal finances as well. Anomalies; for instance: not having a job and driving a brand new Mercedes.

The buying of the Breuer was the tipping point, lots of little kickbacks and perks, lead into bigger ideas.

It is all like a really slippery slope now, the convention center project was pushed on the population. But everything big in this city requires a fight, it has always been that way.

The republican alternative would create eleven votes to approve and then what; six would have to be in somebody’s pocket instead of three. Actually two since it only requires two votes for the commission to spend to its limits.

What does the law say on raising the tax to fund projects in the county? I am sure it is a quarter of a percentage, up to a set limit defined in Ohio law.

Frost looks like a GQ model, he is modestly tenacious standing up to the commissioners. They thwarted him. If Dimmora is charged they say he will not be voting.

Back to square one…focus on this because the districting done correctly could define budget segments and then assign costs and related results within those districts. (idealy)

I see this problem in the collection of types of people as being thought of as desirable, it is not. Voting blocks are really only useful to the politician attempting to manipulate them. Ideally diversity over a larger area makes for a pool of people that potentially have a broader range of knowledge.

Districting on townships combines geographically continuous areas that can be consolidated functionally. The budgets could be tracked within those districts to seek out opportunities in efficiency. Related to economy of scale. Then also tax bases over larger district would offer diversity, then developing those to balance the tax bases within each district.

A district representative could be a recorder and auditor for a district, and be the facilitator to combine and research the combining of functions within their district. They would be accountable to a chief executive and the council they would be a member of. They would collectively define activity with districts with interaction within the municipalities that exist within the individual districts.

It all would require one common government software application and a central data warehouse. That all municipalities could use, that’s efficient, isn’t it?