Judge Tanya Chutkan made public portions of a filing by prosecutors setting out their argument for why the case should go forward despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
When only 2 parties take turns ruling the country, the checks and balances don’t really work well when stressed. Because the party that needs to be checked, control half the apparatus, and can disrupt large parts of the other half.
Countries with maybe 10+ parties in parlament like many European countries have, will never have a single party with control of half the apparatus responsible for the checks and balances.
This is a huge reason first past the post is bad for democracy, apart from also not representing the population as fairly as is possible with numerous parties of influence.
This problem permeates throughout the entirety of the system, including the judicial, where judges belong to one or the other party, enabling an imbalance with total control for one party in for instance the supreme court.
With a multi party system, a single party would NOT be able to take control in the way we have seen happen in USA, which obviously shouldn’t be possible, and also doesn’t help to prevent corruption.
Four states don’t use first-past-the-post for legislative elections. In particular:
Alaska - uses a top-4 primary + ranked choice general
Maine - uses ranked choice voting
California & Washington - use top-two primaries (note: CA can be top-3 if there is a tie for 2nd place)
If a third party wanted to succeed, they would put significant resources into winning legislative and congressional seats in those places. I don’t see any of them actually doing that though.
Rcv is “new and scary” peoples resistance to change will always make them shit on things they dont understand. The only solution is to have more of us then there are of them.
There were ads running against it and the arguments were nonsense, but there was nothing from the pro side. It was like they expected* the electorate to just know that it was better and didn’t think a campaign was needed.
Mostly because the progressives didn’t control them in the early 1900s, so they don’t have legislature-bypassing initiatives, and even in states where you do have that, it’s expensive to get one through.
Probably not, they have a nice cozy arrangement where they share the power. To allow multiple parties would mean to give that up, and most likely neither side is really interested in that.
Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?
I learned in school – not sure if this part is entirely accurate but its an interesting idea anyway – that this situation was precisely why there is a ~5% of votes, lower barrier for parties sending representatives in many modern European democracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_threshold
Trying to remember what i learned in history here, i hope i get at least most of it right:
the political institutions of the Weimar republic were not as balanced and protected from interference as in other democracies
many parties were against the existence of the Weimar Republic
they differed a little in what they wanted instead though, ranging from reintroducing the monarchy with a few republican elements, to full fledged socialism
the difference between the parties made finding compromises very difficult and often resulted in stalemates in the legislative, because of missing checks this did not affect the executive as much though
especially the monarchists liked the idea of heaving a leader that can overrule the parliament if needed and so it was easy for Hitler to get them to agree that they would all be better off with him breaking the stalemate so to speak. So they formed a coalition
Those parties also had no qualms with banning other parties just because they disagreed on something, which Hitler was very happy to do, starting with the communists and ending with a complete ban on forming political parties after every serious contender was eliminated
especially the monarchists liked the idea of heaving a leader that can overrule the parliament
I especially noticed this as probably the key practical part in how it was possible.
It’s interesting because I’ve always considered multiple parties to be an important way to protect democracy.
But I guess that ultimately it depends on the people being willing to protect it.
Still having 10 parties represented, makes for a better chance that minority views are represented. And I still believe it helps against corruption and strengthen democracy relative to only 2 parties.
No it’s not the same, Trump is obvious, that’s because of the 2 party system, and first past the post.
And people moronically believed Trump was a vote against the political establishment, and for the minimal state.
When only 2 parties take turns ruling the country, the checks and balances don’t really work well when stressed. Because the party that needs to be checked, control half the apparatus, and can disrupt large parts of the other half.
Countries with maybe 10+ parties in parlament like many European countries have, will never have a single party with control of half the apparatus responsible for the checks and balances.
This is a huge reason first past the post is bad for democracy, apart from also not representing the population as fairly as is possible with numerous parties of influence.
This problem permeates throughout the entirety of the system, including the judicial, where judges belong to one or the other party, enabling an imbalance with total control for one party in for instance the supreme court.
With a multi party system, a single party would NOT be able to take control in the way we have seen happen in USA, which obviously shouldn’t be possible, and also doesn’t help to prevent corruption.
I would love to be able to vote for a true leftist party in America. They will never allow it though.
Four states don’t use first-past-the-post for legislative elections. In particular:
If a third party wanted to succeed, they would put significant resources into winning legislative and congressional seats in those places. I don’t see any of them actually doing that though.
Why don’t more states abandon first-past-the-post?
Massachusetts tried last time and the ballot initiative failed.
Rcv is “new and scary” peoples resistance to change will always make them shit on things they dont understand. The only solution is to have more of us then there are of them.
There were ads running against it and the arguments were nonsense, but there was nothing from the pro side. It was like they expected* the electorate to just know that it was better and didn’t think a campaign was needed.
*Expected, not requested
Mostly because the progressives didn’t control them in the early 1900s, so they don’t have legislature-bypassing initiatives, and even in states where you do have that, it’s expensive to get one through.
So disappointing. I feel like things will never change.
Political change tends to be like that — nothing at all for a long period when you don’t have the power to act, and sudden rapid change when you do.
It feels like we’re on the cusp of something big happening, for better or for worse.
Something worse probably and I am an optimist.
On the upside they could change for the worse. Maybe instead of fair elections the chang is a god king
Because the parties with the power don’t want to, because it might cost them power.
They’re not designed to win, they’re designed to offset whoever they’re turned against.
Probably not, they have a nice cozy arrangement where they share the power. To allow multiple parties would mean to give that up, and most likely neither side is really interested in that.
Do you know how many parties had members in the parliament of the Weimar Republic when Hitler was named Chancellor?
I learned in school – not sure if this part is entirely accurate but its an interesting idea anyway – that this situation was precisely why there is a ~5% of votes, lower barrier for parties sending representatives in many modern European democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_threshold
No I didn’t, that’s very interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_political_parties
What I don’t get is, how Hitler managed to take control with that many parties? He should not have been in a position with power to do that?
Trying to remember what i learned in history here, i hope i get at least most of it right:
Thanks that’s a very nice summary.
It’s interesting because I’ve always considered multiple parties to be an important way to protect democracy.
But I guess that ultimately it depends on the people being willing to protect it.
Still having 10 parties represented, makes for a better chance that minority views are represented. And I still believe it helps against corruption and strengthen democracy relative to only 2 parties.
Same way trump won the primary in 2016, everyone was disunited and a focused minority could overrule them all.
No it’s not the same, Trump is obvious, that’s because of the 2 party system, and first past the post.
And people moronically believed Trump was a vote against the political establishment, and for the minimal state.
I mean the GOP primary, the others divided the vote and let him walk away with it.
Sorry my bad, yes that’s actually a good point. 👍