Yes, really. Fuck’s sake. What, you think Trump is using his entire net worth of negative 500 million to bribe a massive group of actors sworn to secrecy and change all the GOP primary outcomes in his favor?
But it’s not a system propped up by the voters when the system is specifically designed to favor two options and make voting a third option hard or undesirable despite said third option being better representative of your values.
I hardly doubt a majority of people would like eother Biden or Trump, they just vote the one who they don’t want to lose to the other.
Having more than 2 parties in itself is more representative.
Believe it or not in healthy democracies no party represents more than half the population and governments are formed via coalitions, that’s because people are very diverse in opinions and beliefs and you can’t group them all in one or two parties.
Okay, that doesn’t really address the issue of a presidential election, which generally come down to two candidates even in non-two-party systems. Who has wider support than Biden and Trump at this moment in time? Who do the voters wish they could flock to?
Ever heard of STV? Or the fact the president isn’t omnipotent? Or the possibility that the president could be elected by the elected Parliament instead?
Having more than 2 parties means that even if the president is from one of the big parties it still has to rely on other parties to stay in his position and therefore more people are actually represented compared to when someone votes someone simply because they like the other options a bit less.
Also I’d take a guess and say Bernie would probably have a good shot. And in a healthy democracy you’d have more than two mere options to consider. It’s a viciois cycke that of the two party system, Biden and Trump’s chances at winning aren’t just higher because they’re liked it’s moreso because you only really hear about them and they’re presented like the only options available.
STVs require multi-member districts. Election of the president is of a single office (effectively).
Or the fact the president isn’t omnipotent?
Having more than 2 parties means that even if the president is from one of the big parties it still has to rely on other parties and therefore more people are actually represented compared to when someone votes someone simply because they like the other options a bit less.
Okay, again, none of that actually addresses the issue of presidential elections generally coming down to two people, and that Biden and Trump are pretty unambiguously the two largest players by preference of American voters?
Or the president being elected by the elected Parliament instead?
No STVs are pretty simple: I vote my preferred candidate, it doesn’t win? My vote goes to my 2nd preferred candidate, and so on. Ensuring that my preferred candidate gets a shot and if he doesn’t win I can still choose the one I hate less among the eventual big 2 old farts. They can apply to any amount of offices.
It does address it. The president can’t do shit without a parliamentary majority so even if it comes down to 2 people they still have to coalition (and therefore give concessions) to other parties if they want to achieve anything. Therefore people are still represented.
In a functioning parliamentary (which is where the parliament holds most of the power rather than the president) multiparty system yes it absolutely is preferable as it generally leads to a president that isn’t necessarily from a single party but rather someone either more technical, skilled and representative. Even in unhealthy systems like Italy for example the president is elected indirectly and, Mattarella, just so happens to be the most popular politician among the public as a result too, after all there’s a reason neofascists are trying to remove him and instead give more power to a president that would be directly elected and which they know would give them more power.
No STVs are pretty simple: I vote my preferred candidate, it doesn’t win? My vote goes to my 2nd preferred candidate, and so on.
Do you mean IRV?
It does address it. The president can’t do shit without a parliamentary majority so even if it comes down to 2 people they still have to coalition (and therefore give concessions) to other parties if they want to achieve anything. Therefore people are still represented.
Okay, currently, the president can’t do shit without a congressional majority, and unlike in parliamentary systems, voting outside of party lines is extremely common and won’t get you kicked out of the party, so what is the effective difference in representation?
In a functioning parliamentary (which is where the parliament holds most of the power rather than the president) multiparty system yes it absolutely is preferable as it generally leads to a president that isn’t necessarily from a single party but rather someone either more technical, skilled and representative.
I’m gonna have to disagree here. Parliamentary election of the executive leads to situations like Netanyahu in Israel. Or Berlusconi in Italy, back when that asshole was alive. It’s not a more meritocratic or technocratic way to elect the executive - it’s just a smaller, and thus easier to bribe, coerce, strongarm, threaten, or flatter, electorate.
Yes, really. Fuck’s sake. What, you think Trump is using his entire net worth of negative 500 million to bribe a massive group of actors sworn to secrecy and change all the GOP primary outcomes in his favor?
No. I wasn’t even referring to primaries.
But it’s not a system propped up by the voters when the system is specifically designed to favor two options and make voting a third option hard or undesirable despite said third option being better representative of your values.
I hardly doubt a majority of people would like eother Biden or Trump, they just vote the one who they don’t want to lose to the other.
What third option is better representative of the majority or even a plurality of the views of the American people?
Having more than 2 parties in itself is more representative.
Believe it or not in healthy democracies no party represents more than half the population and governments are formed via coalitions, that’s because people are very diverse in opinions and beliefs and you can’t group them all in one or two parties.
Okay, that doesn’t really address the issue of a presidential election, which generally come down to two candidates even in non-two-party systems. Who has wider support than Biden and Trump at this moment in time? Who do the voters wish they could flock to?
Ever heard of STV? Or the fact the president isn’t omnipotent? Or the possibility that the president could be elected by the elected Parliament instead?
Having more than 2 parties means that even if the president is from one of the big parties it still has to rely on other parties to stay in his position and therefore more people are actually represented compared to when someone votes someone simply because they like the other options a bit less.
Also I’d take a guess and say Bernie would probably have a good shot. And in a healthy democracy you’d have more than two mere options to consider. It’s a viciois cycke that of the two party system, Biden and Trump’s chances at winning aren’t just higher because they’re liked it’s moreso because you only really hear about them and they’re presented like the only options available.
STVs require multi-member districts. Election of the president is of a single office (effectively).
Okay, again, none of that actually addresses the issue of presidential elections generally coming down to two people, and that Biden and Trump are pretty unambiguously the two largest players by preference of American voters?
Would… would you regard that as preferable ?
No STVs are pretty simple: I vote my preferred candidate, it doesn’t win? My vote goes to my 2nd preferred candidate, and so on. Ensuring that my preferred candidate gets a shot and if he doesn’t win I can still choose the one I hate less among the eventual big 2 old farts. They can apply to any amount of offices.
It does address it. The president can’t do shit without a parliamentary majority so even if it comes down to 2 people they still have to coalition (and therefore give concessions) to other parties if they want to achieve anything. Therefore people are still represented.
In a functioning parliamentary (which is where the parliament holds most of the power rather than the president) multiparty system yes it absolutely is preferable as it generally leads to a president that isn’t necessarily from a single party but rather someone either more technical, skilled and representative. Even in unhealthy systems like Italy for example the president is elected indirectly and, Mattarella, just so happens to be the most popular politician among the public as a result too, after all there’s a reason neofascists are trying to remove him and instead give more power to a president that would be directly elected and which they know would give them more power.
Do you mean IRV?
Okay, currently, the president can’t do shit without a congressional majority, and unlike in parliamentary systems, voting outside of party lines is extremely common and won’t get you kicked out of the party, so what is the effective difference in representation?
I’m gonna have to disagree here. Parliamentary election of the executive leads to situations like Netanyahu in Israel. Or Berlusconi in Italy, back when that asshole was alive. It’s not a more meritocratic or technocratic way to elect the executive - it’s just a smaller, and thus easier to bribe, coerce, strongarm, threaten, or flatter, electorate.