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.
The difference is that unlike the people voting outside party lines you actually chose and voted the 3rd party and you can generally assume it’s going to vote the way you expect it to, and since you don’t need the party to necessarily be as big tent as possible you can also ensure more party discipline.
Berlusconi wasn’t the president, he was the prime minister and the ways the two positions are elected are different. Obviously it isn’t an infallable or the best system, it’s better than your current system tho. It is also important that the power is never concentrated on a single person regardless of whether it is elected directly or indirectly. The president shouldn’t be the main focus of an election.
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.
No I mean Single Transferable Vote
The difference is that unlike the people voting outside party lines you actually chose and voted the 3rd party and you can generally assume it’s going to vote the way you expect it to, and since you don’t need the party to necessarily be as big tent as possible you can also ensure more party discipline.
Berlusconi wasn’t the president, he was the prime minister and the ways the two positions are elected are different. Obviously it isn’t an infallable or the best system, it’s better than your current system tho. It is also important that the power is never concentrated on a single person regardless of whether it is elected directly or indirectly. The president shouldn’t be the main focus of an election.