Post by StyxD on Oct 23, 2023 21:43:16 GMT
This thread is moving so fast that I don't have time to keep up! And it started because I just posted a meme!
As I mentioned, I am super against any backroom horse trading deciding stuff.
Another problem I didnt' mention with coalition governments is you can end up with parties that their supporters might hate working together.
I think it's not just a problem of proportional voting systems, but of our current democratic systems in general.
Once you elected a representative, they can basically do whatever they want, and the only recourse you have is to not vote for them in the next election.
Having a two-party system doesn't protect you from non-democratic deals with people you'd hate your representatives working with. Because there can only be two parties, they become collections of disparate political groups whose only connecting factor is that they see themselves as closer to one party than to the other. The inter-factional deals and conflicts just get reproduced inside parties.
Hello again, USA, where leftists have to vote for Democrats, to get fucked over every time by the center-right wing of the party. Of note was that one moment, where some of Biden's proposals, which were meant as compromise for the left, got blocked by one conservative Democratic senator who was feeling particularly fiscally responsible that day.
And Republicans are basically held at gunpoint by the Q party now.
The British Labour is, as far as I know, a similar concoction of centre-left liberals, greens, old socialists, and fucking campist loons as the French left coalition, but as one party instead of several. It's not a lot of difference in practice.
Also, in Poland, the three parties that are currently considered "collective winners" were announcing up front that they will form a coalition if that'll give them majority. There was nothing backroom about that.
Unless you mean negotiations about who gets what in the government, but that happens in two-party systems as well. I'm pretty sure Britons didn't vote for the Liz Truss government, lol.
Was it really?
Get ready for another lukewarm defense of the American system.
I'm no scholar, but as far as I know:
The whole idea of electors was that initially there was an assumption (not that unreasonable in the age before mass media) that simple people living in each state would not be familiar with global politics enough to elect the president for the whole federation. But they could elect trusted local politicians, who would be more suited to educate themselves about global politics and the presidential candidates, and cast the vote in their name.
It isn't that different from how elected representatives in parliament vote on policies, so that each citizen doesn't have to think about the minutiae of politics all the time. It is less democratic than direct democracy, but maybe more practical.
Of course, nowadays the whole "elector" deal makes no sense, and just acts as a number of votes allocated to each state that goes to one or the other candidate.
And what people actually call anti-democratic about this system is this allocation of votes to states, that doesn't correspond to how many people actually live there. But the whole reason for this is that USA is a federation of states. And each state is a separate political entity that needs to be represented.
Maybe over time the role of states diminished and the role of the central government grew, but it's still fundamentally a federation.
Nobody would suggest that, for example, in the EU the voting power of each state in the Council should be weighed proportional to its populace. Because each state is supposed to be equal.
It's fine to say that USA shouldn't be a federation, if you think so, or that in practice it ceased to be, but it's more complicated than "it's a silly system the founders came up with because they hated democracy actually" (which I agree they kinda did, but that's beside the point).
And if I may get personal, I think Americans from the liberal states don't know how good they have it.
They want the US to become more like a unitary republic, but it's because they assume it means that liberals would never again lose in such an arrangement forever.
But I actually thing federations are better for democracy overall.
Yes, it sucks that in the states run by religious loons human rights get violated, but did you think what an unitary government made of religious loons could do to your liberal city? I got to think a lot over the last 8 years.
Really, the coasts should secede from the US (along with Washington DC), make their own better US, and leave the flyover country to rot.
That makes it kinda look democratic, but really it is the people in power negotiating amongst themselves.
This is one of hte things i don't like about how the EU is run. THe real decision making isn't actually voted on.
Like I said before: doesn't it happen the exact same way in two-party systems, in which the dominant parties become sprawling entities with many factions inside, which cannot be influenced by non-members?
In the EU it's more like you say, because the actual power is with the Council (made of heads of governments of member states) and the Parliament is more of a side show which can hardly do anything binding. It's less democratic, but just like in the US: it's set up this way because it's supposed to give more power to member states than directly to citizens. I wish it was set up better, but just like in the US, it's probably not likely unless the fundamental nature of the union was to change.
I'm not sure if I understand this right: you mean that in this ranked system, you eliminate parties until you end up with... the two party system, but you don't fear splitting the vote?
That's kind of bizarre to me, to be honest. But of course, any sort of ranked system would feel more democratic, because hey, no matter who got into the parliament, you can say your vote mattered!
The one downside of a ranked system that I see is that people are morons and struggle to deal with "put one X near one name" system, let alone if you give them multiple choice. Hell, I didn't understand how it's supposed to work after reading your post.
I mean, you're already on this forum, might be too late to avoid that.
Also you live in Britian, and you know how that two-party system works.
I don't see how it's better than voting for someone you hate, because you're afraid to split the vote. Or voting for someone you love and then get badmouthed by everyone on your side for the next 4 years, because you split the vote, your loved party failed, the lesser evil didn't win because of the split, and the greater evil is now in power.
But I suppose it's a personal preference, of what feels more right.
Yes! All my previous arguments turned out to be right.
Harkovast said:
I think, for me, something I want from a democracy is a very clear winner.As I mentioned, I am super against any backroom horse trading deciding stuff.
Another problem I didnt' mention with coalition governments is you can end up with parties that their supporters might hate working together.
I think it's not just a problem of proportional voting systems, but of our current democratic systems in general.
Once you elected a representative, they can basically do whatever they want, and the only recourse you have is to not vote for them in the next election.
Having a two-party system doesn't protect you from non-democratic deals with people you'd hate your representatives working with. Because there can only be two parties, they become collections of disparate political groups whose only connecting factor is that they see themselves as closer to one party than to the other. The inter-factional deals and conflicts just get reproduced inside parties.
Hello again, USA, where leftists have to vote for Democrats, to get fucked over every time by the center-right wing of the party. Of note was that one moment, where some of Biden's proposals, which were meant as compromise for the left, got blocked by one conservative Democratic senator who was feeling particularly fiscally responsible that day.
And Republicans are basically held at gunpoint by the Q party now.
The British Labour is, as far as I know, a similar concoction of centre-left liberals, greens, old socialists, and fucking campist loons as the French left coalition, but as one party instead of several. It's not a lot of difference in practice.
Also, in Poland, the three parties that are currently considered "collective winners" were announcing up front that they will form a coalition if that'll give them majority. There was nothing backroom about that.
Unless you mean negotiations about who gets what in the government, but that happens in two-party systems as well. I'm pretty sure Britons didn't vote for the Liz Truss government, lol.
Canuovea said:
However, it also depends on how you determine the winner. The Electoral College in the USA is a deliberate example of a means to subvert the popular will because the founders didn't trust mob rule. Yes, that's right, it was deliberately anti-democratic...Was it really?
Get ready for another lukewarm defense of the American system.
I'm no scholar, but as far as I know:
The whole idea of electors was that initially there was an assumption (not that unreasonable in the age before mass media) that simple people living in each state would not be familiar with global politics enough to elect the president for the whole federation. But they could elect trusted local politicians, who would be more suited to educate themselves about global politics and the presidential candidates, and cast the vote in their name.
It isn't that different from how elected representatives in parliament vote on policies, so that each citizen doesn't have to think about the minutiae of politics all the time. It is less democratic than direct democracy, but maybe more practical.
Of course, nowadays the whole "elector" deal makes no sense, and just acts as a number of votes allocated to each state that goes to one or the other candidate.
And what people actually call anti-democratic about this system is this allocation of votes to states, that doesn't correspond to how many people actually live there. But the whole reason for this is that USA is a federation of states. And each state is a separate political entity that needs to be represented.
Maybe over time the role of states diminished and the role of the central government grew, but it's still fundamentally a federation.
Nobody would suggest that, for example, in the EU the voting power of each state in the Council should be weighed proportional to its populace. Because each state is supposed to be equal.
It's fine to say that USA shouldn't be a federation, if you think so, or that in practice it ceased to be, but it's more complicated than "it's a silly system the founders came up with because they hated democracy actually" (which I agree they kinda did, but that's beside the point).
And if I may get personal, I think Americans from the liberal states don't know how good they have it.
They want the US to become more like a unitary republic, but it's because they assume it means that liberals would never again lose in such an arrangement forever.
But I actually thing federations are better for democracy overall.
Yes, it sucks that in the states run by religious loons human rights get violated, but did you think what an unitary government made of religious loons could do to your liberal city? I got to think a lot over the last 8 years.
Really, the coasts should secede from the US (along with Washington DC), make their own better US, and leave the flyover country to rot.
Harkovast said:
In a lot of european countries, the election is kidn of a side show and the ACTUAL way government is determined is back room deals after the elections where the politicians and parties make bargains with each other to form coalitions.That makes it kinda look democratic, but really it is the people in power negotiating amongst themselves.
This is one of hte things i don't like about how the EU is run. THe real decision making isn't actually voted on.
Like I said before: doesn't it happen the exact same way in two-party systems, in which the dominant parties become sprawling entities with many factions inside, which cannot be influenced by non-members?
In the EU it's more like you say, because the actual power is with the Council (made of heads of governments of member states) and the Parliament is more of a side show which can hardly do anything binding. It's less democratic, but just like in the US: it's set up this way because it's supposed to give more power to member states than directly to citizens. I wish it was set up better, but just like in the US, it's probably not likely unless the fundamental nature of the union was to change.
Canuovea said:
If you rank your choices on the ballot, then it shows who your vote goes to if your top choices don't get in. That means when a runoff is done, your top choices get eliminated until they get to your choice between the top two choices. If you simply don't want to in any way support certain parties, just leave them off your ranking so that you won't ever count as voting for them.I'm not sure if I understand this right: you mean that in this ranked system, you eliminate parties until you end up with... the two party system, but you don't fear splitting the vote?
That's kind of bizarre to me, to be honest. But of course, any sort of ranked system would feel more democratic, because hey, no matter who got into the parliament, you can say your vote mattered!
The one downside of a ranked system that I see is that people are morons and struggle to deal with "put one X near one name" system, let alone if you give them multiple choice. Hell, I didn't understand how it's supposed to work after reading your post.
Harkovast said:
(Why....why are the communists and socialists the only ones that don't get an insulting titles? Could we just call them "party A" and "party B" etc? I'm not really comfortable with a scale where I have to be a socialist or a communist to avoid being the bad guy.)I mean, you're already on this forum, might be too late to avoid that.
Also you live in Britian, and you know how that two-party system works.
Harkovast said:
The problem with the system you describe is it means I could end up voting for someone I hateI don't see how it's better than voting for someone you hate, because you're afraid to split the vote. Or voting for someone you love and then get badmouthed by everyone on your side for the next 4 years, because you split the vote, your loved party failed, the lesser evil didn't win because of the split, and the greater evil is now in power.
But I suppose it's a personal preference, of what feels more right.
Harkovast said:
Tory in fighting determines prime ministers more than elections do in the UK. Harsh but true.Yes! All my previous arguments turned out to be right.