• WtfEvenIsExistence@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Voting for someone because they win a popularity contest is wrong

    That is exactly what democracy currently is… a popularity contest. If you want people to vote on actual policy, you first need to convince the people to do that. Some people just vote for who they like without considering policy.

    I think the electoral college is a good thing . The problem is you should be voting for the electors, who then get together in a room for a week go decide on a president

    That sounds like a parliamentary system where the head of government is elected by legislature. I mean I personally have nothing against that system, but isn’t America build on the idea of separation of powers between 3 branches? A parliamentary systems makes the executive and legislature pratically one body. Are you sure you want such a system? I don’t think most Americans would be willing to accept a parliamentary system.

    • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a lot of parliamentary systems still have very effective splitting into three branches. Thats because when you have an effective multi-party system, the government often consists of the “largest minority” coalition in the parliament. For example: After an election, the parliament consists of

      • 10 % A
      • 25 % B
      • 25 % C
      • 15 % D
      • 20 % E
      • 5 % F

      They get together and discuss who will form a government. A, B, and F agree on enough topics to form a government together, but only have 40 % of the votes. Unless some other coalition, with a larger number of votes, forms, the government will consist of A, B, and F.

      Now comes the fun part: A, B and F are at the mercy of the parliament. If they pull some stuff that makes parliament mad enough, C, D and E might put aside their differences, vote out the government and form a new government, so the government has to compromise with e.g. D, to get enough votes to stay in power. This can give small parties a large amount of swing power.

      Also: Once A, B and F are in government together, they agree on a platform. That means that even though B is the largest party in government, they have to give in to some requirements from F. This effectively means that the government functions as its own body, enacting the agreed upon political platform of A, B and F.

      Because they have pre-agreed-upon compromises, A, B, and F effectively enhance their power in parliament. Even if a representative from A disagrees with some policy the government is trying to pass, they will likely vote for it, because they know that at a later stage, B and F will vote for some policy that they propose. However, if the government goes too far, a party in parliament might decide to pull support, and leave the government they are a part of, effecting a change of government.

      This system also incentivises wide compromises and stability. If, after some later election, the government consists of A, D and E, they are unlikely to undo a lot of the work by the previous government, because A will oppose that.