6 ms·

Agreed with this analysis. From a European who lived in the us my strong believe is that the US needs an electoral system that leads to coalitions. While far fr

Agreed with this analysis. From a European who lived in the us my strong believe is that the US needs an electoral system that leads to coalitions. While far from perfect this is way better than the two party system that incentivizes the division in the public.

philwelch 2y ago
Proportional representation and coalition systems lead to deadlock. Belgium and Israel have gone years between stable governments because of the failure to form a coalition. Meanwhile in Germany, it’s impossible for a voter to predict ahead of time what kind of government to expect from voting for any given party because almost any party could become coalition partners with just about any other party. The two party system is still, in effect, a coalition system; the difference is that voters know ahead of time which coalition they’re going to get.
- artoghrul 2y ago
  The two-party system is not really a coalition system, is it? For one, there is no way for minority factions within parties to exert effective control over the other factions, no? A prime example being how the centrist majority of the Democratic party crushed the democratic socialist faction.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Conversely, the Tea Party faction of the Republicans gained control more or less entirely from the outside, due to media support.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    The process for doing this is primary elections, which you can participate in if you want to!
  - mattpallissard 2y ago
    We call them caucuses.
- grotorea 2y ago
  I don't think PR and formal coalitions have a monopoly on deadlock. The USA can have something similar whenever there's not a single party holding a trifecta, and even then between the Supreme Court and filibustering it's not really streamlined unified government. > Meanwhile in Germany, it’s impossible for a voter to predict ahead of time what kind of government to expect from voting for any given party because almost any party could become coalition partners with just about any other party. You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    > The USA can have something similar whenever there's not a single party holding a trifecta, and even then between the Supreme Court and filibustering it's not really streamlined unified government. In a parliamentary system you don’t even have an executive branch unless you can get a coalition. And when it comes to Supreme Courts, not only does nearly every parliamentary country also have one, they sometimes have more of them. Most European countries are subject to ECtHR on top of their national supreme courts. > You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted. But at least you know what you’re voting for.

philwelch 2y ago

Proportional representation and coalition systems lead to deadlock. Belgium and Israel have gone years between stable governments because of the failure to form a coalition. Meanwhile in Germany, it’s impossible for a voter to predict ahead of time what kind of government to expect from voting for any given party because almost any party could become coalition partners with just about any other party. The two party system is still, in effect, a coalition system; the difference is that voters know ahead of time which coalition they’re going to get.

artoghrul 2y ago
The two-party system is not really a coalition system, is it? For one, there is no way for minority factions within parties to exert effective control over the other factions, no? A prime example being how the centrist majority of the Democratic party crushed the democratic socialist faction.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Conversely, the Tea Party faction of the Republicans gained control more or less entirely from the outside, due to media support.
- philwelch 2y ago
  The process for doing this is primary elections, which you can participate in if you want to!
- mattpallissard 2y ago
  We call them caucuses.
grotorea 2y ago
I don't think PR and formal coalitions have a monopoly on deadlock. The USA can have something similar whenever there's not a single party holding a trifecta, and even then between the Supreme Court and filibustering it's not really streamlined unified government. > Meanwhile in Germany, it’s impossible for a voter to predict ahead of time what kind of government to expect from voting for any given party because almost any party could become coalition partners with just about any other party. You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted.
- philwelch 2y ago
  > The USA can have something similar whenever there's not a single party holding a trifecta, and even then between the Supreme Court and filibustering it's not really streamlined unified government. In a parliamentary system you don’t even have an executive branch unless you can get a coalition. And when it comes to Supreme Courts, not only does nearly every parliamentary country also have one, they sometimes have more of them. Most European countries are subject to ECtHR on top of their national supreme courts. > You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted. But at least you know what you’re voting for.