That is one of the set-backs of parliamentary systems. there are no clear winner and losers. The losers can agree to form a government, if three or more parties combined votes outnumber the popular vote.
On the other hand, we in America drive a stake through the heart of democracy by use of the 'electoral college'. We do have clear winners and losers sometimes by 2 or more million votes, but the loser gets to be president anyway because there were more little States (little as in population) whose electoral votes outrank the more populous States. Try explaining that to new citizens LOL
It's not so that there are no clear winners or losers: there are. But the clarity is not so great as it is in your adoptive country, Fay. The EC is a joke and an outmoded bastardisation of democracy whose existence many have held forth on, and few convincingly explained.
The lack of clarity in a proportional representation system means there are no "unique" winners. And that is the secret to our moderate politics. Everyone is catered for because everyone is in the mix that governs. I don't think that that is a set-back. It is an advantage.
Well it's an advantage on paper at least, it's not working so well for Israel. And I believe India is also on a parliamentary system. However at this point in time, compared to the state we are in today I shouldn't complain about other countries.
Well, I don't know what kind of voting system they have in Israel. They call it democratic, and so does Russia and so does Turkmenistan. Everywhere is democratic, with a term that's as flexible as that.
The US was democratic when it excluded slaves from the franchise. And England, when it excluded the Chartists. The question is not one of democracy, it's one of parliamentary representation, and there's a lot of confusion between the two, because democracy feels like some kind of chequered flag that, once it's been waved at you, you're home and dry. And that's nonsense. As we all know, there are huge swathes of our Earth that proclaim themselves democratic where the voting system is quite simply either rigged, alleged to be rigged so that the opponent can himself rig it (on the basis that democracy is so ill defined that saying something is or isn't democratic doesn't actually need to be backed up with any scientific theory), or democracy is said to be there when it's truly non-existent and there are some systems that are actually quite close to being democratic but fall short at the end of the day.
And the latter are the US model and the UK model, because they depend on a first past the post system. You might say that doesn't matter in the US because you only have two parties anyway, but that's not true and the alternative parties that there are, or those that could come into existence if the system were more open, cannot make headway because of the first past the post system. They are excluded. Deliberately.
The only true method of parliamentary representation is proportional representation like we have in Belgium and elsewhere across Europe; and that is anathema to big parties that don't want to share power. And not sharing power with people that disagree with you is unfair and, hence, undemocratic. Ergo.
I said in this article "The time is fast coming for us to realise that, in order to save democracy, we first need to create it." Lashing out at Israel won't create democracy in America, however. https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/they-the-people (just look how the representation changes on the chart in the article, without one vote being altered, just because of first past the post).
Agreed, and beautifully put. You are correct, when America was formed, not only were slaves not enfranchised neither were were women or the indigenous people whose lands were stolen. In fact the only persons franchised were white men of property.
However, democracy, as you well know, did exist - sort of, in Athens more than 2000 years ago, when all male citizens had the right not only to select the leaders of the Senate, but also were expected to vote on all legislation. But that meant they had to READ it (gulp) and worse yet UNDERSTAND it (too much). Thus ended democracy [I don't remember the origin of the name - probably some god or something].
What we tried to achieve - with mixed success - was a representative republic. The problem, as I see it is still the same. No matter what kind of government we try to form, to be successful for all of the people, most of the time, requires everyone to not only vote but to READ their Constitution and pay attention to legislation that is being passed. But apparently that is too much to ask.
Even voter turnout is low, In my State, California we encourage mail in balloting. Every registered voter gets a voter guide (non-partisan) that prints statements from every candidate who bothers to submit one., and also gives a detailed explanation of every proposition on the ballot complete with pro and con statements and rebuttals. Then the ballot itself comes with a postage prepaid envelope. All the lazy ass's have to do is read the pamphlet, fill out the ballot and sign the envelope and pop it in the mail. We had the largest voter turnout in 2020 62%~!!! That's something to be proud of? Not even 2/3 of the voters took the opportunity and civic duty to vote.
My ideal would be to have three parties: Liberal progressives like me who want everything for everybody and of high quality; a moderate centrist party for people who want civil rights and decent roads and so on but moderately and slowly; the fiscal conservatives who want to spend as little money as possible and want the business sector to have as much of the pie as possible. These three would balance each other to the point no one was happy, but everyone was satisfied.
Apparently, the only alternative offered is some form of authoritarianism, in trump's case fascism. with loss of freedom for 90% of the population.
That is one of the set-backs of parliamentary systems. there are no clear winner and losers. The losers can agree to form a government, if three or more parties combined votes outnumber the popular vote.
On the other hand, we in America drive a stake through the heart of democracy by use of the 'electoral college'. We do have clear winners and losers sometimes by 2 or more million votes, but the loser gets to be president anyway because there were more little States (little as in population) whose electoral votes outrank the more populous States. Try explaining that to new citizens LOL
It's not so that there are no clear winners or losers: there are. But the clarity is not so great as it is in your adoptive country, Fay. The EC is a joke and an outmoded bastardisation of democracy whose existence many have held forth on, and few convincingly explained.
The lack of clarity in a proportional representation system means there are no "unique" winners. And that is the secret to our moderate politics. Everyone is catered for because everyone is in the mix that governs. I don't think that that is a set-back. It is an advantage.
Well it's an advantage on paper at least, it's not working so well for Israel. And I believe India is also on a parliamentary system. However at this point in time, compared to the state we are in today I shouldn't complain about other countries.
Well, I don't know what kind of voting system they have in Israel. They call it democratic, and so does Russia and so does Turkmenistan. Everywhere is democratic, with a term that's as flexible as that.
The US was democratic when it excluded slaves from the franchise. And England, when it excluded the Chartists. The question is not one of democracy, it's one of parliamentary representation, and there's a lot of confusion between the two, because democracy feels like some kind of chequered flag that, once it's been waved at you, you're home and dry. And that's nonsense. As we all know, there are huge swathes of our Earth that proclaim themselves democratic where the voting system is quite simply either rigged, alleged to be rigged so that the opponent can himself rig it (on the basis that democracy is so ill defined that saying something is or isn't democratic doesn't actually need to be backed up with any scientific theory), or democracy is said to be there when it's truly non-existent and there are some systems that are actually quite close to being democratic but fall short at the end of the day.
And the latter are the US model and the UK model, because they depend on a first past the post system. You might say that doesn't matter in the US because you only have two parties anyway, but that's not true and the alternative parties that there are, or those that could come into existence if the system were more open, cannot make headway because of the first past the post system. They are excluded. Deliberately.
The only true method of parliamentary representation is proportional representation like we have in Belgium and elsewhere across Europe; and that is anathema to big parties that don't want to share power. And not sharing power with people that disagree with you is unfair and, hence, undemocratic. Ergo.
I said in this article "The time is fast coming for us to realise that, in order to save democracy, we first need to create it." Lashing out at Israel won't create democracy in America, however. https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/they-the-people (just look how the representation changes on the chart in the article, without one vote being altered, just because of first past the post).
Agreed, and beautifully put. You are correct, when America was formed, not only were slaves not enfranchised neither were were women or the indigenous people whose lands were stolen. In fact the only persons franchised were white men of property.
However, democracy, as you well know, did exist - sort of, in Athens more than 2000 years ago, when all male citizens had the right not only to select the leaders of the Senate, but also were expected to vote on all legislation. But that meant they had to READ it (gulp) and worse yet UNDERSTAND it (too much). Thus ended democracy [I don't remember the origin of the name - probably some god or something].
What we tried to achieve - with mixed success - was a representative republic. The problem, as I see it is still the same. No matter what kind of government we try to form, to be successful for all of the people, most of the time, requires everyone to not only vote but to READ their Constitution and pay attention to legislation that is being passed. But apparently that is too much to ask.
Even voter turnout is low, In my State, California we encourage mail in balloting. Every registered voter gets a voter guide (non-partisan) that prints statements from every candidate who bothers to submit one., and also gives a detailed explanation of every proposition on the ballot complete with pro and con statements and rebuttals. Then the ballot itself comes with a postage prepaid envelope. All the lazy ass's have to do is read the pamphlet, fill out the ballot and sign the envelope and pop it in the mail. We had the largest voter turnout in 2020 62%~!!! That's something to be proud of? Not even 2/3 of the voters took the opportunity and civic duty to vote.
My ideal would be to have three parties: Liberal progressives like me who want everything for everybody and of high quality; a moderate centrist party for people who want civil rights and decent roads and so on but moderately and slowly; the fiscal conservatives who want to spend as little money as possible and want the business sector to have as much of the pie as possible. These three would balance each other to the point no one was happy, but everyone was satisfied.
Apparently, the only alternative offered is some form of authoritarianism, in trump's case fascism. with loss of freedom for 90% of the population.