|
In response to
"I wouldn't mind changing to a parliamentary system (I think?) -- nm*"
by
ty97
|
That covers a lot of territory though, and look at the results.
Posted by
Roger More (aka RogerMore)
Dec 15 '21, 08:55
|
UK has first past the post voting, with the outcome that small parties are crushed at the ballot box.
Australia has preferential voting, which makes it even harder for small parties to make an impact in the lower house. But where they do have an impact is in the Senate because there are 12 senators per state. However, the combination of the two means that the balance of power in the upper house is shared amongst a bunch of single-issue nutjobs.
In Germany it took three months to form a governing coalition, and that's quick compared to other countries. America without a proper government for three months is... not good for global security.
In Italy, it's not so long ago that there was such dissatisfaction with the establishment parties that the electorate voted for quasi-fascists and anarchists.
I think it's more about strengthening the institutions that support democracy, than open everything up to land on a perfect system. (Independent judiciary, independent electoral administration, independent electoral boundary setting etc.) Whatever system you put together, it's always going to be game-able and politicians will have incentives to game it, so you need strong democratic institutions and ways of ensuring that politicians can be voted out.
|
Responses:
|
