Hot take: voter suppression would be far more widespread, as it would stalemate the current “interim” government into power. Permanently. The current system, for all its flaws, doesn’t have that weakness.
The problem with a Presidential system is that there are plenty of eligible candidates. There just aren’t any “electable” ones. Even within a given state, you often only have one “electable” option, because your state is going to tilt 5-30pts towards that person anyway.
One of the appeals of a small-district parliamentary process (as seen in pretty much every other functioning liberal democracy) is that you don’t need to choose between Old Racist Fuck and Coconut Lady. You can focus your attention on local politics and send up an MP aligned with a regional party willing to form coalition on the condition they can bring back some benefits to their community.
But that requires you to have elected officials you can actually meet in your neighborhood, rather than minor aristocrats who govern from impenetrable gerrymanders spread across a 50 mile territory.
What if “didn’t vote” counted as “voted against both options, please try again with less shitty candidates.”?
I think we’d have a better world
Hot take: voter suppression would be far more widespread, as it would stalemate the current “interim” government into power. Permanently. The current system, for all its flaws, doesn’t have that weakness.
My counter to that is the interim gets executed if they go over a time limit, and new one is appointed.
I like the way you think
What if “didn’t vote” counted as “voted for both options, they’re equally wonderful and we’d be happy either way”?
Well that’s what it counts as now.
Not really, did not vote is exactly the same as voted for the winner. In a FPTP not voting is saying whoever wins, that’s what I wanted.
I’ll take one good option. That’s all I ask, someone to vote for, not as a vote against the other person.
kamala is worth voting for tbqh
The problem with a Presidential system is that there are plenty of eligible candidates. There just aren’t any “electable” ones. Even within a given state, you often only have one “electable” option, because your state is going to tilt 5-30pts towards that person anyway.
One of the appeals of a small-district parliamentary process (as seen in pretty much every other functioning liberal democracy) is that you don’t need to choose between Old Racist Fuck and Coconut Lady. You can focus your attention on local politics and send up an MP aligned with a regional party willing to form coalition on the condition they can bring back some benefits to their community.
But that requires you to have elected officials you can actually meet in your neighborhood, rather than minor aristocrats who govern from impenetrable gerrymanders spread across a 50 mile territory.
That would be amazing… If it were true
And also ranked choice voting, so there can be more than just 2 people running. F the 2 party system.
Absolutely