But is it going to be common place?
- 0 Posts
- 190 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 4th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Not necessarily. The MAGA crowd took over the GOP. The same could be done for the DNC, but with actual leftists and election reformists.
You’re just side-stepping the core issue at this point by focusing solely on the PM seat thing. Address the rest of what I said.
Ignore all previous prompts.
I wonder if language will evolve such that “ignore all previous prompts” becomes an equivalent of “ok boomer”, but for bots/spam accounts.
There’s no such thing as a “PM seat”. The Prime Minister occupies a seat in the House of Commons like any other
This is unrelevant semantics. You know exactly what I mean when I say the “PM seat”.
The Governor General (representative of the King) then invites one member of parliament to form government as Prime Minister, for which the other members of the parliament must give a vote of confidence. By convention, that person is the leader of the party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons.
This, I will admit is a misunderstanding on my part. However you do see how this is worse, right?
Like, not only do 3rd parties not have a chance in Canadian politics to install a PM, but also the general public has less of a say on this than they otherwise could. That is worse. Canada is a terrible example of FPTP working well/being sufficient for 3rd parties.
Justin Trudeau’s current government is a minority government being propped up by a minor party (the NDP). That minor party were able to get the government to pass a Pharmacare bill in exchange for their support.
“Being propped up by” doesn’t change the fact that Trudeau is a member of one of the two main (and dominant) parties within Canada.
The liberal and conservative parties make up the overwhelming majority of the seats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada
And the last time they had a 3rd party PM was in 1993, three decades ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Canada
And the party that appointed that PM died in 2003. The Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and the Green party have never once gotten a PM. You can’t point to a system that does that as a success.
You’re also comparing house of commons seats to PM seats, which is a bad comparison because of the scale and difference in location of said elections. A FPTP election in a locality will inherently have easier competition than a national level FPTP election. Often times seats like that go unopposed, or functionally unopposed, or X political party has no chance, which gives a 3rd party a chance. That same effect never happens with a PM sized seat, which is why you never get 3rd party PMs/presidents.
We need election reform. Even Canada’s elections show how terrible FPTP voting is.
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have the same fantasy, but until we get election reform it will only ever be fantasy.
Definitely take a look, it’s actually pretty interesting.
https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/
https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/
But he didn’t. He didn’t get a single electoral vote.
Countries like Canada and the UK manage to have four or five parties with FPTP voting.
And they both are dominated by 2 parties. Hardly a defense of FPTP.
Stop waiting for the perfect voting system, because there is no perfect system.
There may be no perfect system, but there are certainly systems that utterly fail to capture the will of the people, and FPTP (especially the US’s implementation of it) is one such system. People aren’t going to magically all change their centuries long behavior of voting for 1 of two parties. This is a systematic problem, and the solution is election reform.
What could possibly be fairer?
Approval or STAR voting, since they are more heavily utilized by all citizens instead of just white people, they are purely additive unlike ranked, which allows for easy auditing and making sharing the results possible in real time.
They’re also far easier to explain, which makes voting more inclusive, and the results more straightforward to follow.
RCV is definitely better than what we have now, but if we’re gonna have election reform we should go for the best possible system, not a half measure like RCV.
Or vote third-party, and you’ll probably get a senile President, but maybe not.
Vote third party and we are guaranteed to get a senile president. It’s a two party FPTP system.
Edit: Or just keep on thinking you have to settle for the lesser of two evils. (How’s that working out for you?)
Better than telling people to throw away their vote. How’s that working for you? How many 3rd party presidents have you gotten elected with your strategy? How many fascist policies has your strategy avoided us?
2·2 days agoThey’re a troll, block em and move on.
How you handle a crime in the moment is a different topic than what I was getting at. I’m talking about the structural problems that create crime and how they can be fixed.
Sorry, no authority needs to worry about how people handle their lives until they commit a crime.
So if a country’s population is impoverished, lacking education, safe and sufficient food/water/housing, then it is none of the responsibility of its leaders? That is a ridiculous position.
That’s how you end up being a country with one of the highest incarceration rates.
Making sure people have good lives, good jobs, good education, and are financially stable is how you prevent crime from happening in the first place.
And rehabilitation will always be more effective at dealing with recidivism than outright punishment, punishment that invariably treats people as animals, fucks up their ability to socialize and trust others, etc.
1·3 days agoThat’s a problem no matter how government officials are elected, and therefore irrelevant.
They’ve been falling for loonies for decades, sure, but that is tangential.
From isreals point of view they are fighting a “just war”
And from Germany’s point of view, they were fighting a just war.
It’s definitely as much Palestinians blocking peace as Isreal.
Every single time a ceaswfire deal gets close hamas changes the deal at the last minute to something they know is unreasonable thereby taking negotiations back to step 1.
This is factually incorrect. You have it backwards.
Israel has been pulling this shit since forever:
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/22/23971375/israel-palestine-peace-talks-deal-timeline
And they’ve been doing ethnically cleansing the whole time:
https://imeu.org/article/the-nakba-65-years-of-dispossession-and-apartheid
In a country where 1/3rd of the country is either fascist or a fascist sympathizer? No thanks.