This is why I really like the run-off system of the non-instant variety. It gives people a clear choice and a chance to think. People that might not have voted the first round see a stark choice and may think “yeah I better go vote or we’ll have another Bolsanaro running things and I don’t want that.”
The two-round system is actually very similar in its dynamics to instant runoff voting or FPTP with primaries. All these systems feature a centre squeeze. FPTP without primaries is actually a better system, albeit obviously still vastly inferior to a proportional system, which is what all top-tier democracies (and economies for that matter) use. In the FPTP-without-primary era, the US still had statesmen with broad support as presidents (e.g., FDR, Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt), and the election of a Trump would have been unfathomable (at least, on the Republican ticket).
Proportional representation gives all power to the parties and they decide policy in backroom deals when forming coalitions. It’s the system Israel has. Do you really want to have Israel’s system of government? A lot of oppression can happen when a party has to to make deal with radical nutjobs to form a coalition. Why do you think that’s a superior system? Do you like oppression?
“First Past the Post” is a term coined by intellectually dishonest people that say they want “electoral reform” when really they just want to change the system so their preferred party will have more power. We should call it what is really is, a community representation system. Because you’re voting for someone to represent your community. But that sounds nice and is more difficult to argue against, isn’t it?
I’m well aware of instant runoff system, and I think that would be ok. But a two round system is better than instant runoff. S-tier is two round community representation, instant run off community representation is A-tier, one round, one selection traditional community representation is C-Tier.
Israel style proportional representation only seems good to people who think of things from the perspective of a spreadsheet (the numbers all line up… yay) and have no understanding of power dynamics… F-Tier. Close your spreadsheet and look at how proportional representation works in the real world. How much oppression will you tolerate just so that two columns in a spreadsheet will have the same numbers in them?
The problem in Israel is not that it has a proportional system, but that Palestinians in the occupied territories have no voting rights. If they did, a two-state solution would have come out of the Knesset a long time ago.
A lot of oppression can happen when a party has to to make deal with radical nutjobs to form a coalition.
Yes, that can happen, but it’s still not as bad as having a single party of radical nutjobs not having to compromise.
Close your spreadsheet and look at how proportional representation works in the real world.
That’s a good suggestion, I advise you to follow it. Take any quality-of-life ranking and look at what kind of political system they have.
In the Social Progress Index, we find the first non-proportional democracy, Ireland, on 8th place. But even Ireland has a semi-proportional system with multi-member districts. The first two-party system is in 13th place, Australia, which uses ranked-choice voting.
In the inequality-adjusted HDI, the first non-proportional is again Ireland in 9th place, with Australia, the UK and Canada from 12th place.
You could also have a look at indices for democracy and rule of law. The V-Dem Democracy has Ireland on 5th place and France (which uses a two-round system) on 9th.
As you were typing out your comment, who will be leader of Israel will be determined by whether or not an Arab party will be accepted into a governing coalition. They always exclude Arab parties from being in the coalition. Because racism and shit.
That’s proportional representation. You have lots of options for who to vote for, but if the majority wants to lock out a minority group from power they can. All power is determined by backroom deals between parties.
But there is a chance the Arab party may be allowed to be part of the government. It all depends on whether the leaders of a bunch of parties are willing to allow Netanyahu to continue to rule over them or allow an Arab party to join them. Nothing anybody can do about it, the lives of a lot of people and the future of the middle East depends on the results of some backroom deals.
Fuck proportional representation. It’s so obviously a stupid system. If Netanyahu didn’t get enough votes to continue to be PM but he may still continue to be PM because of some bullshit backroom deal, while you watch him do whatever he’ll do next, will you still say “but proportional representation of good?”
This is why I really like the run-off system of the non-instant variety. It gives people a clear choice and a chance to think. People that might not have voted the first round see a stark choice and may think “yeah I better go vote or we’ll have another Bolsanaro running things and I don’t want that.”
Congrats to Brazil!
The two-round system is actually very similar in its dynamics to instant runoff voting or FPTP with primaries. All these systems feature a centre squeeze. FPTP without primaries is actually a better system, albeit obviously still vastly inferior to a proportional system, which is what all top-tier democracies (and economies for that matter) use. In the FPTP-without-primary era, the US still had statesmen with broad support as presidents (e.g., FDR, Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt), and the election of a Trump would have been unfathomable (at least, on the Republican ticket).
Proportional representation gives all power to the parties and they decide policy in backroom deals when forming coalitions. It’s the system Israel has. Do you really want to have Israel’s system of government? A lot of oppression can happen when a party has to to make deal with radical nutjobs to form a coalition. Why do you think that’s a superior system? Do you like oppression?
“First Past the Post” is a term coined by intellectually dishonest people that say they want “electoral reform” when really they just want to change the system so their preferred party will have more power. We should call it what is really is, a community representation system. Because you’re voting for someone to represent your community. But that sounds nice and is more difficult to argue against, isn’t it?
I’m well aware of instant runoff system, and I think that would be ok. But a two round system is better than instant runoff. S-tier is two round community representation, instant run off community representation is A-tier, one round, one selection traditional community representation is C-Tier.
Israel style proportional representation only seems good to people who think of things from the perspective of a spreadsheet (the numbers all line up… yay) and have no understanding of power dynamics… F-Tier. Close your spreadsheet and look at how proportional representation works in the real world. How much oppression will you tolerate just so that two columns in a spreadsheet will have the same numbers in them?
The problem in Israel is not that it has a proportional system, but that Palestinians in the occupied territories have no voting rights. If they did, a two-state solution would have come out of the Knesset a long time ago.
Yes, that can happen, but it’s still not as bad as having a single party of radical nutjobs not having to compromise.
That’s a good suggestion, I advise you to follow it. Take any quality-of-life ranking and look at what kind of political system they have.
In the Social Progress Index, we find the first non-proportional democracy, Ireland, on 8th place. But even Ireland has a semi-proportional system with multi-member districts. The first two-party system is in 13th place, Australia, which uses ranked-choice voting.
In the inequality-adjusted HDI, the first non-proportional is again Ireland in 9th place, with Australia, the UK and Canada from 12th place.
You could also have a look at indices for democracy and rule of law. The V-Dem Democracy has Ireland on 5th place and France (which uses a two-round system) on 9th.
As you were typing out your comment, who will be leader of Israel will be determined by whether or not an Arab party will be accepted into a governing coalition. They always exclude Arab parties from being in the coalition. Because racism and shit.
That’s proportional representation. You have lots of options for who to vote for, but if the majority wants to lock out a minority group from power they can. All power is determined by backroom deals between parties.
But there is a chance the Arab party may be allowed to be part of the government. It all depends on whether the leaders of a bunch of parties are willing to allow Netanyahu to continue to rule over them or allow an Arab party to join them. Nothing anybody can do about it, the lives of a lot of people and the future of the middle East depends on the results of some backroom deals.
Fuck proportional representation. It’s so obviously a stupid system. If Netanyahu didn’t get enough votes to continue to be PM but he may still continue to be PM because of some bullshit backroom deal, while you watch him do whatever he’ll do next, will you still say “but proportional representation of good?”
How is that “obvious” when proportional systems are so utterly dominant when it comes to the most prosperous societies?