sc94597 said:
Having two blocs seems to be a natural result of majoritarian (or plural) power being the goal. Whoever can form a majority or plurality gets to make decisions with the minority left out or limited in most countries and instances. The difference between the U.S and most European countries seems to be at which point the blocs are formed and into which sort of frameworks. For the U.S there are templates called "parties" but really they should be thought of as interest-based coalitions, where various different interest groups (called factions) bind together in an attempt to accumulate power before elections. These interest-groups can be quite ideologically diverse. Because of the "separation of powers" and the multiplicity of elections there is nothing like a clear majoritarian mandate that you find in many European countries, especially when compared to those with unicameral, unitary legislatures and no separation of the executive and legislative. So power is often shared in the U.S between blocs. In most European countries the coalitions/blocs are formed after the elections, and for those countries where legislative and executive power isn't diffused/separated but rather concentrated/consolidated (unitary, unicameral) something like a clear majority mandate can be determined more easily. The Swiss system is probably what an idealized U.S system would be, because it took a lot from the U.S system and improved it. Rather than a president there is a continuous directorate that the parties share. This is something that is more small "r" republican in essence, and early U.S states like Pennsylvania used to have a similar executive system. Rather than a two party system based on plurality voting there is a four-party system based on ranked-choice voting more or less. There is substantial direct democracy, an aspect present in the U.S but to a much more moderate degree and only at the state and local levels. Cantonal autonomy over reserved powers is more cleanly preserved than state autonomy over reserved powers is in the U.S. taxes for example are more evenly shared between cantons and the central Swiss government than taxes are in the U.S. Meaning that a lot that is supposedly state powers in the U.S depends on federal funding, and therefore making it difficult to determine which entity has the mandate and should be judged. The U.S system (in theory) can become as democratic as the Swiss system (which is probably the most literally democratic system in the world.) But of course that would require a very tumultuous transition period where there is a high degree of instability, and if there is anything the U.S system is good at being it is stable. Even with the recent fascist threats its surprisingly been able to somewhat defend itself. We'll see what happens as capitalism continues to produce more crises. Especially the ongoing climate crisis, but probably other crises to come. |
This is why first past the post sucks and ranked choice needs to applied. That and proportional voting. One cool idea was actually sharing seats of districts based on minimum voting threshold and proportion of votes gotten. Though that becomes complicated. It'd be like a mini council for every seat to deliberate and decide on issues. So if one gets 40% and two other get 30% each of a seat, the three together decide how they will vote for each measure in the assembly. It is a fair bit competitive but way more representative. Ranked choice is a must though.
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also
