4 ms·

Electing the president separately, when the president is a position of power and not just ceremonial, doesn't make sense anyway. With a multiparty system, you a

Electing the president separately, when the president is a position of power and not just ceremonial, doesn't make sense anyway. With a multiparty system, you are better off waiting for a coalition to form in parliament and letting that select the president. Otherwise, either the president or the parliament can act as a roadblock. Compare with how the system of the Netherlands works: a single country-wide electorate, and no threshold except for the number of votes needed for a seat. The outcome is numerous parties in parliament (i.e., far more democratic than the US) and coalition governments which must be formed or at least supported by parties that got a majority of the votes between them.

singingboyo 8y ago
I'd argue that if the president is intended to be a position of power, then a separate election is good - otherwise, one party (presumably the largest) in the ruling coalition has power far beyond what their vote count would justify, and the person gets power without real input from the electorate. Especially with many parties, if parties A and B are reasonably similar, it's quite plausible to like party A's platform while preferring party B's presidential candidate. A separate presidential election accounts for that, allowing you to elect A for the house, and B for president. Note that parties A and B are similar - I'd argue that they'd have to be, and that it's extraordinarily unlikely to get a president the ruling coalition is incapable of compromising with. This works out because overall, the vote for president should be ideologically similar to the votes for congress/parliament. (That working, of course, is contingent on some form of ranked voting for the president, rather than the FPTP system the US has now.) All that said, I'm from Canada, and I don't really agree with the idea of a single person with large amounts of power, but that's my take if there must be one.
- incompatible 8y ago
  Well, in Canada you have a Prime Minister who is elected by the House of Commons? Would it be so much better if the Prime Minister was elected separately? How would a Prime Minister run a government if his/her party was in opposition?
olliej 8y ago
The US constitution and founding documents make it very clear that the president is meant to be a separate entity - the fact that it’s devolved to the point that one party will rubber stamp pretty much anything the president tells them to is a failing of that party. Specifically the president represents the executive branch, then you have the two houses, one that represents the people approximately proportionally, and one that gives 20x multipliers to the voting power of people from mostly empty states.

singingboyo 8y ago

I'd argue that if the president is intended to be a position of power, then a separate election is good - otherwise, one party (presumably the largest) in the ruling coalition has power far beyond what their vote count would justify, and the person gets power without real input from the electorate. Especially with many parties, if parties A and B are reasonably similar, it's quite plausible to like party A's platform while preferring party B's presidential candidate. A separate presidential election accounts for that, allowing you to elect A for the house, and B for president. Note that parties A and B are similar - I'd argue that they'd have to be, and that it's extraordinarily unlikely to get a president the ruling coalition is incapable of compromising with. This works out because overall, the vote for president should be ideologically similar to the votes for congress/parliament. (That working, of course, is contingent on some form of ranked voting for the president, rather than the FPTP system the US has now.) All that said, I'm from Canada, and I don't really agree with the idea of a single person with large amounts of power, but that's my take if there must be one.

incompatible 8y ago
Well, in Canada you have a Prime Minister who is elected by the House of Commons? Would it be so much better if the Prime Minister was elected separately? How would a Prime Minister run a government if his/her party was in opposition?

olliej 8y ago

The US constitution and founding documents make it very clear that the president is meant to be a separate entity - the fact that it’s devolved to the point that one party will rubber stamp pretty much anything the president tells them to is a failing of that party. Specifically the president represents the executive branch, then you have the two houses, one that represents the people approximately proportionally, and one that gives 20x multipliers to the voting power of people from mostly empty states.