3 ms·

Ah, interesting. How many have they tried experimentally?

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Parliamentary systems are generally considered more stable than presidential systems and tend to more naturally express multiparty politics (Australia and UK not withstanding). Even while many people in the US might like the things a parliamentary system has to offer, there is no viable way to transition to one culturally. As much Americans hate how politics works presently, they hate the idea of replacing it even more. The socio-cultural hesitancy is real, paradoxical, and cannot be ignored.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  > Australia and UK not withstanding ..cites two of the most important examples
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    One of the key features of a lousy theory is when you need to ignore the most prominent data points in order to have it be applicable.
- tomp 4y ago
  > Parliamentary systems are generally considered more stable Hm... Germany's system changed at least 3 times in the 20th century. France is on its Fifth Republic. Italy is a shitshow. To me it seems that the oldest democracies (UK, US) are the most stable (even today!) and they're majority systems (first-past-the-post).
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    To actually do comparative politics, you need to regress over regimes not just call out counter examples. This is a quantitative problem, not a logic problem.
    - tomp 4y ago
      No, because I don't care about averages. I care about minimum, and maybe maximum. The worst case for representative democracy is literally Hitler. The second worst (you could argue that Hitler was a unique set of circumstances) is the dysfunctional German, Italian, or French states. The best case is probably Switzerland (party proportions barely change, I assume because the power of parliament is diminished because of elements of direct democracy that Swiss practice). What's the worst case for first-past-the-post democracy?
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Thanks for being transparent. When I say stable, I'm referring to regime-years which is a standard way of operationalizing stability in comparative politics. It makes sense that if you're interested in things other than regime-years then most of what I have to share isn't going to be interesting to you.
  - funcDropShadow 4y ago
    Replacing a prime minister after 6 weeks is an extremely short term, even for Italy. The current German constitution --- basic law to be precise -- has lasted twice as long as the previous German constitution. And its end doesn't appear on the horizon. The stability of the US system looked quite dire from the outside less than two years ago.
    - tomp 4y ago
      > The stability of the US system looked quite dire from the outside less than two years ago. Only if you believe fake news media propaganda who equated "mostly peaceful protest" with "coup" (for real examples of a coup, look no further than Libya, Ukraine, or Myanmar; hint: it usually involves guns & people getting killed).
      - funcDropShadow 4y ago
        People were killed in Washington.

Parliamentary systems are generally considered more stable than presidential systems and tend to more naturally express multiparty politics (Australia and UK not withstanding). Even while many people in the US might like the things a parliamentary system has to offer, there is no viable way to transition to one culturally. As much Americans hate how politics works presently, they hate the idea of replacing it even more. The socio-cultural hesitancy is real, paradoxical, and cannot be ignored.

epicureanideal 4y ago
> Australia and UK not withstanding ..cites two of the most important examples
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  One of the key features of a lousy theory is when you need to ignore the most prominent data points in order to have it be applicable.
tomp 4y ago
> Parliamentary systems are generally considered more stable Hm... Germany's system changed at least 3 times in the 20th century. France is on its Fifth Republic. Italy is a shitshow. To me it seems that the oldest democracies (UK, US) are the most stable (even today!) and they're majority systems (first-past-the-post).
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  To actually do comparative politics, you need to regress over regimes not just call out counter examples. This is a quantitative problem, not a logic problem.
  - tomp 4y ago
    No, because I don't care about averages. I care about minimum, and maybe maximum. The worst case for representative democracy is literally Hitler. The second worst (you could argue that Hitler was a unique set of circumstances) is the dysfunctional German, Italian, or French states. The best case is probably Switzerland (party proportions barely change, I assume because the power of parliament is diminished because of elements of direct democracy that Swiss practice). What's the worst case for first-past-the-post democracy?
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Thanks for being transparent. When I say stable, I'm referring to regime-years which is a standard way of operationalizing stability in comparative politics. It makes sense that if you're interested in things other than regime-years then most of what I have to share isn't going to be interesting to you.
- funcDropShadow 4y ago
  Replacing a prime minister after 6 weeks is an extremely short term, even for Italy. The current German constitution --- basic law to be precise -- has lasted twice as long as the previous German constitution. And its end doesn't appear on the horizon. The stability of the US system looked quite dire from the outside less than two years ago.
  - tomp 4y ago
    > The stability of the US system looked quite dire from the outside less than two years ago. Only if you believe fake news media propaganda who equated "mostly peaceful protest" with "coup" (for real examples of a coup, look no further than Libya, Ukraine, or Myanmar; hint: it usually involves guns & people getting killed).
    - funcDropShadow 4y ago
      People were killed in Washington.