3 ms·

This won't bother at all this administration. Say what you want but presidential democracies where presidents are elected by popular vote are a disaster for st

This won't bother at all this administration. Say what you want but presidential democracies where presidents are elected by popular vote are a disaster for stability and democracy. What's happening with this doing and undoing in the US (or Russia, Belarus, Hungary and countless other presidential republics) fully displays why this is a terrible political system: 1. Winner takes all. You may have been voted by 50% + 1 (even less) citizens but the other half is totally not represented like in a parliament. 2. No parliament/party that you need to have backing of. In a parliamentary democracy the prime minister won't just lose opposition's votes, but has to govern in a way that its own party won't boot you. 3. Single person can claim popular mandate. Often in opposition to the parliament/senate whatever. So you end up in situations like the disaster in Poland where government and president are from different parties and the government gets vetoed everything. 4. Extremely hard to remove. A prime minister is a vote of no confidence away from losing its seat. The president can ask them to resign in extreme situations. A president? Removing them is beyond difficult. Honestly this is such an obvious disaster to have people vote for a president rather than a parliamentary prime minister. The last parliamentary democracy to turn authoritarian has been Sri Lanka 50+ years ago. It's very hard to get so bad so fast in parliamentary republics. Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail. It's old and has been written centuries ago without all the experience we have in modern democracies. Eastern Europe too has made very bad choices with similar setups and democratically elected presidents. Say what you want but Germany or Italy have built in way more resilience to these absurdities by having the parliament elect the president which forces them to elect mostly neutral unbiased figures that will support and oversee whoever ends up being in government.

cmrdporcupine 10mo ago
Yes, I guess I'm biased by living in a Westminster system (which isn't perfect, I'd prefer Germany's structure like you say, but) I think you're entirely right that the American republic system is just broken. I think we'll look back on it in 100 years as an absolutely awful way to run government because it effectively created an "elected" "king" role and gave them real powers -- and then let that king get more and more powers over 100 years until, effectively, they have a rotating (for now) despot. The Westminster system "solves" this problem by having an actual king but giving them zero powers. The German system I think you're right is superior. Ireland also seems to have a nice system. Americans are very enamoured with their constitution, and it has some good words in it. Too bad they don't seem like they want to actually defend it with the real source of power .. which is not words, or "well-armed militias" [almost always the wrong kind], but feet in the street. And that's not even getting into the complete and total dysfunction of their two party structure.
- cloche 10mo ago
  The leader of the US was actually supposed to function as a king. Washington was offered the role of king for the new country however he rejected it which ended up leading to the presidential role. It's strange how much reverence Americans place in the presidential role as if it were actually a king.
  - cmrdporcupine 10mo ago
    It's also strangely martial. Commander in chief, first president a general, all that stuff. The blurring of the executive and the military, the adoration of troops and war, etc. All very strange(?) for a country whose military has only ever been really involved in outside interference and war and not defense of homeland. "Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans -- service for what? The US is at no risk of invasion. Hegseth is a low-IQ fascist fool, but renaming to Department of War is at least acknowledging reality. The Trump government just mostly says the formerly quiet part out loud.
    - palata 10mo ago
      > "Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans -- service for what? Well they are serving the US military, which is generally used for the benefit of the US people. Does not mean it's defending their territory. Now to be fair, when the US people thanks their soldiers for their service, I don't think they are necessarily thankful for the US threatening to invade what used to be considered as allies (like Canada or Europe). But I do agree that it is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans.
      - ericmay 10mo ago
        Well, it’s usually in the context of saying thanks, for things like nights and weekends away from family and friends on training deployments (or real ones), getting up early every morning, being the first one who has to take action if there is a crises and put their life at risk. So usually it’s said even if the nation isn’t at war because it’s not an easy job. You’ll hear Americans say it to first responders, nurses, fire fighters, police officers, &c. Idk why it’s being characterized as weird though instead of what it is which is just an aspect of our culture to say thanks to others who are doing jobs you perceive to be dangerous or difficult. As a veteran of the US armed forces I hate it because I never know what to say…”thanks for your service’ …uh you’re welcome? But it comes from a good place. Though I try to remind folks that saying thanks isn’t enough, spend time and money helping others, vote, keep your community clean, have high standards for yourself and others, because otherwise your fellow citizens are doing all this for nothing.
palata 10mo ago
> Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail There exists a concept of "American exceptionalism" [1], which describes this popular belief that the US are superior. It also probably goes with the fact that it is a very big country sharing one culture, and it is easy to not spend too much time looking at what other countries are doing. > presidential democracies where presidents are elected by popular vote are a disaster I would like to add France to the examples supporting your case: in the first round, Macron got less than 20% of the votes, and a non-negligible part of those was already trying to be "efficient". As in, the people would have voted for someone else, but they voted for Macron because it seemed more likely that he could win against Le Pen, the far-right candidate. This means that less than 20% of the people (those who voted of course) wanted Macron. On his first day, more than 80% didn't want him. Still he behaves like if the French people wanted him. > by having the parliament elect the president An example I like is Switzerland: they don't have a president at all. They elect their parliament, and the parliament elects the Federal Council made of 7 people from the main parties. What this means is that the executive power is a consensus by construction, and most of the people is represented (because the Federal Council is made of the major parties, which represent the majority of the people and go from left to right). Feeling represented is very important: when the people does not feel represented, they take out to the street and protest. I don't think it happens as much in the countries you described (Germany, Italy) or Switzerland. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
- mcphage 10mo ago
  > This means that less than 20% of the people (those who voted of course) wanted Macron. On his first day, more than 80% didn't want him. That’s not true. “I want someone else more than X” isn’t the same as “I don’t want X”. That’s the advantage of Approval voting and Ranked Choice voting—you can make those things clear.
  - palata 10mo ago
    Not sure what this brings other than nitpicking. If you look at the situation in France, I think it's pretty damn obvious that the people don't feel represented by their government. My point was not to nitpick on the numbers, but rather to say that having a president elected by the people and having as much executive power as the president has in France doesn't seem to work really well. As opposed to countries that enforce a consensus.
morkalork 10mo ago
Even the United States government and its advisors are aware of this; when they installed a new form of government in Iraq after the invasion, it was a parliamentary system.
- epolanski 10mo ago
  That's quite an interesting observation.
somerandomqaguy 10mo ago
>Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail. It's old and has been written centuries ago without all the experience we have in modern democracies. Eastern Europe too has made very bad choices with similar setups and democratically elected presidents. I don't think it's the Constitution in of itself that's a holy grail. Just look at how hotly debated the 2nd Amendment is, especially among Americans. I think the true holy grail is the process to amend it, because that requires a relatively clear majority of Americans to agree to change it; well beyond 50% if I remember American civics correctly. It's a living document, changed as needed. It just hasn't as of late because the process is arduous on purpose to prevent heated decisions from being rushed through.
JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> you end up in situations like the disaster in Poland where government and president are from different parties and the government gets vetoed everything This sounds like the system failing as designed.
phantom784 10mo ago
> 1. Winner takes all. You may have been voted by 50% + 1 (even less) citizens but the other half is totally not represented like in a parliament. I agree with your argument in general, but couldn't this still happen with a parliament? If a party controls 50% + 1 of the parliament, then they're in control. Still, it's better than that control being given to a single person of course.
- surgical_fire 10mo ago
  Typically no (unless you're the UK with a very dysfunctional FPTP system). Typically the parliament is fractured in multiple parties, because in parliamentarism there is not automatic incentive to vote for one of the big parties otherwise you are wasting your vote. If the party you vote for has 5% of the representation in the parliament, it can still be part of a coalition to form the government and influence decisions.
  - Etherlord87 10mo ago
    I'm not an expert on this, but the way I see it, the opposite is true: people don't vote on small parties, because if a small party doesn't reach the minimum required, the vote is wasted. This way there's only a few parties (if the minimum is 5% then there can't really be more than 20 parties, and since the distribution is very far from even, you get around around 4-7 parties with 5% minimum). However, the big parties often consist of sub-factions. However, it seems there are mechanisms that turn parties into dictatorships with one person ruling everything in the entire party, as well as people get carried away with negative emotions and vote against, polarizing the politics into just 2 parties alternating in power.
    - defrost 10mo ago
      Australia has a proportional voting "washminster" system with two and half major parties .. ( Labor Vs. Liberal+Nationals OR (cartoonishly) "Masses" Vs Urban-Capital+Rural-LandOwners (comically grotesque oversimplification) ) There are, however, many smaller parties that a great many people vote on first in proportional run-offs. Australians are well aware that the smaller parties often don't get a seat but they're also well aware that the voltes are tallied to reveal the issues championed by smaller parties and how the secondary preferences "run off" to the majors. eg: (say) Labor only squeaked in ahead of the Liberals because people that care about issue {X} first then preferenced Labor second .. expecting Labor to address that issue. Fail to address an issue and the margin votes switch secondary preferences. ( That said, a number of small parties do hold independant seats ) Much of this small party preference voting kicked off from The Australian Democrats, a centrist political party founded in 1977 with the slogan Keep the Bastards Honest.

cmrdporcupine 10mo ago

Yes, I guess I'm biased by living in a Westminster system (which isn't perfect, I'd prefer Germany's structure like you say, but) I think you're entirely right that the American republic system is just broken. I think we'll look back on it in 100 years as an absolutely awful way to run government because it effectively created an "elected" "king" role and gave them real powers -- and then let that king get more and more powers over 100 years until, effectively, they have a rotating (for now) despot. The Westminster system "solves" this problem by having an actual king but giving them zero powers. The German system I think you're right is superior. Ireland also seems to have a nice system. Americans are very enamoured with their constitution, and it has some good words in it. Too bad they don't seem like they want to actually defend it with the real source of power .. which is not words, or "well-armed militias" [almost always the wrong kind], but feet in the street. And that's not even getting into the complete and total dysfunction of their two party structure.

cloche 10mo ago
The leader of the US was actually supposed to function as a king. Washington was offered the role of king for the new country however he rejected it which ended up leading to the presidential role. It's strange how much reverence Americans place in the presidential role as if it were actually a king.
- cmrdporcupine 10mo ago
  It's also strangely martial. Commander in chief, first president a general, all that stuff. The blurring of the executive and the military, the adoration of troops and war, etc. All very strange(?) for a country whose military has only ever been really involved in outside interference and war and not defense of homeland. "Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans -- service for what? The US is at no risk of invasion. Hegseth is a low-IQ fascist fool, but renaming to Department of War is at least acknowledging reality. The Trump government just mostly says the formerly quiet part out loud.
  - palata 10mo ago
    > "Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans -- service for what? Well they are serving the US military, which is generally used for the benefit of the US people. Does not mean it's defending their territory. Now to be fair, when the US people thanks their soldiers for their service, I don't think they are necessarily thankful for the US threatening to invade what used to be considered as allies (like Canada or Europe). But I do agree that it is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans.
    - ericmay 10mo ago
      Well, it’s usually in the context of saying thanks, for things like nights and weekends away from family and friends on training deployments (or real ones), getting up early every morning, being the first one who has to take action if there is a crises and put their life at risk. So usually it’s said even if the nation isn’t at war because it’s not an easy job. You’ll hear Americans say it to first responders, nurses, fire fighters, police officers, &c. Idk why it’s being characterized as weird though instead of what it is which is just an aspect of our culture to say thanks to others who are doing jobs you perceive to be dangerous or difficult. As a veteran of the US armed forces I hate it because I never know what to say…”thanks for your service’ …uh you’re welcome? But it comes from a good place. Though I try to remind folks that saying thanks isn’t enough, spend time and money helping others, vote, keep your community clean, have high standards for yourself and others, because otherwise your fellow citizens are doing all this for nothing.

palata 10mo ago

> Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail There exists a concept of "American exceptionalism" [1], which describes this popular belief that the US are superior. It also probably goes with the fact that it is a very big country sharing one culture, and it is easy to not spend too much time looking at what other countries are doing. > presidential democracies where presidents are elected by popular vote are a disaster I would like to add France to the examples supporting your case: in the first round, Macron got less than 20% of the votes, and a non-negligible part of those was already trying to be "efficient". As in, the people would have voted for someone else, but they voted for Macron because it seemed more likely that he could win against Le Pen, the far-right candidate. This means that less than 20% of the people (those who voted of course) wanted Macron. On his first day, more than 80% didn't want him. Still he behaves like if the French people wanted him. > by having the parliament elect the president An example I like is Switzerland: they don't have a president at all. They elect their parliament, and the parliament elects the Federal Council made of 7 people from the main parties. What this means is that the executive power is a consensus by construction, and most of the people is represented (because the Federal Council is made of the major parties, which represent the majority of the people and go from left to right). Feeling represented is very important: when the people does not feel represented, they take out to the street and protest. I don't think it happens as much in the countries you described (Germany, Italy) or Switzerland. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

mcphage 10mo ago
> This means that less than 20% of the people (those who voted of course) wanted Macron. On his first day, more than 80% didn't want him. That’s not true. “I want someone else more than X” isn’t the same as “I don’t want X”. That’s the advantage of Approval voting and Ranked Choice voting—you can make those things clear.
- palata 10mo ago
  Not sure what this brings other than nitpicking. If you look at the situation in France, I think it's pretty damn obvious that the people don't feel represented by their government. My point was not to nitpick on the numbers, but rather to say that having a president elected by the people and having as much executive power as the president has in France doesn't seem to work really well. As opposed to countries that enforce a consensus.

morkalork 10mo ago

Even the United States government and its advisors are aware of this; when they installed a new form of government in Iraq after the invasion, it was a parliamentary system.

epolanski 10mo ago
That's quite an interesting observation.

somerandomqaguy 10mo ago

>Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail. It's old and has been written centuries ago without all the experience we have in modern democracies. Eastern Europe too has made very bad choices with similar setups and democratically elected presidents. I don't think it's the Constitution in of itself that's a holy grail. Just look at how hotly debated the 2nd Amendment is, especially among Americans. I think the true holy grail is the process to amend it, because that requires a relatively clear majority of Americans to agree to change it; well beyond 50% if I remember American civics correctly. It's a living document, changed as needed. It just hasn't as of late because the process is arduous on purpose to prevent heated decisions from being rushed through.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago

> you end up in situations like the disaster in Poland where government and president are from different parties and the government gets vetoed everything This sounds like the system failing as designed.

phantom784 10mo ago

> 1. Winner takes all. You may have been voted by 50% + 1 (even less) citizens but the other half is totally not represented like in a parliament. I agree with your argument in general, but couldn't this still happen with a parliament? If a party controls 50% + 1 of the parliament, then they're in control. Still, it's better than that control being given to a single person of course.

surgical_fire 10mo ago
Typically no (unless you're the UK with a very dysfunctional FPTP system). Typically the parliament is fractured in multiple parties, because in parliamentarism there is not automatic incentive to vote for one of the big parties otherwise you are wasting your vote. If the party you vote for has 5% of the representation in the parliament, it can still be part of a coalition to form the government and influence decisions.
- Etherlord87 10mo ago
  I'm not an expert on this, but the way I see it, the opposite is true: people don't vote on small parties, because if a small party doesn't reach the minimum required, the vote is wasted. This way there's only a few parties (if the minimum is 5% then there can't really be more than 20 parties, and since the distribution is very far from even, you get around around 4-7 parties with 5% minimum). However, the big parties often consist of sub-factions. However, it seems there are mechanisms that turn parties into dictatorships with one person ruling everything in the entire party, as well as people get carried away with negative emotions and vote against, polarizing the politics into just 2 parties alternating in power.
  - defrost 10mo ago
    Australia has a proportional voting "washminster" system with two and half major parties .. ( Labor Vs. Liberal+Nationals OR (cartoonishly) "Masses" Vs Urban-Capital+Rural-LandOwners (comically grotesque oversimplification) ) There are, however, many smaller parties that a great many people vote on first in proportional run-offs. Australians are well aware that the smaller parties often don't get a seat but they're also well aware that the voltes are tallied to reveal the issues championed by smaller parties and how the secondary preferences "run off" to the majors. eg: (say) Labor only squeaked in ahead of the Liberals because people that care about issue {X} first then preferenced Labor second .. expecting Labor to address that issue. Fail to address an issue and the margin votes switch secondary preferences. ( That said, a number of small parties do hold independant seats ) Much of this small party preference voting kicked off from The Australian Democrats, a centrist political party founded in 1977 with the slogan Keep the Bastards Honest.