Hearted Youtube comments on Extra History (@extrahistory) channel.
-
179
-
178
-
178
-
178
-
178
-
177
-
177
-
177
-
176
-
174
-
174
-
173
-
173
-
172
-
171
-
171
-
170
-
170
-
169
-
169
-
169
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
167
-
167
-
166
-
166
-
166
-
166
-
165
-
165
-
165
-
165
-
165
-
164
-
164
-
163
-
162
-
162
-
161
-
161
-
160
-
This is one of the reasons why I've long since desired collegial power and proportional and consensus systems, mainly single transferable vote, score voting, and the proportional form of score voting, reweigted score voting.
In Ireland for example, in a five seat multi member district, if there were 60 thousand votes cast, you only need to win 10,001 votes to win (once five candidates have reached this quota, it is impossible for any other candidate to win) They are bigger than single member districts of course, allowing you to find many more people of similar beliefs and desires as you even if they make up only maybe a fifth of the electorate, a key factor that makes independents win in the Dail Eirann. And only about a fifth of candidates were elected in the first count of the votes, most need to have transfer votes from eliminated candidates (those who got the fewest votes and weren't popular enough to win a seat) and from the excess ballots from candidates who have met the quota. This makes it a very bad idea to alienate people. It's hard to say only I can solve problems, because you are only capable of getting 1/3-1/5 of the seats in the district, you will work at a minimum with other people in the same district, and nearly invariably this involves opposition or independent members,o and even members of the same party that competed against you for votes due to the ranking system. You also have an incentive to work with other members of the same alliance to help promote each other so as to get at least one of you elected, if you can't, you'll still get a decent life and usually some influence in the party, like organizing crucial roles, and may be selected to run in the next election if you prove to be decently popular even if you came up short.
Political parties that are similar enough to current ones but under fresh leadership, they can pretty easily pop into existance, and can attract many of the guinea votes who otherwise would have been firmly stuck one way or another, having to choose between two similar options for them rather than one that you knew for a long time would be basically the only party or movement or person you wanted to choose.
It's a much smaller risk, and you can focus on a group of supporters rather than trying to please an absolute majority or even plurality with promises you can't keep to any one of them.
I also have disliked the US's focus on a singular president for a long time, and same with the senate where you only really have one up at any given time. I have been more favourable to collegial power via parliamentary, Swiss, and cooperative structures (such as trade unions, cooperatives, and commune boards of directors). There is not a big risk in losing by a small percentage, and even a president who wins in a two round system with an absolute majority will still be a second choice to many, which is not ideal. Confidence and supply deals and coalitions, cabinets, the ability to sack a prime minister or cabinet minister even if the party in general is popular without being accused of a coup d'etat, that's a very useful property in my opinion.
This also applies for non state entities, which I believe are better at providing for what we really need and want instead of governments and should be promoted as an alternative. When you have a singular leader, you risk a lot. They may be arrested, they might be killed, inoculously or not, They might be censored, and it can be hard to remove cults of personality around them. It's far better to spread the risk out.
159
-
159
-
159
-
158
-
158
-
157
-
157