Comments by "리주민" (@user-nf9xc7ww7m) on "How Europe Makes Constant Coalition Governments Work - TLDR News" video.

@_blank-_ No one's advocating forcing them. Negotiation is key to a functioning democracy. By saying they won't even meet with them is denouncing democracy.
6
It is concerning when parties start saying they won't work with another party they don't like. Negotiation is fine--if you don't want to compromise on issues, then don't. Put your foot down. At least you would have tried.
4
@IkeOkerekeNews The us is the only country using the presidential system that hasn't yet devolved into dictatorship at some point in its history. I'd think that would be pretty d-mning of the system.
3
@roadrunner6224 Is it really true about the far left and right parties, though? It seems the media hypes them up. Sure, there are racists and anarchists in those parties, but isn't thst the same for the republican and democratic parties in the us too? Party leadership's ability to control or expel the fringe is important for any party. And, last time I checked, the AFD expelled a few members. Didn't the CDU have a member who said something on the same level but got to remain? And, I may be rusty, but didn't the forerunner of the CDU cooperate with the N-zis to expelled the SPD and KPD, and were anti-semitic early on? I'm sure they have grown and expelled such members. Would the AFD and SED be more palatable if they were to do the same, even if it takes a few years, as did the other?
3
Right Wing You could do 100 seats nationwide at-large PR; or 250 seats, with 100 nationwide at-large PR, 100 seats by districts, and 50 Maori seats. I would also change the FPTP on the district electorate to ranked choice. I will say that a single at-large nationwide PR district is the most natural way to stop gettymandering. The only way to gerrymander in that case would be too either annex territory or set some free. 😋
3
I wish that party ideologies would remain the same and if you wanted to change the fundamental principles (eg labour going from socialist to neoliberal, republicans turning into trumplican cult of personality) you'd need to start a new party.
3
This definitely helped democracy in new Zealand. Since it eliminated the upper house that acted as a check on the pm, the pm could think of an idea and have it passed into law by evening. That is, until MMP voting was introduced. Now, coalitions are the norm which places more checks and balances in the system.
3
Coalitions allowing for compromise and negotiation is good for democracy. The opposite end of that spectrum is when two major parties dominate and demonise each other. Without needing to negotiate to form govt or indeed even reach a majority (FPTP allows a candidate to win with 15% of the vote if no other candidate gets more than that one). In all of this, I will say parliamentary systems are more democratic and stable. All but one country that uses presidential system had at some point in its history devolved into dictatorship. Dictatorship is also much harder without first merging the head of state and head of govt offices. That's the reason dictator wannabes wish to turn to presidential systems where the two offices are held by a single person. I would actually prefer many small parties that had a Max of 5 platform issues. I would also prefer that the core ideology of the party be unable to be changed (eg the labour party must be for socialism and not morphed into a neoliberal party without voters knowledge). This would allow for a Liberal Green party that believes in classic liberalism but also in environmental protection to be in govt much easier, for example.
2
@neodym5809 If that could be independently verified then I would say that member should go. Unfortunately, I've come across many articles, even by mainstream news, that republish unverified stories and then, even when found to be untrue, are never publicly retracted. We're living in a new age of yellow journalism...
2
Coalitions allowing for compromise and negotiation is good for democracy. The opposite end of that spectrum is when two major parties dominate and demonise each other. Without needing to negotiate to form govt or indeed even reach a majority (FPTP allows a candidate to win with 15% of the vote if no other candidate gets more than that one). In all of this, I will say parliamentary systems are more democratic and stable. All but one country that uses presidential system had at some point in its history devolved into dictatorship. Dictatorship is also much harder without first merging the head of state and head of govt offices. That's the reason dictator wannabes wish to turn to presidential systems where the two offices are held by a single person. I would actually prefer many small parties that had a Max of 5 platform issues. I would also prefer that the core ideology of the party be unable to be changed (eg the labour party must be for socialism and not morphed into a neoliberal party without voters knowledge). This would allow for a Liberal Green party that believes in classic liberalism but also in environmental protection to be in govt much easier, for example.
2
@davidstern5012 The swiss have multiple parties in parliament and have referendums. You could vote directly in that case, if you or another thst felt strongly about this got enough signatures.
2
@Sdtok Even if the govt (executive) falls, it doesn't mean the country has descended into anarchy. The govt turns into a caretaker govt and just can't propose platform legislation. It oversees the operations of the country. It even the govt just quit and the head of state needed to appoint another, nonpartisan civil servants actually run things in the background.
2
Coalitions allowing for compromise and negotiation is good for democracy. The opposite end of that spectrum is when two major parties dominate and demonise each other. Without needing to negotiate to form govt or indeed even reach a majority (FPTP allows a candidate to win with 15% of the vote if no other candidate gets more than that one). In all of this, I will say parliamentary systems are more democratic and stable. All but one country that uses presidential system had at some point in its history devolved into dictatorship. Dictatorship is also much harder without first merging the head of state and head of govt offices. That's the reason dictator wannabes wish to turn to presidential systems where the two offices are held by a single person. I would actually prefer many small parties that had a Max of 5 platform issues. I would also prefer that the core ideology of the party be unable to be changed (eg the labour party must be for socialism and not morphed into a neoliberal party without voters knowledge). This would allow for a Liberal Green party that believes in classic liberalism but also in environmental protection to be in govt much easier, for example.
2
Dominant party system. Japan has had the LDP in charge for all but 5(?) years since ww2.
2
Right Wing NZ also has Maori seats (parliamentary seats reserved for the natives).
2
@SteveWithers I'm younger (sorry). I've lived under the MMP system for all but a few years. My familiarity with FPTP (UK, US) is mostly with the US (been working here for some time). That and electing judges and sheriff's 🤠
2
Right Wing That's because many consider it racist only when dealing with whites. Some would be fine with minority seats (unless white), or seats for other protected classes (s-x orientation, disability, etc). Another thing to look at is word substitution. Would a person consider it racist to change the minority or protected class to white: NAACP -> NAAWP = RACIST? Congressional Black Caucus -> Congressional White Caucus = racist? Black lives matter -> white lives matter = racist? (here, even saying the inclusive all lives matter is considered racist too for some reason...guess no lives matter) I'm just a foreigner here so you can dismiss me on this. I just find it odd.
2
Coalitions allowing for compromise and negotiation is good for democracy. The opposite end of that spectrum is when two major parties dominate and demonise each other. Without needing to negotiate to form govt or indeed even reach a majority (FPTP allows a candidate to win with 15% of the vote if no other candidate gets more than that one). In all of this, I will say parliamentary systems are more democratic and stable. All but one country that uses presidential system had at some point in its history devolved into dictatorship. Dictatorship is also much harder without first merging the head of state and head of govt offices. That's the reason dictator wannabes wish to turn to presidential systems where the two offices are held by a single person. I would actually prefer many small parties that had a Max of 5 platform issues. I would also prefer that the core ideology of the party be unable to be changed (eg the labour party must be for socialism and not morphed into a neoliberal party). This would allow for a Liberal Green party that believes in classic liberalism but also in environmental protection to be in govt much easier, for example.
2
Anybody know why the govt isn't just hired non-partisan administrators, similar to city managers in the council manager system? Should the top job be political?
1
@Chrome2105 That's why I said the forerunner to the CDU and not the CDU directly. Party members merely migrated to a new party that wasn't tainted. It would be as if the classic republicans actually created a new party separate from the trumplicans.
1
Another thing to look at is when the potential coalition is allowed to petition the head of state (monarch, president) or viceroy (governor general) to form. In some countries, the party with the most vote gets first swing while the runner up parties must wait. In other countries, all parties start negotiating and then petition the head of state. This happened in new Zealand in 2017. The national party had more votes than labour, but labour was able to get more parties on board to beat national. What matters is the coalition numbers, not the individual parties' numbers.
1
@IkeOkerekeNews Sorry. Did I double post?
1
Anybody know why the govt isn't just hired non-partisan administrators, similar to city managers in the council manager system? Should the top job be political?
1
@IkeOkerekeNews Apologies. I'll check my connection...
1
@Luredreier It's korean. 😉
1
The individuals do get changed out, but the party seats in govt are preset. It did change with the addition of an extra seat for one party at the expense of another. Further, the symbolic presidency (chair) of the federal council rotates so all in govt gets a chance to be the president. The federal assembly (parliament) ensures that parties can still vote without compromise, if they wish. The swiss system is collegial, not presidential or parliamentary.
1
@Luredreier Oddly, no country really does occupation or occupational group representation, as opposed to geographical. Hong Kong has a functional representation but it seems to be more interest group than actual jobs based. Imagine if jobs were allocated seats based on the census as opposed to geography. 10% of the population are farmers so farmers get 10% of the seats in parliament, etc. Rural is represented nationally in the us by the senate as each state, regardless of size, gets 2 senators. Being bicameral (2 house legislature), the senate can block bills. Oddly, the supreme court in reynold v sims (1964) ruled that legislatures should represent people and not trees (land area) in an issue where state senates tried to mirror the national senate (2 state senators per county, akin to 2 national senators per state). By doing so, the supreme court effectively ruled the national senate unconstitutional since it operates exactly on land area and not people.
1
@Luredreier Agreed, but just as mmp is a mix of single member districts and multi-member districts, why not have occupational group districts in the mix too? It doesn't need to be either or.
1
@Luredreier Wouldnt that be the same issue for our current geographical representation? Every municipality wants more representation. It'd the census that determines how its divided (and gerrymandering...), the same would occur for occupational representation. Plus, gerrymandering occupational districts is near impossible unless its also geographic.
1
@Luredreier I get what you're saying, but I thought I had said the census would reallocate seats just as they do geographically. For instance, if farmers make up 10% of the population in 2000, they would get 10% of the occupational seats. If farmers in 2010 census made up only 8% of population, then they would get 8% of occupational seats then (losing 2%). However, for geo, I can see solidarity with the farmers in rural electorates, despite not everyone being a farmer.
1
Anybody know why the govt isn't just hired non-partisan administrators, similar to city managers in the council manager system? Should the top job be political?
1
@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Laws should be made by the legislative (congress), executive should only execute (carry out) the laws, not have an opinion on them.
1