Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Should Europeans VOTE for their President? (Like the U.S.)" video.
-
6
-
I agree, single representative constituencies are a horrible idea.
Be it for parties or candidates.
Imagine 10 political parties, 9 left leaning ones, and one right leaning one getting 11% of the votes.
Almost 90% of the voters voted left leaning, but their vote was split.
With a two round system you may then get the left leaning candidate (perhaos a far left extremist) with 1 more votes then the third most popular representative (8 of the candidates where moderate left, one far left and one far right), despite the third most popular one being overall closer to the majority of the electorate the electorate then ends up having to choose between the plague and cholera...
Similarly the candidates could be problematic due to national affiliation or any number of other issues.
And votes for individuals tends to devolve into talk about personalities instead of political substance.
No, instead I by far prefer parliamentarianism, in a proportional electoral system.
Any roles needed can then be created and distributed based on needs and qualifications and negotiations and compromises, leading to a generally well rounded outcome with people who's usually somewhat moderate, at least by the standards of their own parties, that has a influence on different areas of politics, and it's generally people that are able to work together.
4
-
@haldy-p Imagine 10 political parties, one far left, one far right, and the rest are center left (or if you prefer right).
Anyway the one party that's on the far extreme of whatever side you are not on yourself gets 11% of the votes.
The party with the second most votes has 1 more vote then the third most popular party and is on the far extreme on the other side, despite 80% of the voters voting for various parties in the center on the side of the second biggest party.
In a single round election 100% of the power goes to the candidate that's the furthest away from 90% of the electorate.
If there's a two round system you end up with the voters forced to pick between plague and cholera, as neither party firs their more centrist views (center left or right depending on what you'd prefer).
As a result a direct election for a single guy ends up being undemocratic.
Instead by making it indirect through a parliamentarian system you can have parties negotiate.
If an outright jerk is the top candidate from a party they can punish said party by not voting for him or her, and perhaps request someone they can work with.
Or if you end up with the biggest party being on the opposite side of the majority of the voters perhaps the second or third biggest party will get a majority for their candidate.
Either way, you get a compromise that's something most of the electorate and politicians can live with.
If a party or a politician is corrupt then other politicians and the electorate both can punish them in a proportional system.
Non-corrupt politicians can refuse to work with the most corrupt politicians.
And voters can can vote for other parties.
The corrupt politicians will still be a part of the political climate as they'll always have core voters keeping them in the legeslative body, but as their reputation gets tarnished they'll lose power and influence through a reduction in seats and coalition partners both.
A parliamentarian system therefore keeps the leaders in question more accountable then a directly elected candidate can be.
In part because politicians who after all works full time with politics and therefore are more likely to be aware of corruption can hold fellow politicans accountable, even if voters keep voting them in, by simply not joining them in coalitions.
2
-
Oh my goodness, no.
Single seat constituencies of any kind is harmful.
And so is presidencies.
Basically when you have a single candidate or party in charge with just 1 more vote then the second highest party or candidate you end up with a tyranny of the majority, a alternative that may be the worst candidate or party for the majority of the electorate, yet end up with 100% of the power or influence.
It's just bad due to things like the spoiler effect etc.
No, instead of a "Spitzenkandidat"a parliamentarian approach is far preferable.
Don't pick a candidate picked by the party with the most votes or a candidate with the most votes from the electorate, but instead one that gets a majority of the votes from the legeslative branch, as the politicans from smaller parties there can then negotiate concessions or choose a less controversial leader.
So if the biggest partys doesn't get a majority in the legeslature the second biggest party might get that, but perhaps their candidate is a jerk, but they have another politican that most of the other parties can live with, a moderate, good at making compromises, that person may then be head of state or goverment or both, depending on the needs of the EU.
1