Denmark's better

And thus the problem with a Parliamentary system.

You're voting for a party, not a person

we have not really had any functioning right wing, well ever becasue before ww2 the Queen was the chief, and after well ....

We do vote on people, but ultimately there needs to be a majority (party wise) in the chamber to allow the perty to fill the cabinet seats.

So what you're saying is: The people aren't in charge of determining the cabinet, the parties are.

Indeed

You can vote on a person, but that only counts towards the person in the rank of the party, so if you have a party who gets like 5 seats and everyone votes fro the number 6 that one will get the first seat. But ultimately the vote goes to the party to divy up the seats between them.

Democracy: We'll take your opinions into consideration. Possibly.

A Prime minister once said in an interview: "We do not have a Democracy, we have a Representative Democracy", a distinction many people do not even know exists.

Doesn't sound like it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particracy

Yea tho Merkle has been shown to not follow her party often

@Xenosural majority or a *union*

Which could include a losing party

That does read like how it is, if you disagree with the party you can have some issues. However quite a few people have left their parties in the last few cycles and have remained in their seat, mid term effectively removing a seat from the party.

And the fact you dont vote for pm to me is troubling

The PM usualy is the Lead face of the largest party

Like the uk you vote in parliment but the winner gets to name their own pm from the parliment

I prefer having a primary and vote for the head of state

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki Technically, the US only does it out of tradition. We don't necessarily require the popular vote

The us doesnt require popular vote no. But our pres isnt reliant on the party wining the congress

We have a seperate vote for pres

Oh, no. But the office could be voted on enitrely by reps with no citizen input

Not technically. With the set up the people of each state vote. The majority win in each state gets the electors

With a couple exceptions who van split their electors

Still has zero congressional input

Right, what I meant was, that there's nothing requiring a state to give their citizens a ballot with presidential candidates names on it.

The two party system has otehr issues though, as evidenced while Obama was in office, did he not have an unprecedented ammount of executive orders, i remember articles from senators claiming they were unable to even speak to him, as he was working with a majority Republican senate? The only two sides makes finding a compromize very hard top do if people start running party lines.

With more parties and a defacto coalition to begin with, you alwasy have possible negotiations where not 50% hates the other 50%

not saying that 70 parties is a solution though lol

He didnt have an unprecented, but yes a lot. Many of which toed carlessly near illegal. The reson we are set up that way is a check and balance system. Something lacking in say the uk

@Xenosural Well, historically our two parties (which isn't even a requirement) have worked better together

But tbh the founders said parties at all are a death of a nation

Because party ideals begin to outwiegh the constituency needs

No more parties, only individuals, that would make election time crazy over here.

Rand Paul is a "republican", but just as a label. It's just a name, with nothing attached

Yea both our parties are made up of tons of sub parties

Just in defacto alliance when elections come

We dont have geographically representation though, locally we have the city councils we vote for but those are mostly charters of the national parties with some local only stuff sprinkeled in.

One states moderate republican is another states moderate democrat

Basically