Message from @Xenosural
Discord ID: 488475782537281536
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
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
But elections for city council does not translate to the national level
Yea our states mimmic our fed
They dont really here either. They just get all put on the same ballet for ease
And to answer your statement fitz. If states didnt issue the ballpts, then the feds would and it would be mute.
Jeeze, representation without regard to geography would be a nightmare
States prefer to have the control so
And they prolly get funding which helps pay for their own elections held at the same time
Well over here we can traverse the whole country up and down and have time to spare to go on holliday in a single day. Our 'states' are more like municipalities or counties compared to the US.