I’m not watching an 1h 10m lecture which may or may not have relevant content. Now who’s the common Lemmy troll?
Can you narrow this down to a time signature please?
I would like to state however, I live in a country within a country. I live within both a (basically) two-party system (Westminster, UK) and a multi-party system (Holyrood, Scotland). I can see first hand which of these systems a) runs most competently b) runs most democratically. In both scenarios it’s the multi-party proportionally representative Scottish Holyrood system.
In a rare moment of defying electoral maths we even had a majority government in 2011 in Holyrood, which meant they no longer had to worry about negotiating with smaller parties. Guess what happened? They got bumped down to a minority government the next election because of dissatisfaction with their governance. When one party has ultimate control they are beholden to nobody, the power goes to their heads, and it’s difficult to say with a straight face that they’re therefore even democratic.
Multi-party systems create cooperation rather than the division that two-party systems thrive on. The point, after all, of all of this politicking, is to agree how to run a shared country. Cooperation therefore is a far better way of living than constant division and attack.
Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in America we’re witnessing right now. Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in Britain where both major parties are collapsing in on themselves (one already has). It’s a shite way to run a country, never ending attack, attack, attack of those who have a slightly different opinion on how things should be run.
Switching from two-party systems to multi-party systems is not going to solve your problems. Likewise, switching from multi-party to two-party won’t either. If you took the time to watch the lecture you would understand that.
There seems to be this naive believe here on lemmy that the two-party system in places like the UK or US is what causes all the trouble and lack of representation. Having lived in multi-party and basically one-party systems I can tell you that this does not make politics more representative.
As long as the general public ™ has no believable leverage that politicians need to take into account while billionaires buy all the media, give politicians exit options and do all sorts of other things, there will never be money for schools or hospitals and always an urgent need to reduce regulations/taxes for companies. No matter if you have 1, 2, or 5 parties.
I’m not watching an 1h 10m lecture which may or may not have relevant content. Now who’s the common Lemmy troll?
Can you narrow this down to a time signature please?
I would like to state however, I live in a country within a country. I live within both a (basically) two-party system (Westminster, UK) and a multi-party system (Holyrood, Scotland). I can see first hand which of these systems a) runs most competently b) runs most democratically. In both scenarios it’s the multi-party proportionally representative Scottish Holyrood system.
In a rare moment of defying electoral maths we even had a majority government in 2011 in Holyrood, which meant they no longer had to worry about negotiating with smaller parties. Guess what happened? They got bumped down to a minority government the next election because of dissatisfaction with their governance. When one party has ultimate control they are beholden to nobody, the power goes to their heads, and it’s difficult to say with a straight face that they’re therefore even democratic.
Multi-party systems create cooperation rather than the division that two-party systems thrive on. The point, after all, of all of this politicking, is to agree how to run a shared country. Cooperation therefore is a far better way of living than constant division and attack.
Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in America we’re witnessing right now. Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in Britain where both major parties are collapsing in on themselves (one already has). It’s a shite way to run a country, never ending attack, attack, attack of those who have a slightly different opinion on how things should be run.
Switching from two-party systems to multi-party systems is not going to solve your problems. Likewise, switching from multi-party to two-party won’t either. If you took the time to watch the lecture you would understand that.
There seems to be this naive believe here on lemmy that the two-party system in places like the UK or US is what causes all the trouble and lack of representation. Having lived in multi-party and basically one-party systems I can tell you that this does not make politics more representative.
As long as the general public ™ has no believable leverage that politicians need to take into account while billionaires buy all the media, give politicians exit options and do all sorts of other things, there will never be money for schools or hospitals and always an urgent need to reduce regulations/taxes for companies. No matter if you have 1, 2, or 5 parties.