What system of democratic government is best? 

I get the impression that Swiss people are also used to being constantly praised for their unique system, and have a patriotic culture that puts the system at the center of their identity. So I feel like Swiss culture isn’t super self critical of Swiss democracy.

@@JJMcCullough True, I also get that impression.

There is no perfect system and we swiss acknowledge that... but our system has worked rather well for us so we tend to look at it fondly. As for the same parties being in power, it's something we call the magic formula to form the federal council (no PM or president). 7 seats divided between the 4 parties with the most representatives in a 2-2-2-1 distribution. That can change if other parties gain power. We might someday have 6 or 7 parties of similar strength to form the federal council.

@@Nl0R I do get that and I'm not saying it's necessarily bad. But it does seem very weird to me, that a parliamentary election in Switzerland will not change the composition of the government. For instance, the Greens now hold more seats than the Center party, right? And yet, there's no Green member of the Bundesrat council. That way, the magic formula seems very rigid and in a way... not legitimate.

The problem with instant runoff is it assumes people will be happy with like, their sixth choice getting in power.

@@JJMcCullough assuming anyone is happy the other way is a pretty big leap too tbh

@@JJMcCullough That's a reasonable concern, but like, at this point I've given up on "happy" and I'm mostly focusing on "not worth trying to start a civil war over." (Great video btw!)

so if you rank your ballot 1- Jesus 2- Hitler 3- Jeffry Daumier 4-Thanous then you are ok with your 2 or 3 choice ?

@@user-be1jx7ty7n That's a good point, but I also think instant runoff is the most democratic option. All the other options give disproportionate power to whoever's willing to dig their heals in and make the biggest fuss.

As a German I must disagree. States and Municipalities have more freedom in the US than in Germany. The American democratic System is in theory more democratic than the German one. It is however ruled and manipulated by an elite class of society, so it is not so democratic in practice.

k good for you I guess.

Smaller parties entering coalitions also have to make just as many if not more concessions to the party with the most votes as that party has to make to the smaller ones, so at the end of the day the policies of this coalition should be a combination of those of all participating parties, with the bigger parties in the coalition able to enforce more of their policies in the coalition agreement. So overall I'd say that that is still pretty representative of what a majority of the people voted for.

Well this same situation happened in Canada as well. Trudeau has a confidence and supply deal with the social democratic NDP in return for introducing universal pharmacare and dentalcare.

@@Robogames05 I agree with this wholeheartedly. Germany 🇩🇪 should be proud of the Weimar Republic-era democratic traditions (I’m an actor like Jreg/ well aware of the Cabarets of Berlin ;), instead of “accidentally” or inadvertently reverting to Nazism. Don’t worry, German 🇩🇪 police arrested various *actual Neo-Nazis* who may have threatened to plot a real-life coup. Not a good thing during **WWIII**/ The war in 🇺🇦 Ukraine. Shoutout #NATO. 🇺🇦🇪🇺🇺🇸🇨🇦🇦🇺

@@ifeeltiredsleepy I’m mixed on *Trudeau* but he is an attractive actor, despite the *Trucker Protest* where he may have threatened to send actual Tanks, not just *RCMP Mounted Police* against the *pro-freedom protestors*. That being said, I have more respect for the *NDP*, especially the one in British Columbia. Shoutout *Jreg*, he’s probably too far-to-the-left of *Justin Trudeau.* 🇨🇦 🍁 🇲🇶

@@ellieflaggirl934 the political system of the weimar republic was so useless in its strive for equality that the parties rather had fistfights in the streets about who is right

But then they wouldn’t be able to use their smoke-filled room to decide 😅

The UK _Labour_ Party rank their candidates (using the Alternative Vote system with all members of the party getting a vote). The Conservatives hold multiple votes of just MPs with the lowest performing candidate being knocked out each round (although it's common for other poorly perfoming candidates to also withdraw) until there are only two candidates that the members get to vote on.

i prefer approval voting, where individuals can cast a vote for every candidate they approve to hold a particular office. whichever candidate has the most approval wins. it avoids the wasteful extra rounds of tallying that can often happen in ranked choice voting.

I wish to honor the founding fathers of my country (that my parents immigrated to), by suggesting an anti-populist measure. You know, to stick it to the plebs? Ranked-choice Voting, *BUT* slanted towards everyones secondary choices. Cause screw you for thinking the popular vote matters.

@@jasonbelstone3427 The founding fathers were not gods or prophets and they knew perfectly well that their plan for the country couldn't be perfect forever, which is why they allowed amendments. Originalism is as anti-American as loyalty to the British crown.

I love to hear it!

I agree. One of JJ's best.

JJ what do you think of Klaus Schwab and Agenda 21 and the New World Order and links to Trudeau.... no ok I don't want to interrupt your leading the sheeple.

U are just a sheep.

I often say I'll only watch the first 5 or something since I have to get back to work or whatever, but here we are.

wow thats gotta be confusing

I'm reminded of the old quip about "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones."

Democracy is only messy when you have a system that is chaotic crap. The U.S. system is anything but democratic. You have politicians dictating the electoral boundaries and the number of polling places. Voter suppression is rampant in the Red states.

thexalon Churchill, I think.

I agree however I think there is too much direct democracy as much of the public does not have the capacity to think long term. Also in the US the constitution is being treated too much like a religious text and the Supreme Court has too much power

A system that eliminates small parties access to have seats, are not a democracy. First we must count the total national to define the number of the seats per party, than we must choose by deputee territorial source. First the total national count, its the only way to not discriminate small parties, its the only way to be true democracy. About Belgium, you shown ignorance about the country. Its 1 country agaisnt people will. In fact, belgium are 3 diferent countries forced by monarchy to be 1. What happens in Israel its politicians guilty and not voters guilty. Voters must vite for ideology and not for government. Its the ideology based parties that needs to find a way to make coalition government. The french system are bad because the elected president at the second round, dont trully represent the majority of people votes, otherwise would have the same votes in the first round, and becausr its the elected president of the second round who defines government, its even less fair than the coalition parliament system to define government. USA are a 2 party autocracy, 2 elected wings full controled to the same not elected eagle.

Most electors don't have more of a political career than that and being involved at the local level.

Same thing for delegates at party conventions. Being a party delegate is a reward for party loyalty.

A system that eliminates small parties access to have seats, are not a democracy. First we must count the total national to define the number of the seats per party, than we must choose by deputee territorial source. First the total national count, its the only way to not discriminate small parties, its the only way to be true democracy. About Belgium, you shown ignorance about the country. Its 1 country agaisnt people will. In fact, belgium are 3 diferent countries forced by monarchy to be 1. What happens in Israel its politicians guilty and not voters guilty. Voters must vite for ideology and not for government. Its the ideology based parties that needs to find a way to make coalition government. The french system are bad because the elected president at the second round, dont trully represent the majority of people votes, otherwise would have the same votes in the first round, and becausr its the elected president of the second round who defines government, its even less fair than the coalition parliament system to define government. USA are a 2 party autocracy, 2 elected wings full controled to the same not elected eagle.

@@ricardoxavier827 so all options sucks, is that your point? you know you are right let's delete all of this crap and put one person choose by god and when this person die let put his dinasty at power

@@fabriziovignati383 Lets go, establishing the Absolute Monarchy of the United States of America.

Well, since you're here, how does the leadership work in China? Even if it's a different system, it's interesting to hear how it functions from someone who's lived there.

how are delegates chosen for cpc party congresses?

do you vote in local elections with secret ballots with the option to vote for or against the candidates?

​@@SWProductions100 Non-chinese here but my understanding is that it kinda just works like a club (being a one-party state and all). You basically get more involved in local CCP activities and aim to move up the ranks as you would in a club (or company) in a Western state. Naturally, as with any large bureaucracy, you still have to deal with office politics and consider aligning with (or against) certain factions within the CCP.

@@SWProductions100 The thing is we don’t even know unless one is a part of the communist bureaucratic machine

They call them Bundesräte. There is a president, but it's only a ceremonial role which rotates every year between the 7.

@@eljanrimsa5843 ireland has started doing this, the two largest partys Finna Fall and Fina Gail voted in recently dont have enough votes to rule on there own so they [The two partys] went in colation and the position of Taosech (Prim minster) is roated between the leaders of the two partys every 18 monhts but a larger 3rd party Shinn Feinn in the dail (Our Parliments name) is ignored is unfair as there connected to Terrorists (IRA) i wonder will keep this system forever ? oh and smalerl partys like the green party ,People before profit(commies) and labour and so on are ignored in this system. (ie: I wrote our countrys party names phoneticlly so Our Forghien freinds can pronounce them, sorry fellow irish readers)

@@RealBadGaming52 That is quite the opposite to the Swiss system. In the Swiss there is no Prime Minister, and it's not important who is President at the moment, because all decisions are made and implemented by all seven Bundesräte together. We expect them to be adults who are capable to come to a consensus decision. The Bundesräte are from 4 different parties which roughly represent the political spectrum from the last elections. But the party affiliation is not that important either because all important policy decisions will be voted upon by the general population four times a year.

Thank YOU for being such a loyal watcher!

@@JJMcCullough 💙💙💙

JJ what do you think of Klaus Schwab and Agenda 21 and the New World Order and links to Trudeau.... no ok I don't want to interrupt your leading the sheeple.

I wish we had the Australian electoral system over here in the U.K.

The US is interesting here. Each state decides for itself, how to elect its members of Congress. So Alaska and Maine now use "single transferrable vote" and Louisiana has FPTP but (French-style) it demands an outright majority and might need another round to get it, with only the top few still competing. The rest are FPPT and accept plurality outcomes on a per-seat basis. So that's THREE different systems, as each state has decided to do it. (And probably if looked at them closely, each of the 50 systems differs in smaller ways.) And yes, they are all perfectly Constitutional under the Federal Constitution. And yes, that's how they send people to the Federal Congress. (It's also how they choose in-state officeholders too.) If a state decided to use party lists, or multi-seat districts, or who knows what-all, they probably could. I suppose you could invent a system that isn't Constitutional, but you'd probably have to violate equal representation to manage that. You'd pretty much have to bring back some form of segregation, to make it actually unconstitutional.

@@metsfan1873 Isn't Georgia majority, at least for governor?

I wish. In Canada we don't have it because not enough people care, and those care don't all agree which electoral system is best. There's also a sense that preferential voting systems favor centrist party, which is why the Liberal party somewhat supports it, and no other party does.

@@jacobcooper5514 I assume you have to a point to make hidden in there someplace?

My dog was a candidate for the green party

Did you win your District

The most important thing to understand the German system is that the government is formed by a coalition. We might not have so much direct control over who becomes chancellor but by having more than two choices on our ballots, we have much more control on the style of government we get under whatever chancellor.

@@globalpoliticsman9523 nope, my district is in Baden-Württemberg and pretty Conservative.

@@thomasgoenner9320 Wait, isn’t your minister-president a Green? Then again, you are speaking of a district which could be more supportive of the CDU. Also despite your minister-president being part of the Green Party, isn’t he kind of a conservative himself?

I don't understand why elitism is seen as a bad thing in the US? Don't you want an elite surgeon in charge of your surgery? Don't you want an elite fighting force in charge of an anti-terrorism operation? Saying something is bad just because it's 'elite' just becomes a brush to blindly tar something as bad without any critical look at the details or merits of the thing itself. Direct democracy can be good for very simple things like a starting point on police i.e. asking if people want marijuana or abortion legalized. Not so much for something super detailed and complicated like international trade deals or long-term foreign policy.

It's not really true though is it, given the existence of political dynastic families, the average wealth of American politicians, or the proven fact that public opinion has no statistically observable effect on legislative activity, or the causative relationship between large campaign contributions and policy decisions.

@@lancerd4934 alot of that applies all over the world though.

@@chickenfishhybrid44 How does that help?

@@chickenfishhybrid44 well, lobbying does tend to be particularly bad in the US, increasing the amount of influence being rich has.

He explains things so well, and I can say that as I am steeped in this political stuff. For that reason, I prefer his cultural analysis because I am not nearly as exposed to that sort of content.

I’m down for anything he puts out but you’re right this is a good format, but his knowledge is so vast and amazing it’s hard to corner him into talking about one thing since he’s so friggin’ smart.

i find it funny that both house reps have been californians. Maybe because it is the biggest state (by pop)

Is he as dim in person as he is on TV? Sometimes I've found that not to be the case.

“Very right-wing Trumpers” LOL. Obviously you don’t know what it means to be “right-wing”. Trump would’ve been liberal in 1995; Bill Clinton was further right FFS.

Huh, weird seeing someone else from my district who probably lives within a few miles of me in these comments. I hate McCarthy (primarily for his flip-flopping and eventual permissiveness towards the attempted insurrection) and vote blue on that seat no matter who, but the primary will indeed be interesting, especially considering how California does it now.

JJ what do you think of Klaus Schwab and Agenda 21 and the New World Order and links to Trudeau.... no ok I don't want to interrupt your leading the sheeple.

“rEaL cOmMuNiSm HaS nEvEr BeEn TrIeD” - Twitter Communists

Underedieraidiradoodoo -Winston Churchill

It's funny because Churchill was an aristocrat, born in Blenham Palace. (Look the palace up. It's funny.) Aristocracy and democracy are antithetical. British politics is 100% class war. Democracy is the working class winning

A system that eliminates small parties access to have seats, are not a democracy. First we must count the total national to define the number of the seats per party, than we must choose by deputee territorial source. First the total national count, its the only way to not discriminate small parties, its the only way to be true democracy. About Belgium, you shown ignorance about the country. Its 1 country agaisnt people will. In fact, belgium are 3 diferent countries forced by monarchy to be 1. What happens in Israel its politicians guilty and not voters guilty. Voters must vite for ideology and not for government. Its the ideology based parties that needs to find a way to make coalition government. The french system are bad because the elected president at the second round, dont trully represent the majority of people votes, otherwise would have the same votes in the first round, and becausr its the elected president of the second round who defines government, its even less fair than the coalition parliament system to define government. USA are a 2 party autocracy, 2 elected wings full controled to the same not elected eagle.

Good thing america isnt and never was meant to be a democracy

Could you elaborate?

The presidents role doesn’t seem that significant since it is ultimately the parliament that has to affirm the nominee, and the president doesn’t pick a nominee unless he knows the parliament wants him. So it seems to me that it is possible to imagine the system working without a president at all.

This is pretty standard in most parliamentary systems. The head of state (be it president or king or what have you) will designate a person as prime minister, if they are satisfied they can hold majority support in parliament. Some countries will then have an investiture vote, where parliament formally votes to confirm the designation (Italy, Spain, Sweden), or they don’t, and the appointment is simply official until a vote of no confidence is filed in parliament and won by the opposition (UK, Canada, Norway)

@@JJMcCullough all the non-politician prime ministers in the last 15 years has been picked by the president of the republic often against the will of the leaders of the political parties in the parliament. The president of the republic, with an high popularity and authority, kinda said selecting those names that he was acting in the best interest of the country contrary to the party leaders and the parliament and that they had to accept his will. And so they did. At the end of the last president's term his role had grown so much that he was nicknamed "King George" and many political scientists believed Italy had become a semi presidential republic de facto. The current president has streched his consitutional prerogatives quite less, but still when was forming a new cabinet a few years ago he refused to nominate minister of economy a guy proposed by the appointed prime minister because of his political views. And the constitution does not say he has this power; for sure is not the excercise of a cerimonial role.

@@JJMcCullough The symbolic role of the head of state is not just to exist. They do have a limited scope of powers, very important in order to balance out the the other branches of government. In today's system, where the executive branch takes all the lead, a state without a head of state 1) leaves too much space for confusion of powers, and subsequently leads to a de facto dictatorship of the executive aka the government 2) leaves the country headless, as it no longer has a person to represent the state. A system without a head of state de facto establishes a presidential system, but without separation of powers. It's called "confusion of powers" for a reason.

@@italiano120 what you've said is wrong. The President of the Republic in Italy actually has the full and autonomous power to appoint whoever "Prime Minister" (whose correct name is "President of the Council of Ministers") and to refuse to nominate whatever Minister proposed by the President of the Council of Ministers. The powers of the President of the Republic in Italy is checked and balances by the Parliament, as in every Parliamentary System. I.e. the Government is full in office only after a confiance vote of the Parliament. Whenever Italian people choose a strong Parliamentary majority (such as in 2022), the President of the Republic knows his powers are to be harshly counter-balanced. Whenever Parliamentary majorities are weak post-electoral coalitions (such as in 2018, 2019 and 2021), the powers of the President of the Republic may extend because they are not supposed to be counter-balanced

IRV which is what we use in Australia, means that every single member of the House has the consent of at least 50% of their electorate.

What major issues do you see with approval voting?

@@SolomonUcko Approval voting is just slightly fancier FPTP and doesn't address the question of consent.

@@andrewrollason4963 This is not accurate at all. See my link for an explanation.

They will never blame themselves. you kidding me?

Tell that the to the classical Athenians.

All they'd do is shift the blame to the people informing them on their voting options.

In a small community, yes. But imagine 300 million US citizens voting for every piece of legislative or executive action...it's a logistical nightmare.

Brexit tho

But still you don't vote for a prime minister or at least not directly (prefering one candidat not for the candidat but for the leader of that party)

@@romainsavioz5466 Aye, that's why I described it as a parliamentary system (which it is). He mentioned this in the video.

When Trudeau was first elected in 2015 he promised to implement electoral reform, and it was pretty clear he wanted to Implement Preferential Voting (or as we call it in the US and Canada “Ranked Choice voting”). When he set up an all party parliamentary committee to recommend an electoral reform system, it recommended proportional representation instead (A system like the Single Tranferable vote like Australia uses in the Senate, Hare-Clark, or New Zealand’s MMP where the % of seats in parliament is correlated to the % of the vote a party receives). Trudeau then stated there was “No consensus” and dumped electoral reform from his platform.

Germany isn't FPTP either. People get two votes, one for a person and one for a party. Half of parliamentary seats are given to the people directly elected to represent their district, and the other half is filled up with people from party lists so parliament overall matches the proportional outcome of the party vote. Which is the reason our parliament is so big. So the party vote usually is much more important. Parties need a minimum of 5% of the votes or three directly elected candidates to have their party votes count, to avoid the Weimar republic's problem of too many parties, and this is a point if contention. The other is, what happens when a small party gets many direct seats. Currently, the other parties get more seats until the balance is reestablished, but this has become increasingly problematic with people consciously splitting their vote, because we started facing a parliament with 800 delegates for 299 districts. So they changed things up for the next election to stay within the nominal 598 seats. We'll see how this goes.

It's more along the line of if enough signatures are collected in the three months after a law has passed, the people can vote on if the law should exist

@@nicholasengel9823 Okay, that is an amazing control mechanism, how many?

@@ShadowSkryba after the law is passed by congress you need to collect 50000 votes in 100 days for a referendum. So it is usually not too hard if the law is somewhat controversial

@@nicholasengel9823 now that is a viable form of direct democracy, if every citizen could/had to vote on every bill everyone would have gone insane

@@ShadowSkryba we can also propose changes to the constitution and if 100000 signatures are gathered, we vote. It's called a popular initiative.

Probably because the American public IS too stupid to use a ranked voting system..... lol

I don't think that's the reason. The reason is that different voting systems favor different kinds of parties. Preferential voting systems tend to favor centrist parties, which is why the Liberal party supports it but other parties don't.

@@jsnrvst They support it when they're not in power. If I remember correctly it's been about 100 years since the Liberal party first suggested a change from FPTP, but magically forget about it every whenever they win power through FPTP.

@@MrNicholasAaron I think a big reason why they don't follow through with it is because it wouldn't be able to get passed. The Conservatives, for one, always spread the lie about some people voting more than once. With the disinformation and the resistance to change, it is doubtful that it would become law. That is what I am referring to. The Conservatives, for one, use it to elect their own leader but then refuse when it comes to the public because they know a majority of the public would not vote for them. Slightly hypocritical.

@@MrNicholasAaron I'm still salty af about the libs just dropping electoral reform from their campaign promise. My riding is super liberal though so any vote (esp for NDP) just ends up being wasted and not really reflected in parliament.

Also, for president, you are actually electing DELEGATES to the convention. Essentially, electors for the nomination.

I've thought something similar; that our primary system in the US sort of simulates a multi-party election with a final runoff at the end. Not perfectly of course, since the actual 3rd parties are still there and can have a spoiler effect.

One problem is that this isn´t necessarily inherent. The US does not proportionally elect their legislature, and if they did, the Democrats would have had more seats in 2012 and 1996, during Democratic presidencies, and there are other examples for Republican presidents (who won the largest number of votes). Also, the presidential elections are not direct in fact and don´t use runoffs if nobody has a majority. The US also does not have a harmonized system to determine eligibility and the conduct of elections like most countries do, so it is hard to know whether a party does enjoy confidence. I also add that the Senate has a lot of power over legislation even where the matter does not concern states and their autonomy, like passing a federal budget, this is a major contrast to many other countries, even federations. Plus, the US has midterm elections, amplifying the chance of the Congress being opposed to the president as opposed to if they were elected for four year terms in each house just as the president is. It would be very interesting what would happen if the US didn´t do federal midterms but harmonized the elections.

@@robertjarman3703 I do wonder if non-proportional systems are common in countries with lots of low density rural areas, which argue that their voting base is so small as to be effectively powerless, therefore they need a system which favours them over urban areas.

@@Croz89 Not really. Brazil is not very dense by world standards, but uses PR. India is very dense and uses plurality.

@@shorewall The US isn't at the point of Congress merely being a check on the president but to the point where immensely critical legislation is not even being voted on despite opinion polls being so overwhelmingly in favour of certain policies. The Congress is not supposed to be this hapless. It has immense constitutional power. In order for Congress to be a check it must be coherent and relatively unified and not too much so preoccupied for the better part of a decade or even more than one decade on ideas that gained majority support 20 years ago. And Congress has immense difficulty with passing things that remain popular election after election. The state legislatures are similarly designed to be checks and balances but pass far more critical legislation, even if the party balance between legislature and governor or the house and senate in the state are incongruent, they still pass huge numbers of bills. The Book of the States goes into detail about how many bills are passed per state, also tracking vetoes. The state senate would be unlikely to do something like delay an important nomination, knowing that they themselves must be reelected come November and that a governor must have the largest number of votes to win. The ideas I have aren't just about the balance of power between the two branches either but the basic legitimacy of the government of the US, like how judges of federal courts can only be legitimate if the president who named them is more popular than any other rivals in the election, and won because they clearly got a majority of votes and not by any kind of arcane and byzantine rules people don't intuitively understand, and that the president can only have constitutional power to check a democratically elected legislature if they themselves are just as legitimate via the electoral process, things like the sole right to nominate so many federal officials and decide on their dismissal or to use a veto power, or to have the right to not be dismissed from office except by impeachment and conviction, or to pardon people for serious crimes against society and their particular victims. The Congress likewise cannot have legitimate powers to do things like control the budget or to pass laws or to decide fo give something the people own away without being fairly and freely chosen by that population in a harmonious manner that likewise is not byzantine or unintuitive and gives equal chances to all candidates differentiated only by the degree to which they abide by the constitution and serve the needs and desires of the people, otherwise they give away the legitimacy to the president even over matters a president should not have like to direct so much of America's military or foreign policy strength alone.

The UK has governors, but AFAIK all positions are appointed by existing governors.

That's a really interesting observation that I haven't heard before.

It's because professionalism in politics is seen as interchangeable with corruption. The assumption is that if you get someone from outside the system, they have no connections to exploit when voting on leigslation that influence their voting against the system.

​@@Powerman293 Except, of course, we just had a president who had never previously held political office, but he had plenty of business contacts and yes, he used them corruptly. The vast majority of corruption happens in the private sector; public servants are actually less likely to be corrupt.

@@alexpotts6520 That's why I said "Assumption"

Combine that with the fact that "expert" is a lower standard than ever before now that a bachelor's degree is more or less the bare minimum in most fields for new workers, and that these "experts" are contradictorily blindly trusted more than ever, and you get the worst political catastrophe in American history since the Civil War. We might even get another one of those soon.

Fairly unpredecented yeah but not "unprecedented in history", there was this trivia going around of the time before the civil war there were over 100 rounds without someone becoming speaker.

It just showed how the Squad and other progressives were wrong.

@@vibhav_m the correlation between many rounds of voting for a speaker and civil war or economic depression is both certainly not a causal link yet it is disturbing

Maybe he should do the top 5 countries in the World Happiness Report and how their governments function.

What would you change about it?

@@JJMcCullough about the swiss system? It’s main shortcoming is that consensus is slow and has a hard time of dealing with pressing issues in a decisive manner. On the other hand, the canadian system can act fast and decisively, and make many missteps in the process. I wish for an intermediate version that retains the consensus based legislative branch of switzerland and the efficient executive branch of canada (i don’t mean to say that the canadian public service is particularly efficient) What I mean is that the executive should be given maximum freedom to act within broadly set legislative boundaries. But then; I live in a dream world ;-)

JJ what do you think of Klaus Schwab and Agenda 21 and the New World Order and links to Trudeau.... no ok I don't want to interrupt your leading the sheeple.

Do you think there's any difference between FF and FG?

That’s assuming that the voters would of voted the same way if we went with Plurality Rules. Which obviously they wouldn’t, so you’re argument is flawed

@@Jenkowelten as an Irishman there's only some slight difference between them as both parties are pretty much centrists if not centre-left when it comes to governing with a healthy dose of liberal economics. P.s. anyone telling you they are right wing are definitely extremists.

but other than 1972-74 and 1994-97 Ireland has pretty much been a one party sytem untill 2011

@@Jenkowelten Theres NONE, Ireland has no opositon,, ALL partys support LGBT,Pro Abortion, pro Green policies, Black diversity over whites, Immigrantion with no restrictions du to the EU and every woke policy u can think off, we have No TRUE Opposition in Ireland, all partys support EVERYTHING Liberal so u may as well just merge to form one giant party last time thre was a real devide was 1996

שיהיה לנו בהצלחה

@@NeelLLumi-AnCatDubh לפחות אנשים התחילו להתעורר, נקווה שזה יעזור

@@shaniamibar5459 the script of your language looks so cool

One thing I find interesting about the French party system is how it drastically changed with the 2017 presidentials, and how there now seems to be an entire different set of parties that do well in presidentials (LREM RN and LFI), as opposed to the "traditional" ones who now mostly do well at the local level (PS LR and sometimes EELV). And yeah, meanwhile you have Zemmour, who is good at shock value but just not enough to break into any kind of electoral success.

The Waffle House has found it’s new host

The waffle house has found its new host

And then whoever voted for McCarthy to do that would have that vote hang over their heads next time they run. Their primary challengers could easily use that against them.

The Republicans' only mandate in this election cycle is to slow down the Biden agenda, they can't actually pass new laws even past the Senate. The Democrats would have zero benefit from electing a Republican that has promised to work against the interests of the administration. He wouldn't ever survive a vote of confidence.

@@Powerman293 While true, they have to know there has to be some meeting in the middle with these things if it is for the "greater good" - if American politics is really almost like religion now, then maybe it is better to make a loose union instead as the lines seem clearly drawn IMO.

I agree. It's very interesting and unique as a (semi) direct democracy

😂😂😂

JJ what do you think of Klaus Schwab and Agenda 21 and the New World Order and links to Trudeau.... no ok I don't want to interrupt your leading the sheeple.

JJ what do you think of Klaus Schwab and Agenda 21 and the New World Order and links to Trudeau.... no ok I don't want to interrupt your leading the sheeple.

That's just ranked choice with extra steps.

Well, yeah. And the legislature isn’t tied up with the executive. If you don’t like your Senator but like your President, you can just vote for the President but not the Senator.

Maybe you shouldn't call people who recognize all the shenanigans that happened in the 2020 election election deniers.

Israel has been so ineffective informing governments that they allowed Benjamin Netanyahu to come back as a leader of one of their parties and as I'm sure you're aware he nvestigated for corruption

Just wanted to mention that we don't have a direct democracy in Switzerland. It's more of a participative democracy.

Clear about what

@@Jenkowelten Chapter 1 The Solution of the Problem of Democracy: The Authority of the People “Parliament is a misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a false solution to the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the people and the exercise of authority, excluding the masses from meaningful politics and monopolizing sovereignty in their place. People are left with only a facade of democracy, manifested in long queues to cast their election ballots.”

@@nestormakhno9266 That may be true and all (and there are valid points), but Gaddafi was a dictator

@@nestormakhno9266 This is not a solution, only a critique. So the question still stands, clear about what ?