Btw, "it" has nothing to do with "parliamentary" or not systems, but the basic fundamental
problem is having voting districts from which only one candidate is elected.
(as well as a senate with two elected from every state, for USA)
There are some reasons for large population countries to have this, but in general they also
have a second, or alternative system based on this "magic" (for 2-party persons) thing
called "proportional representation".
Luckily totally normal for the rest of the world, x% votes and x% seats in the congress or parliement.
(ho-ho-said Santa Clause about the "parliamentary" system of "parliementary" UK and Canada)
That is, "parliamentary" means something totally different, mainly not having a president but
just a "prime minister" (major funny and dangerous guy as in UK)
That is, one reason many informed americans laugh at UK, no "checks&balances^, US-style, but
basically , how does it go, the pot and kettle, competing on not saying the magic word of
"proportional representation" = PR
However, PR is, or was a major force in USA after the civil rights and voting act of 1971.
however, not by regular elections but by gerrymandering the "100%-non-PR" districts to achieve
"100% PR" for the "black" populations. Great success, few figured out how, but voting districts were
manipulated for what they could not have otherwise achieved (41 representatives vs zero when
it started, 41 fairly accurate to 12% PR)
Ouch, what a pain, 2-3-4 steps removed from the rest of the world...
Ilmarinen
however, nobody claims they have a solution for USA..:the 2-party system has served USA well"
but that takes some basic knowledge of above issues as well as USA history, of the more difficult type.
However, a constant source of having fun at many americans... nothing like somebody who
brags about something which he/she has no idea of. |
