• TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 个月前

    What’s even more unfair is area based voting, where your individual vote doesn’t count to affect the government, you instead vote for a local representative which in turn effects the government. Your vote for president or prime minister should be direct, not a postcode lottery even without gerrymandering.

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 个月前

      I don’t think tiered representation is bad if 1: every person’s vote is equal regardless of zip code 2: you have instant recall and can just have a representative replaced if they vote against their constituency wishes.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 个月前

        Instant recall would be huge in the US. People here have extremely short memories.

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 个月前

          What are you saying, I don’t understand…?

          Anyway, what does this have to do with Sydney Sweeney’s Nazi jeans, how are you not enraged by that?1?1!!!

          You have to focus on the issues that matter, ok dummy?

          /s/s/s

          EDIT:

          God fucking damnit, it happened again.

          I made this comment as a joke, a day ago, and within 24hrs…

          Republican representatives, offices directly under Trump, and of course Fox News…

          Yep, they’re all leaning into this, fanning the flames of this particular, latest culture war talking point, as an obvious distraction / rage bait tactic, basically trolling people with twitter posts and throwing red meat out to their core via Jesse Waters on cable TV.

        • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 个月前

          No, because the lowest-level voter typically has less direct knowledge of higher level politician or policy than the guy who has to work with them.

          • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 个月前

            You’re just saying the extra steps are justified, not that they don’t exist. Which is hogwash, of course. Indirect elections where the intermediate can choose the candidate regardless of people’s choice is just regulated election fraud.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 个月前

      What your describing is called a Republic. There are several benefits to such a model.

      The most relevant was well summarized in MIB as “a person is smart, people are stupid”. A simple direct democracy is great until you are relying on an uninformed population to make a time-critical decision that requires expertise. If we instead elect people who are then expected to use tax dollars to consult experts, and then represent our interests by voting accordingly, we can theoretically avoid problems (such as the tragedy of the commons).

      The downside happens when the representative takes advantage of the public’s ignorance, fosters it, and wields it for personal/oligarchic gain. Ideally the people are just smart enough to see that happening and vote them out before it becomes a systemic issue…

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 个月前

        In theory the US Federal govt should be split into branches so that it has power, but the checks and balances between branches prevent any single branch from dominating. Which sucks when all 3 branches collude to hand all the power to the executive branch, which then wields the Federal govt to dominate the states.

        For the record, a similar system where the states remain separate with a centralized governing body, but with less power than a Federalist one is called a Confederacy…so yeah, we tried that in the US once too. On the flip side, Switzerland’s Confederation seems to be working out pretty great for them.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 个月前

      I mean, you could go the other way. Presidencies are bad on their face and the chief executive should be promoted from the party with a legislative majority (ie, Parliamentary system).

      Then go after single representative districts and the obscenely high constituent to representative ratios.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 个月前

      Your vote for president or prime minister

      The whole reason a prime minister is different from a president is that they’re not elected by direct votes. They’re the leader of the party with the most representatives (more or less).

    • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 个月前

      That is the Westminster system. It’s fine in that the head of the executive only has power so long as they have the confidence of the elected members. If the elected members lose confidence then the government falls. The government is the house, so your vote does directly influence the government on either the government or opposition side. Don’t get too jealous of the American system - it’s a bloody mess in its own right.