this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
499 points (97.0% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

6818 readers
987 users here now

Rules:

  1. The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
  2. Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
  3. If the reason your post is on-topic isn't in the article or self-explanatory, you must use a second (high-quality) source to explain why your post fits the criteria.
  4. Articles should be high-quality sources. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
  5. For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
  6. Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
  7. This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
  8. All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In my country, it's called "voting for the fox because the rooster is crowing out of tune".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

you didn't read anything I said

And if you did, you missed the point

Point was: prevent the worst by using this system, which can easily be adopted by any government that originally had a FPTP system into a system with two elections for electing seats and another for run-off presidential elections

Though, because of gerrymandering and how the system for electing seats may still be FPTP, it'll still be damn awful

I think Britain uses this system for something to research if you're interested

[–] Fenrisulfir@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

I’m Canadian. I’m familiar with FPTP

[–] Charlxmagne@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think Britain uses this system for something to research if you're interested

They do and it's absolute dogshit, as a country that has more than 2 parties present in Parliament, which a healthy democracy should have, mathematically majority of the country is going to end up with an unwanted prime minister, usually 1 of the 2 largest parties. CGP Grey n veritasium explained the maths behind it and why it's mathematically less democratic than proportional representation

The states have it as well but on the extreme end, where it's a duopoly shared by two both shit and corrupt parties.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, it's ass, I was thinking of CGP Gray when I thought of Britain, but I would say it isn't as ass as USA, the there are obvious and large(r) alternative parties available if they ever become big enough

(I am not British nor American)

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

14 parties in parliament is not at all bad going.

If the UK had PR the country would never have a stable enough Government to be able to do any kind of internally consistent planning or policy. Having a government that has the ability to take executive actions and pass legislation is kind of important, otherwise you get into a mess of every individual bill getting co-opted and twisted by wildly different competing interests, all of whom are required to get it over the line. The Cabinet would become functionally useless, since none of the Transport, Education, Health etc secretaries would have the power to enact anything.

The one time in recent history that we did have a hung parliament, the Lib Dems' participation in it was considered a massive betrayal that killed their support for a whole decade. This is what we'd be forced into every time under PR. (EDIT: oh wait I forgot the DUP, which was an even bigger shitshow of a tiny bunch of hatemongers suddenly arbitrarily getting to punch above their weight, ironically very undemocratically)

The system is working as designed, and it was designed to prefer stability over representation.

It's also misleading to suggest PR wouldn't also result in "mathematically majority of the country is going to end up with an unwanted prime minister", since it's always going to be the case regardless; the best you can do is some mathematical jiggery-pokery to force people to choose between two candidates they didn't want in the first place, so you can turn around and say hey look you got who you voted for. Now which country does that remind us of?