Not The Onion

18340 readers

1571 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

328

French government collapses in 14 hours, deepening political crisis (www.yahoo.com)

submitted 5 days ago by Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The modern system of prime Ministers where the executive comes from parliament seems to play out better in modern politics.

Yes and no. The problem is that in parliamentary systems like that, if the government has a majority then they're unstoppable. In a system with a president who has some actual authority, or a king who isn't merely a figurehead, the Prime Minister can't just do everything he wants. There still needs to be some negotiation.

On the other hand, the world has a lot of authoritarians in it who wore (and in some cases still are) supported by popular votes. People seem really bad at picking leaders who want to serve out a 4-10 year term, then retire to a cushy life afterwards.

[–] Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I know what you mean, but I'd argue that the balance of powers principle in the US giving the president so much power has done the opposite of what it's supposed to do. Instead of the executive being restrained by the other branches, it has completely taken over them because the other branches are worried that they would lose too much by resisting.

Whereas in a PR parliamentary system, it is extremely rare for any one party to have a majority, so they need to compromise with other parties to elect a prime minister. Even during war time, it's common practice to use a unity cabinet that includes all major parties. The judiciary seems to be more independent and can enforce the basic law. Also, 50% of MPs or the president/king can call an election at any time if the PM is getting too spicy.

Tyranny of the majority is tricky though. Most of the responses to that seem to be devolution or international cooperation.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Whereas in a PR parliamentary system, it is extremely rare for any one party to have a majority

I don't think that's true. In Canadian elections majority governments are more common than non-majority governments. In Australia it looks like every government has been a majority government since the non-labour parties merged in 1910.

[–] Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Canada and Australia are Fptp, not PR

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Ah, I was just looking at parliamentary systems. You're right that FPTP really screws a lot of stuff up.