Comment on If the 2028 United States presidential election was held today, who would you vote for?

• Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  They are flawed as well. You will never agree with any party on all issues, so you have to already compromise during voting. Even more so if there is an electoral threshold.

  If that legislative would then try to find different majorities for every different issue, the population would still be represented relatively well. But that’s not what actually happens.

  Instead, two or three parties that represent just barely more than half the population get together and form a government. An executive government. That alone goes against the separation of powers.

  And after that, most legislative decisions are made unilaterally by that government coalition.

  That whole coalition circus doesn’t work without an electoral threshold, which again forces voters to compromise more.

  Instead, I’d like to vote for the government directly, through ranked voting. With a separate ranking for each minister. That way I could eg. give my highest vote to the green candidate for the ministry of transportation, and Dr. med XYZ of the conservative party for the ministry of health.

  Then, separate from the executive branch, I could imagine a parliament without an electoral threshold for the legislative. That would keep compromise during voting to a minimum. 0.5% of votes would already grant a seat. That way, voters can choose representatives they agree with on multiple issues.

  Although my preferred solution would be a more direct system of petitions and citizen’s assembly. If an open petition gets enough votes, or the government petitions something, then a randomly selected citizen’s assembly would be called to meet, research, debate and decide on that issue. Similar to jury duty in the US.

  Random selection sounds counter to what we generally consider democratic today. But it would be much less susceptible to corruption. And random selection means we get a representative sample of opinions.

  Direct voting on issues is also relatively safe from corruption. However, especially with less mainstream topics, it has a tendency to let extremists win. Because they are better at mobilizing their voters.

  For really important issues direct voting is still a pretty decent idea. For example for changes to the constitution. Especially if it takes 50% of eligible voters to change the constitution. Not just 50% of cast votes.

  source

  • DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    What do you call that electoral model?

    source

    • Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The government would be voted through instant runoff voting.

      The legislative would combine several forms of direct democracy. Namely:

      • Agenda setting initiative
      • citizens’ assembly
      • referendum

      source

      • DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Is it technocratic, and are you talking about extremely direct democracy?

        source

        • -> View More Comments