Right now there’s an incentive to juuust hit a majority in order to maximize a party’s own appointments, so political systems with high fragmentation have government stability problems. Would there be a way to work around this? Could a parliament maybe do some of the work of a government directly, for example?
Isn’t this mostly a fptp problem?
Oh no. Party list systems have it bad, or at least Israel and the Netherlands do. When there’s double-digit competing parties coalitions get huge, and if they’re right near 50% it only takes 1 to pull the plug.
In FPTP there’s usually no fragmentation to start with because only 2 parties can dominate.
Are you saying FPTP is a fairer system?. Honest question. I don’t understand your overall statement I guess.
No, FPTP just has different issues. Like unrepresentitiveness, which as a minority voter in a safe riding I personally hate. Or the fact that if something goes wrong with your 2 parties it’s really bad (cough America cough).
Some of those party list countries in practice have a snap election like every year, for reference. Otherwise it sounds great.
If the coalition is larger than a majority, it turns into the one-party system, like China, North Korea or Russia. They don’t have government stability problems.
Hmm, I guess that is a concern, isn’t it?
Maybe one more party than necessary should be the target. No brinksmanship causing perpetual crises, but if there’s an actual issue multiple parties can break off. Party list is so beautiful and simple otherwise…
It’s a classic concentration of power vs disperse of power problem. If you need efficiency and quick solutions, go with a “strong leader” or “strong party”. If you need freedom, try to avoid one-party systems
You know, I don’t believe it is an either-or situation, at least completely. Autocracies are often inefficient, and it seems like it should be possible for parties to share power a single way until the next scheduled election.
