|
|
|
|
|
|
by ak-47
2946 days ago
|
|
|
Interesting thought experiment, but how can one argue the point when there is a "people who disagree are ignorant/stupid" premise? > Most people's instant reaction is that it wouldn't work because we don't have it now. Straw man > After some reflection most people think it wouldn't work for other reasons that they can't adequately explain. Condescending generalization |
|
|
Parent had said that only the presidential elections need to be single-winner.
In Australia the head of government is the Prime Minister - curiously the specifics of that role are absent from our constitution, as it was evidently assumed to be a given. Head of State remains the reigning monarch of the Commonwealth, but that's a slight aside.
Prime Minister is not elected by the gen pop, despite many citizens of AU believing it to be the case. The 150 elected representatives in the parliament actually choose amongst them who the Prime Minister shall be -- a potentially very civilised approach to leadership elections.
Anyway, I'm not sure that I can defend myself against your claims about my personal observations.
Perhaps you could give it a go, and see if you get the same trends of responses that I described.