[nairboon]

The constitution and organization of Switzerland was largely inspired by the philosophy behind the USA. Thus they are very similar in terms of the organization of the state.

From this point of view, I think the fundamental flaw of the USA is the majoritarian electoral system. Majoritarian representation tends to degenerate in the long run into a gridlocked two-party system, a prime example is the USA.

Thus most of the ideas behind the USA are great, but the electoral system is fatal.

[one_more_q]

Agreed with this analysis. From a European who lived in the us my strong believe is that the US needs an electoral system that leads to coalitions. While far from perfect this is way better than the two party system that incentivizes the division in the public.

[philwelch]

Proportional representation and coalition systems lead to deadlock. Belgium and Israel have gone years between stable governments because of the failure to form a coalition. Meanwhile in Germany, it’s impossible for a voter to predict ahead of time what kind of government to expect from voting for any given party because almost any party could become coalition partners with just about any other party.

The two party system is still, in effect, a coalition system; the difference is that voters know ahead of time which coalition they’re going to get.

[grotorea]

I don't think PR and formal coalitions have a monopoly on deadlock. The USA can have something similar whenever there's not a single party holding a trifecta, and even then between the Supreme Court and filibustering it's not really streamlined unified government.

> Meanwhile in Germany, it’s impossible for a voter to predict ahead of time what kind of government to expect from voting for any given party because almost any party could become coalition partners with just about any other party.

You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted.

[philwelch]

> The USA can have something similar whenever there's not a single party holding a trifecta, and even then between the Supreme Court and filibustering it's not really streamlined unified government.

In a parliamentary system you don’t even have an executive branch unless you can get a coalition. And when it comes to Supreme Courts, not only does nearly every parliamentary country also have one, they sometimes have more of them. Most European countries are subject to ECtHR on top of their national supreme courts.

> You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted.

But at least you know what you’re voting for.

[artoghrul]

The two-party system is not really a coalition system, is it? For one, there is no way for minority factions within parties to exert effective control over the other factions, no? A prime example being how the centrist majority of the Democratic party crushed the democratic socialist faction.

[pjc50]

Conversely, the Tea Party faction of the Republicans gained control more or less entirely from the outside, due to media support.

[philwelch]

The process for doing this is primary elections, which you can participate in if you want to!

[mattpallissard]

We call them caucuses.

[0x5f3759df-i]

That’s part of it but the two party system is more downstream of the specific idiosyncrasies of the electoral college with it’s bizarre rules that end up with state delegations choosing a winner if no one wins an absolute majority of electoral college votes. So you cannot have more than two candidates without the election being thrown out and decided by the House.

Other countries with majoritarian systems like the UK and Canada at least have 3 viable parties, even if there are two that are usually the biggest.

[troad]

The gridlock is a feature, not a bug. The system is deliberately rich in checks and balances so as to make it difficult for a slim majority or a determined plurality to hijack the state. You basically require a supermajority for any radical change.

I think a gridlocked majoritarian system is probably preferable to a proportional one that requires governments to get in bed with far right/left 'kingmakers' who hold the balance of power - e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, etc.

[llamaimperative]

The system is designed to change slowly but it absolutely was not intentionally designed to be a two party system. That is an unintentional emergent property of the voting mechanism.

[pjc50]

The US "kingmakers" are instead inside the parties. A system where one person can hold vital bills hostage through filibuster or even just the very narrow vote margins is a system which encourages extremism.

[mattpallissard]

As an American I agree with grid lock being a feature. I don't like rapid change. Let's argue for a few years so we have time to think of all the angles.

It doesn't seem like that's how it works, but it does. Even the sensationalist headlines morph and the talking heads add/change their propaganda over time.

It's got it's draw backs for sure, but the system is working as intended.

[snowpid]

" hink a gridlocked majoritarian system is probably preferable to a proportional one that requires governments to get in bed with far right/left 'kingmakers' " Except this is the case in the US