Which political system is better, and why?

Which political system is better, and why?

I don't know. But the US system has lasted much, much longer than the European ones.

Even our political parties are older than most of your countries.

I actually kind of like the American two-party system. Just simple, conservatism vs. liberalism.

M8 European countries are old as hell.

>Even our political parties are older than most of your countries.
Holy fucking lel

What the fuck are you even saying dude

so european parties either
a. have like 8 parties that will never hold power, having 2 main big dogs
b. get into many power jams as seats are taken up by a literally who party
c. virtually all parties have the same pro-immigration globalist agenda and make you think they are different because muh environment or some shit like that
we have the same thing in the u.s. but are more efficient and bullshit less

>Even our political parties are older than most of your countries.

>american education

While his statement is retarded i think hes trying to imply that the Republican and Democrat parties are older than your modern Governments, this isn't total hogwash however since a lot of countries had to re establish their governments post ww2 but its still a retarded way to word it.

Europe
>Sup Forums will defend the shitty 2 party system just because it's not European

I'd sat it's a combination between 1 and 2. The colours in the OP are lifted straight from today's poll for the Norwegian parliamentary elections.

Look everyone, this what stupidity in its truest form looks like

The US 2 party system is really retarded but on the other hand it operates differently from the European "direct democracies" since its not about popular vote.

I prefer the Euro system just because it creates less rivalry. But then again that could also just be American liberal culture that take defeats this badly.

...

Monarchism

>american education

>political system
>good

LOL
>US Government more efficient

kys juncker

>americud edyucayshun

rödgröd med flöde?

marek pls

*constitutional monarchism

oh nice toothpaste flag

>Europe
>far-right candidate/party is ahead in polls
>literally everyone from the moderate right to the far left's literal commies make a huge coalition to prevent them from winning
I'd say America, at least they can't pull this shit.

I think the USA has a better system.

In Europe - or Belgium atleast - we just go from status quo to status quo.

Almost every government exists of 3 parties so there's no chance for some real change.


Having less parties is less democratic but in terms of decision making it is way more efficient than having 10 parties.


Best political system is enlightened despotism

cute grl Jesper

rod grod med flode

You're really retarded son

The best parliamentary system is the oldest one, the British parliamentary system

see that big red bar? They're friends with the green bars and will never ever loose power whereas America at least has a coin flip

A million parties holding no power individually and requiering alliances and other political manouvers every law project, taking time and taxpayer monies, vs a 2 party system where one side holds absolute majority and the minorities opinion are disregarded, causing social chaos?

I have to say the US, as is the one that acomplished more things as of late, but both are pretty crap.

kek learn English if you're gonna live in this country

u.s. parties only negotiate and argue with simply 1 other party instead of 10. sure it seems less democratic but realistically speaking the winning party won to have its way and not the others'. trying to work with 8+ parties is just a show to make you think you have a choice, all it does it waste a lot of time and at the end of the day the unecessary policies that minor parties want will go ignored

Ah yes, the british "democratic" system where you can win with 25% of the vote

...

Thanks my man!

In a 2 party system there's a lot less democracy since an elected government can do whatever they want and completely ignore half of the population (or more). It's basically tyranny where you have elections and can decide every 4 years which tyrant will rule you for the next 4 years.

A coalition government has to listen to more ears and so a consencus has to be formed or nothing gets done. It's harder but incomparably more democratic. Anything more than a 3 party coalition and nothing gets done.

are you kiddings me? hows that brexit of yours going with that system?

ahahaha amerisharts everyone

>Even our political parties are older than most of your countries.

Ahmed you're only saying this because they paid for your entire family to come

I generally tend to favour the European systems, but I recognize that the US system allows for much greater change between governments and comprehensive implementation of their views.

In practice there are only two main parties in France : socialists and republicans
republicans are actually socialists as well, only a bit less into social justice, no real difference.
Pretty sure it's ultimately the same everywhere

>Indians shitting on America instead of the beach

I suppose it's a step forward

...

Enjoy your coalitions of progressiveness m8s, first past the post ensures strong government and strong opposition

Well what the last 8 years have shown is that there being only 2 major parties just forces a gridlock situation. In a multi party system they are forced to cooperate if not a new alliance will just be formed.
Right now in Denmark the Social Democrats and the Nationalist party are making policies with out the liberal ruling party in order to create stricter immigrationlaw. Something like that could never happen in the US. With a european system the parties can maintain the political identity with ease while keeping their promises.

>European system
>commit suicide over the course of two decades

>American system
>elect Trump

Blow your convoluted pseudo-democracies out of your ¢uck asses faggots, USA is #1

FPTP is the real cancer in US and some EU countries. UKIP got 1 seat despite getting 13% of the popular vote

Right because labor is such a strong opposition

The parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been meeting since only 1922. The US congress has been meeting since the 1790s.

America isn't a democracy though, its a representative republic.

Yeah, that's the gist of it.

Democratic structure, the only REAL one where you actually have a voice instead of voting for 20 fucking parties who are actually 1 giant party versus 1 tiny nationalist party.

...

Are you being facetious or just stupid?

I believe that the fact that you guys' elites can just band together to stop ideas like "we don't want more immigrants" makes American two-party system the best.

First thing he did was destroy TPP, where the fuck have you been faggot.

>democracy

Tough to say the US is exactly a democratic structure since its complicated enough that it would be nearly impossible to successfully set up our exact style of government anywhere else.

Not really, its a pretty fair system since you have a House of Representatives with a shitload of people, a Senate with fewer but more powerful people, and then a President.

The President is the heart and soul of the country, their presence alone influences our culture overall like a magic command. It seems like tyranny now (praise kek) but its just a circumstance.

All of those people in the Senate and House are voted independently by state and county respectively. There just so happens to be a shitton of Republicans elected now. (shitloads of country in the US which is rightwing and based vs only a few dozen liberal rathole city counties)

The Amerifat is right and you're all fucking retards.
Germany was founded 23 May 1949
France was founded 22 September 1792
The Czech Republic was founded 1 January 1993
Belgium was founded 4 October 1830
And many other, most I'd bet, European countries were founded after 1776

>oslwald
why do you niggers sneak spelling errors into so much right wing shit
its a goddamn conspiracy

the main thing I don't like about eurabian governments is that you vote for a party and not an individual. if you want to vote for the free beer party but they put up a total fucktard for mp all you can do is vote for a different party.

Exactly if we had FPTP in France, we'd have been uncucked 30 years ago.

I didn't make it, but FUCK now it's ruined

The UK was founded in 1922. Just because you have some old buildings doesn't mean the country itself is that old.

>France was founded 22 September 1792
Even later than that. The current French government has only been around since 1958.

And many other, most I'd bet, European countries were founded after *1828
misread the burgers post, but the point still stands that a fuck load of European countries weren't created until the 19th and 20th centuries.

Yep, the revolution was bad mkay?

5 republics, 1 temporary republic, 1 fascist government, 1 restoration, 2 empires...

And people say the monarchy was unstable... Well at least it lasted since the baptism of freaking Clovis after the Battle of Tolbiac all the way to the bourgeois pretending to be peasants revolt that was the revolution.

So basically there were no countries and no people in Europe until XX century? You can't be this retarded.

The two party system is certainly a lot more fun and you have the power to boot the fuckers out if they've pissed you off after their term.

Is the green one muzzies?

We could combine both ideas.
>Do away with senate
>Increase # of representatives in low population states
>Decrease # of representatives in high population states
>States fill seats proportionally
>Replace presidential election with 2 round system

You're really dumb

We have the oldest parliament in the world you nigger

>They quote him
>They call him names
>Most importantly, they know he's right

Keep on keeping on, based user.

Do you know what a country is?

anons face

Hippy enviorment partys.

That's fucking retarded. It's like saying the USA was founded in 1959.

From left to right:
Senterpartiet (Centrist Farmer's Union Party)
Miljopartiet de Gronne (Green Party)
Venstre (Liberal party)

>Much, much older
Bruh what are you smoking?

The UK was founded on the 1st May 1707 you cuck

basically this

A combination of the two systems with more parties but with each party having a much weaker whip like in the us appeals to me. Although maybe that would always tend towards two major parties.

>THE US HAS ONLY EXISTED SINCE HAWAII JOINED

CHECKMATE USKEK

> Tremble for Denmark comes!
> Western foreign policy accounts for Danish perspective.

lol yeah okay, keep at it big guy

It really depends on how you define country, Netherlands can be 450 years old if you trace it back to it's founding, 200 years since it became a Kingdom, 150 years since it became a constitutional monarchy. France is even more difficult although as is older than a millenia as a political entity.

Denmark is so old the only we know is that is from the 10th century, so america can go back to getting cucked

The issue with arguments like these my american chums is where does the nitpicking stop - with every regieme change and election the nation is 'reborn'? After wars? When poland was removed from the map did it cease to exist?

Better to go back to origins rather than fudge it.

Not at all. Alaska was admitted to the union the same way the original 13 were.

I saw a brit of here the other day sum it up nicely;
>two party system: parties bend to the whims of their voters to some extent, you'll probably never have a candidate you entirely agree with but at least one you can generally get along with them, system is resistant to political wackos taking an election with a fairly small minority-majority vote
>european multi party system: lots of parties to choose from so you can find one pretty close to your beliefs and desires but they're a small fish among many small fish and tend to be more rigid as a result, in order to get anything done parties tend to band together in looser coalitions along a common axis or idea. it's much less likely your preferred candidate will end up in a position of more direct power and parties tend to come and go much more easily.
one of the really nice things about the us system is the slower pace of change where chances are half of the country or more is resisting it as a new idea starts to circulate which tends to allow things to mature before they are deployed. this seems to have europe look down on us as being slow to change or backwards which really bothers leftists but it's not a bad thing most of the time. more rapid systems tend to barrel ahead into trouble but also address those issues more quickly.
one of the biggest flaws of the american system is the requirement of bandwagoning, fighting along party lines needlessly at times and that politicians, if they want popular support, have to stay pretty close to the party stance on a broad range of issues which prevents a lot of useful discussion and diversity, as loathe as i am to use that word even in the correct sense.

i'd actually be curious to hear what euros think of our system.

Nice.

Hey look, someone who can separate current government from ethnic or national identity. You're alright. Semantic troll bait is the best troll bait.

after witness the mess that is europe, I would say US is better.

There are a lot of old countries in Europe, yes but most, I would argue, are new. Yugoslavia, for example, or ex soviet states only became countries very recently.
Places like Italy or Romania only unified quite recently, whereas countries like all the Scandinavian ones have been countries since the middle ages.

...

DAS RITE HOMIEE, AMERICAN HISTORY BE OLDER THAN EUROPEAN HISTORY AND SHIIIEEET

>american education

>american education
Kys colonynigger.

There is about 5 relevant parties in Denmark and it really spices things up.