Single Transferable Vote

Let this lion queen explain to you niggers how to fix Democracy in the US.

youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Find a flaw.
You can't.
Exactly!

Other urls found in this thread:

chickennation.com/2013/08/18/you-cant-waste-your-vote/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Flaw; It's too complicated for half the population to understand. Not even being sarcastic

Pro: It works in Australia and we all know Australians aren't the brightest.

bruh this is old stuff

And Democracy in the west is still shit. It's like elections change fucking nothing.

This seems like a really good system, does anyone actually use it?

Then maybe dumb people shouldnt vote then

Australian senate does.

It doesn't fucking take 8 minutes to explain this concept.

I fucking hate YouTube and its shitty informative videos that are often wrong and always too long.

>Smash the state
I understood that reference.

That only works for Legislature branch and not the PM?

Ireland also uses it, the wiki article should have a list.

>you can't "waste your vote".

Lie. As STV is non-monotonic, by definition you can waste your vote, ie. you can hurt a candidate you like by voting for a candidate you like more.

Democracy doesn't need fixing. It needs to be removed.
A theocratic ethnostate would be the best form of government.

>theocratic
You retarded?

PM is just the leader of the party that forms government. It's not actually a position.

Our "President"/head of state is the Governor-General, who is appointed by the Queen on the PM's advice - not elected.

>you can waste your vote, ie. you can hurt a candidate you like by voting for a candidate you like more.
That's not wasting your vote. If you're voting for the candidate you like most and they get elected your vote isn't wasted. If you vote for the candidate you like most and they don't get elected your vote transfers to the next candidate.

Voting for anyone hurts everyone you didn't vote for in every system, user. Except it doesn't, because nobody is entitled to your vote.

>PM is just the leader of the party that forms government.
Ewwwwwwww. STV with the American style governance would god tier

Typically UK to be needlessly pedantic

No, I'm serious. Religion is tradition and tradition is time tested.
Democracy is rule by the stupid.
Technocracy would throw ethics to the wind.
God has laid out the way for us to live perfectly.
What is your vision? A continuation of humanity struggling in the mud, ie: democracy?

>God has laid out the way for us to live perfectly.
You are talking about Allah, correct?

>Ewwwwwwww
Nah fuck off.

Washington just ends up with permanent minority government where the President and the Legislature are constantly at each other's throats and spend more time trying to cockblock each other than actually running the country. With the PM the party leader the person running the country actually has the authority and power to literally run the country.

Add in the fact that the US has no party discipline and it's a fucking mess.

There's a reason Westminster systems are relatively well-governed and the US is fucking garbage.

The Westminster system developed out of literal millennia of iterative improvement. The Washington system was some dreamed-up thought experiment that Americans are too afraid to revise or improve because MUH CONSTITUTION. Westminster = bestminster.

I should have specified Christianity.
Islam cannot be allowed to continue existing.

The real problem is insisting on local representation for a non-local government.

This is retarded and stupid and any system you invent to make it less retarded and less stupid will be stupid and retarded as well.

Islam will become a majority in the west whether you like it or not you dufus.
Your wet dream about theocracy happened in Erdogans Turkey. Now they hang everyone who isn't Muslim from a tree.

Does anyone have the unedited version of this?

It is unedited, afaik.

The religion makes the difference faggot.
They'll only take over the west if we don't start killing them. You faggots in the EU have more of them than we do. I see plenty of other shitskins but I see muslims. I'm starting to think they actually are running away to Canada.

Well it incentivises trying to be the least unpopular rather than the most popular.

Naw, its edited. The original is a lot different.
Also, nice trips.

>if we don't start killing them
I'm sure asking for murder would get you votes in your PC world of the rotten west.

Everyone should have a queen and a king.
Imagine Trump and Hillary both ruling that piece of shit country of USA. This would make both parties happy and it's a two party system.

>PM is just the leader of the party that forms government. It's not actually a position.
>Our "President"/head of state is the Governor-General, who is appointed by the Queen on the PM's advice - not elected.

Your country fucked it up.

The "prime minister" is just what it says:
The first of all the ministers.

A minister is a person appointed by the head of state (either a monarch or a president) to take care of affairs on his/her behalf.
The prime minister is just one of the ministers, tasked with coordinating all the ministers.

Here's the source.

chickennation.com/2013/08/18/you-cant-waste-your-vote/

What you just said doesn't contradict what I said in any way.

If only this system was in practice before Obama was elected.

>What you just said doesn't contradict what I said in any way.

Normally:
Head of state appoint the PM

Ausweirdia:
PM picks the head of state (with another head of state? doing the formality???)

>CGP grey
this man is the literal definition of shill, and will not go 5 seconds without having squarespace or audible in his asshole or begging patreon donations
>he needs 6+ months to make these shitty videos

Both Trump and Hillary are very unpopular.

If they were both appointed pretty much everybody in America would be deeply unhappy.

I have far more respect for people who openly advertise, than for those who try to hide it.

How it works:
The Queen appoints the Governor-General, and the Governor-General picks the PM. The Governor-General serves at Her Majesty's Pleasure and has unlimited reserve powers to dissolve parliament and command the military and pass laws.

How it actually works because the above is just a formality:
The PM appoints the Governor-General. The Governor-General serves for 5 years (the PM for 3 before facing an election). The Governor-General is allowed to keep their reserve powers so long as they promise not to use them (sometimes they do though, and that is when you know IT'S HAPPENING).

What happens if none of the candidates get above 50%?

Ah i fucked up, didn't read untill end.

>President and the Legislature are constantly at each other's throats and spend more time trying to cockblock each other than actually running the country.
Such a cynical way of saying "Ensuring the other doesn't become a tyrant by discussing and accessing about what to do"

>With the PM the party leader the person running the country actually has the authority and power to literally run the country.
It really becomes a matter of personality contest when voting for a GE since you basically making a tyrant for years. With the Senate and President separate one can vote for the party policies in the former and a personality contest in the latter

Forgot to mention that the PM's highly centralized power also makes it unstable. Countless PMs have been deposed by the party for reasons as I am an aussie is well aware. A presidency ensure that the barrier to be deposed is much higher and let the president comfortably do shit he wants to do without worrying about the other branches deposing about something unpopular (but not criminal of coz)

It isn't possible in the US system. People are elected to represent geographical areas, not political parties.

>Such a cynical way of saying "Ensuring the other doesn't become a tyrant by discussing and accessing about what to do"
Australia is a century and a bit old and we've never had a tyrant. I think the system is working fine.

I think that the paranoia surrounding letting the government fucking do its job and govern is self-destructive. You see that in America where nobody can do anything because their entire government is designed to be occupied by people who all hate each other and have veto power over each other. And then people are surprised when it devolves into a shitfest where healthcare and tertiary education have been fucked for almost half a century and yet are not only not being fixed, but are actively being made worse because of how fucking shit results of government infighting are.

>With the Senate and President separate one can vote for the party policies in the former and a personality contest in the latter
And you end up with two branches of government that cannot work together and therefore a government that doesn't work.

>the PM's highly centralized power also makes it unstable. Countless PMs have been deposed by the party
And where the people have disagreed with those decisions those parties have been punished at elections. Nobody votes for the PM - they vote for the party.

>presidency ensure that the barrier to be deposed is much higher and let the president comfortably do shit he wants to do without worrying about the other branches deposing about something unpopular
No, just vetoing him to no end and inciting him to retaliatory vetoes endlessly until the whole system grinds to a halt.

Just like the USA.

Just hold STV elections for each electorate then.

I think your main disagreement with the American system isn't for much the system as the people themselves. It is not the fault of the system if people of all political sides and agendas refused to cooperate and compromise with another. The system merely ensures the powers are kept in checks and balances, with no one group holding supreme power over the minorities like the PM and his parties. Americans beings dicks to one another by abusing the system is a failure of them not the system itself

I'd rather see us go back to unelected Senators.

>It is not the fault of the system if people of all political sides and agendas refused to cooperate and compromise with another
Yes, it is.

Americans are not a different species.

The lack of compulsory voting and the shitty system where the three branches are by design able to cockblock each other means that you will only get extremely polar viewpoints represented, and they will almost always all be represented at the same time, and therefore able to deadlock each other.

Even bad policy is better than no policy, because at least every bad policy gets us closer to good policy by simple trial and error.

Imagine if 30 years ago the US government had attempted healthcare reform and it hadn't worked, and it took 10 years for them to improve it to a workable state. It means that by 2017 they would have had good quality healthcare for two decades. But they didn't, because back then - as now - they deadlock each other because fuck everything and fuck the other guys especially, so instead of having 10 years of shit policy and 20 years of good policy they get 30 years of shit policy, with 30 years more to come.

Lastly, co-operation and compromise are NOT what I want. In Australia the PM only needs to negotiate with the Senate, and even then only if he has a minority in the Senate. Party discipline means that the government will always have the numbers to vote its legislation through. It's the opposite of the US system, where even the party with the majority in the legislature cannot gets its legislation through without executive and judicial support. If the House of Reps represents the people, why the fuck do they need to compromise? Who are they compromising with? The people who lost the fucking election? WHY?

It's a failure of having a country that is too large and too diverse to please everyone. The federal government should be much weaker and the states should be stronger. Take care of things on a local level.

The equal protection clause was a mistake.

MMP is the best system, with a STV for your electoral vote

The voters dont need to understand how it works, just vote for whoever they like.

The US system is designed to be inefficient. This ensures that only ideas with broad support get anywhere.

The problem is that the federal government has taken over everything that was supposed to be the domain of the state governments.

If California wants socialized healthcare, let them try it out. Invent a system that works well. Maybe other states will implement it too. People who don't want it can move to states that don't have it. It really is better than using 51% majorities to force things on the whole country.

>are by design able to cockblock each other means that you will only get extremely polar viewpoints represented,
How? such rampant extremism in political view is quite a recent phenomenon in USA

>Even bad policy is better than no policy, because at least every bad policy gets us closer to good policy by simple trial and error.
When you find yourself in a hole, not digging vs digging is a very important distinction

>10 years of shit policy and 20 years of good policy they get 30 years of shit policy, with 30 years more to come.
You are assuming they would switch to a good policy without doubling down. Not necessarily true

> Who are they compromising with? The people who lost the fucking election? WHY?
Coz they deserved to be represented just as much as everyone else! The system of governance you wanted is basically mob rule! The American system at least protects the people from government, even if it means at the expense of overall efficiency and decisiveness. Which an effective presidency should combat

As far as compromise, I think voters would rather compromise at the voting booth than elect their perfect candidate that has to sit on the back bench and compromise as part of a coalition government.

stupid. this isn't applicable to america, we already have local (house of rep) state (senate) and national levels

I strongly agree. A society following the teachings of The Great God Salmiri would be a literal utopia.

ITV:Monkeys are the jews

For example, if I'm a NatSoc with conservative social views:

> in a STV system I could vote for a NatSoc candidate who might even get elected, but would be irrelevant in Congress

> in our system, I can elect a cucky Republican who I don't totally agree with, but I like more than the Democrat, and he could get some things done

>The US system is designed to be inefficient.
That's not good design.

>This ensures that only ideas with broad support get anywhere.
Even ideas with broad support don't go anywhere. Everyone in America wants healthcare reform and have for decades. No healthcare reform. "It's all the other party's fault" is not an answer to this problem.

>muh state governments
I have other criticisms of this. Having countries-within-a-country isn't going to work for blindingly obvious reasons, but yet this still comes up. It's ludicrously inefficient to have fifty different systems. The whole reason Australia federated was because of this exact inefficiency. Maybe in the 1700s it made sense to govern on the scale because that was the effective reach of government, but it's not the 1700s anymore. Centralisation is desirable.

>such rampant extremism in political view is quite a recent phenomenon in USA
Bullshit. They literally fought a fucking war over their extremist viewpoints and inability to compromise a century and a half ago.

>When you find yourself in a hole, not digging vs digging is a very important distinction
Doing nothing will accomplish nothing.

>You are assuming they would switch to a good policy without doubling down. Not necessarily true
Nor is it realistic to assume that they wouldn't.

>Coz they deserved to be represented just as much as everyone else!
No, they don't. They are a minority, and their status in government as a minority opinion reflects their status in real life.

>The American system at least protects the people from government
And yet our system outperforms theirs without any such protections. You appeal to theoretical principles and ignore practical failure.

In an STV system you could just vote 1 for the Republican if you wanted. STV gives you the choice to vote 1 for NatSoc or vote 1 for Republican.

In your current system, you have no choice.

Also
>irrelevant in parliament
Some of our most relevant MPs are independents and minor party MPs because we have a hung upper house where no party has the majority and the government needs crossbench support. Your NatSoc rep could make a lot of impact. Far more than actual sitting members of the government, even.

Le Current Year Man steals his segments from CGP Grey. What an anal douche.