I’ve thought about doing something like this before, with more factions and smaller parties. This isn’t bad though.
I want to say I 100% support this, but I should probably check if parliamentary systems actually produce less election-to-election variance (which I’d consider an upside, but probably not the case) or actually reduce Trump-like characters.
If nothing else, it would… change the sort of complaints people make about the electoral system? Like, they couldn’t complain about their far-left or far-right candidates losing the primaries if they just had separate parties, but they’d probably complain about coalition maneuvering, and the same people would claim that party establishments control everything even if new parties could easily be founded and compete with them.
Amazingly enough Australia and the UK are not yet paradises on earth despite having the benefits of parliamentary democracy and voting with preferences.
It’s a good start, though.
Parliamentary democracies are also shown to be fundamentally more stable than presidential ones as well.
The main reason why the U.S. has lasted this long with a presidential/2-party system is because we ignore the fact that half the country tried to up and leave halfway through because we’ve come to universally recognize them as shit people with shit ideas/
Unless you’re a revisionist anyway.
Are there any major presidential systems around the world that don’t use first past the post? I feel like that’s the part that makes it unstable. I highly doubt that we would have Trump if we have instant runoff voting.
IIRC, France has an interesting system where you hold two elections. The first general election in a wide field to find out which two candidates get the most votes, then a second election between the two of them to find out which one all the French-equivalents of “third party voters” would have voted on if they had to pick between those two.