Hello, each country have a different way to elect their president or equivalent. The german assembly elect the chancellor (even if their is a german president, but he is more decorative than something else), the US citizens elect an electoral collegewho elect a president, french have a two stage election where the two people who had the most votes at the first stage go to the second stage but is their a best way to elect a president ? The best way would be that the most popular one win. Here is a video in french with english subs (if it's not the case, you can activate them in the options) who describe the different ways to elect a president, and why somes are flawed, some are better :
I don't think there is a best way to elect a president simply because there's no way to guarantee the correct person wins. In the 2016 US election, there wasn't even a correct person on the ballot. Among the cupidity, stupidity, docility, and stubbornness of voters, even when there is a good candidate, the bad candidate can still win. Whatever respect I had for the voting public was shattered by the election of Hillary Clinton, a confirmed felon, to the Senate from the state of New York. The Europeans garner even less respect, having voted for Merkel and Macron.
The US is huge and populated in every state , you really have to think of us as 50 separate country's...that's why the electoral college is the most fair. .
However some methods of vote can prevent someone like Clinton to monopolize the election. About Germany, I know poorly how german system function. The french system is dysfunctional. At the first round of the election, only 24 % of the french who voted, voted for him, even less if we consider the people who didn't vote. French politics was turned into a republic of beaver for whom the biggest aim is to build a flood barrier against Le Pen. I would think that a particular political system create his own supply. By the way, the biggest concern is the citizens themselves.
It's by the way a system adapted to the american geography and population, but isn't a way to do better ?
I am not sure how in America, people are way to indocterated in the cities, if we just go by the popular vote, the folks in New York, California, Chicago would win all the time..the only thing that keeps us United is the electoral college. .
Yes, I didn't negate that, but isn't a better way to elect the college ? Like this "the winner win all" rule ?
Your more knowledgeable on how the rest of the world votes then I am, I just know who is in charge of most countries...I hate to be an ugly American here but I just care about how the USA votes, I always believe the right president of America comes around at the right time..no matter how much I disliked Jimmy, Bill, bush Jr, Obama and Trump they all came along at the right time. .
Almost all countries have unefficient method to elect a president. The most efficient one are slighty more complex from a mathematic point of view, but probably much better for the democracy. I encourage you to watch the video, their is english subs and the guy explain well.
My country Indonesia has an interesting method of electing our President. First a Parliamentary election is held. Then a few months later, the President is elected by direct popular vote with a two round system so that the President is elected by a majority. But there is something else; in order to field a presidential candidate, a political party or a coalition of political parties must command at least 20% of seats in Parliament. Theoretically this means we can have a maximum of 5 candidates but usually it comes down to only 3. After the parliamentary election is held, coalition building begins to forward presidential candidates. Most parties cannot secure 20% of seats in parliament on their own so coalition building almost always happens. Some people consider this undemocratic as it limits choice and independent candidates cannot run. But on the other hand it simplifies the rules over who is allowed to run and voters are spared the burden of learning about a dozen or more candidates and their policies. It also means that candidates are consensus builders and not individuals with policies only a small fraction of the population support. I actually support it.
How is voting for anonymous individuals (even though the ballot gives the name of the candidates) who will cast votes for the candidates on your behalf and can STILL vote against the wishes of the voters the best? (look up faithless electors)
A huge effort was brought forth in 2016 to have the electors betray the voters and stage a soft coup d'état at the convention, even by Mitt Romney. But you could count the faithless bastards twice on one hand.
Exactly. Why are the electors not pinned down by law to vote according to the will of the voters? And why are the voters not given the names and faces of the electors so they can judge if they are trustworthy individuals? Just because it has "always worked", does not mean the flaws in the system should be ignored.
really, tell us how south and north dakota are different? they're not separate countries...how is it fair alaska with less than a million people 1/40 california's population get 3 votes while Cali gets with 40 million only gets 55 votes, that's a messed definition of what's fair...if it was anywhere near democratic and fair California would get 40 times alaskas vote, 120... one vote per person, whoever wins popular vote wins all, any other way is undemocratic
France directly elects their President who is more than just a ceremonial role. Some powers are given to Parliament but the President shares some degree of executive authority. And if you disagree with me or prove me wrong, my answer would be: "Well I guess I should be happy I don't live in a western democracy". My President is directly elected.
...head of state, not head of government. Their head of government is the prime minister. How does he take office? No western democracy popularly elects its head of government. Not one.
France is a semi-presidential system. It's complicated. If it were simpler, the prime minister would represent France on the world stage. If it were simpler, the prime minister would be making 90-99% of executive decisions.