Switzerland mandates (okay not by law but an old custom) the government to be put together by all major parties whatever they are at the latest elections. Right now there are 7 persons from 4 parties and lo, it works finely. The USA and its bipartisan system is not exactly the yardstick for functioning politics and (super)majorities should definitely never become goals. As surprising as it might come, negotiations can and do work.

Can't agree more, super majority is a dangerous situation if folks laughing at democracy take helm (like it or not, Trump was a perfect definition of it within western democracies, although dictators like putin run circles with big grin around such people). 4 years is plenty to do a lot of damage if actors at power are malevolent.

The problem of using Switzerland as a yardstick is that barely any population anywhere can match up maturity and morality of them, maybe some nordics. Give a glimpse of same freedom/responsibility to otherwise mature British folks and we have brexit.

US has many fine things running for it, but politics (and healthcare, education, criminality etc) definitely ain't it and should not be taken as inspiration. The whole us-vs-them mentality that such longterm bipartisan system brings is very limiting. What if I like low taxes, while also supporting abortions and legal soft drugs? Or any other mix that would be pretty schizophrenic in US.

Maybe the maturity and morality in CH and the Nordics comes from properly funded and independent curriculum education, which probably stems from good governance, which comes from a system that rewards rough consensus and compromise. It's a virtuous circle.

> The problem of using Switzerland as a yardstick is that barely any population anywhere can match up maturity and morality of them, maybe some nordics.

I don't think that's fair, both to nordics and to British folks. People are mature because the system treats them as mature. If the system obviously has contempt for you and everyone like you, then of course you will act out like a youngest child.

> The problem of using Switzerland as a yardstick is that barely any population anywhere can match up maturity and morality of them, maybe some nordics.

GP isn't talking about direct democracy but their governing cabinet which is basically how governing cabinets in the majority of Europe are formed.

The majority of European cabinets are formed by a parliamentarian coalition which usually reached a majority. The Swiss cabinet is formed by design from all the major parties, so there's no coalition needed between them - once you get enough votes you're in. It's just when the ministers are in function they cannot publicly dissent from the governing line or they fly out (it happens) - which is forcing them to negotiate behind the scenes the governing line, of course each according to their party mandate.

Various European democracies seem to have done fine, even if it is at times the coalitions become unstable.

Australia, even with a 2 party preferred, still often has smaller parties hold the balance of power. Often this is quite beneficial since the big party has to water down their ambitions.

It's the case in Canada right now too.

I sure would have liked to see the Liberal party follow through on their promise to engage in electoral reform though. It seemed to have completely slipped their minds once they found a majority.

Perhaps related, but I find minority governments to be the most aligned to how I think things should work. It's not that they can't get anything done, but rather they have to actually engage with the other parties to find common ground. Crazy idea, I know...

Agreed on both counts, with the added note though that minority government only works in multi-party systems. US-style split government is far less functional.

My understanding of what happened with the electoral reform promise is that the Liberals wanted a specific form of electoral reform: ranked choice. Unsurprising, because as the centrist party, they would stand to benefit most from that system. Which isn't to say I necessarily disagree with it; personally I think a system that encourages moderation is probably a good thing. Anyway, when the committee they put together to study the issue didn't come back with that option, they just shelved the whole thing.

Ah, very interesting! It seems like some people are making noise about the issue again, so will be watching that closely. Here in BC, there was some attempt a little while back, but it did not gain sufficient support this time around.

The US Senate is noteworthy for permitting unlimited debate. IIRC, no other legislative body has this trait.

The filibuster was a hack which has since been weaponized. It should be eliminated. If only to rationalize and normalize the Senate.

The anti-majoritarian case for maintaining the filibuster presumes that tyranny of the minority is preferable to the tyranny of the majority. Often dressed up dressed up in doublespeak slogans like "states rights" (John C. Calhoun) and "entrepreneurial freedom" (James M. Buchanan, Peter Thiel).

That can be migated. Just make a pre-negotiation round, were post vote, those parties who are below n% can give there vote share to the parties who make it over the limit, for a negotiated "goals" contract. No vote is lost..

It forces fringe, extremist and "eternal" oppossition parties to compromise and negotiate better terms and it can change elections that are really close.

I'd rather have the Irish electoral system then the American one any day.