Scandinavian Democracy is the only democracy that works

[philosopher]

The parliamentary democratic system in Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland) are by far the only democracies which forms governments representing the people they are about to govern.

In the U.S. when electing representatives, ie. the president or senate members, you vote for candidates but the candidate with the most votes take it all.

Same shit happens in just about every other country. For example in many countries (like Greece) if you have 3 parties A = 45 %, B = 46 % and C = 9 % the winner takes it all. It means the B-party gets all the votes or bonus resulting in total majority even though they only got 46 % of the votes.

In Scandinavian countries votes are distributed according to percentage. We have many parties and in Denmark any party that gets above 2 % of the votes are represented in the parliament. It also means that the governing parties usually never gets the majority alone. They have to form coalition governments and they are forced to have dialogue, discussions and agreements with other parties in order to obtain majority.

This is not the case in the U.S. You have virtually a 2-party system with some few other smaller parties nobody cares about.

Also in Scandinavian countries, criminals are allowed to vote, even when in jail. They are still part of society in some way and it is considered a human right to vote over here.

Our Prime Minister effectively acting as head of state (on behalf of our monarchs never using their power) also don't have as much power as your presidents. They don't even match the French president. They still have to make laws through the parliament.

So how come nobody who claim to be "democrats" wants to copy the Scandinavian parliamentary system?

[FlashDangerpants]

That's not some special Scandinavian political system you doofus, it's just proportional representation, loads of places use it. Israel, Iraq and Italy all use it. So that's 3 countries just beginning with the letter I.

For "philosopher's" next trick: "In Scandinavia we eat food, why don't the rest of the world learn to eat food through their mouth holes for sustenance?"

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Proportional representation is even more undemocratic. You have people becoming MPs who might not have got a single vote, simply because they were high enough on the Party List or because their party reached the 5% threshold. It's a sitting duck for nutty extremists. It's also nororiously unstable. The only proper democracy is Switzerland.

[philosopher]

Proportional representation is even more undemocratic. You have people becoming MPs who might not have got a single vote, simply because they were high enough on the Party List or because their party reached the 5% threshold. It's a sitting duck for nutty extremists. It's also nororiously unstable. The only proper democracy is Switzerland.

Being an MP only grants you power as _one_ individual MP. You'd have to pursuade the remaining 50 % MPs to get your ideas through.

That's democracy.

For example, why on Earth should a party reaching only 40 % of the votes be granted extra MPs effectively making them rule as though the majority voted for them (even though they did not) simply because it was the party who won the most votes (but no majority)?

It happens in Poland, UK, U.S. and just about anywhere.

If you get 40 % of the votes, the number of representatives should be according to those 40 % votes - not fewer, but certainly not more!

They will have to negotiate with other parties then, thereby any laws the parliament pass will have support from a vast majority of the people's representatives in the country.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Proportional representation is even more undemocratic. You have people becoming MPs who might not have got a single vote, simply because they were high enough on the Party List or because their party reached the 5% threshold. It's a sitting duck for nutty extremists. It's also nororiously unstable. The only proper democracy is Switzerland.

Being an MP only grants you power as _one_ individual MP. You'd have to pursuade the remaining 50 % MPs to get your ideas through.

That's democracy.

For example, why on Earth should a party reaching only 40 % of the votes be granted extra MPs effectively making them rule as though the majority voted for them (even though they did not) simply because it was the party who won the most votes (but no majority)?

It happens in Poland, UK, U.S. and just about anywhere.

If you get 40 % of the votes, the number of representatives should be according to those 40 % votes - not fewer, but certainly not more!

They will have to negotiate with other parties then, thereby any laws the parliament pass will have support from a vast majority of the people's representatives in the country.

With MMP one nutjob MP can veto everything the sitting Govt. wants to put through, simply because that one person holds the balance of power and the Govt needs their vote because of a close election result and enough idiots voting for small, fringe parties.
STV was by far the better option, but people here were too stupid to understand it, and those with a vested self-interest in MMP hijacked the referendum.

[philosopher]

Proportional representation is even more undemocratic. You have people becoming MPs who might not have got a single vote, simply because they were high enough on the Party List or because their party reached the 5% threshold. It's a sitting duck for nutty extremists. It's also nororiously unstable. The only proper democracy is Switzerland.

Being an MP only grants you power as _one_ individual MP. You'd have to pursuade the remaining 50 % MPs to get your ideas through.

That's democracy.

For example, why on Earth should a party reaching only 40 % of the votes be granted extra MPs effectively making them rule as though the majority voted for them (even though they did not) simply because it was the party who won the most votes (but no majority)?

It happens in Poland, UK, U.S. and just about anywhere.

If you get 40 % of the votes, the number of representatives should be according to those 40 % votes - not fewer, but certainly not more!

They will have to negotiate with other parties then, thereby any laws the parliament pass will have support from a vast majority of the people's representatives in the country.

With MMP one nutjob MP can veto everything the sitting Govt. wants to put through, simply because that one person holds the balance of power and the Govt needs their vote because of a close election result and enough idiots voting for small, fringe parties.
STV was by far the better option, but people here were too stupid to understand it, and those with a vested self-interest in MMP hijacked the referendum.

We have Single Transferable Voting (STV) in Scandinavian countries. Not Mixed member proportional representation (MMP).
And that's what I was talking about being the only way to truly represent democracy.

I find it hard to believe people are too stupid to realize this fact. It's simple and it's effective.

You get one vote, you place your vote on a candidate (or, if you don't have a preferred candidate, you are allowed to vote for the party only).

There is no veto. Usually the ruling party changes each election, and so any major reforms need to be made cross-party from both sides.
That means most reforms are being made with representation from a very large majority of the votes. Not only 51 %, in Denmark most reforms are only being made with at least 60 or 70 % of the elected representatives voting in favor, after very long negotiations.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Being an MP only grants you power as _one_ individual MP. You'd have to pursuade the remaining 50 % MPs to get your ideas through.

That's democracy.

For example, why on Earth should a party reaching only 40 % of the votes be granted extra MPs effectively making them rule as though the majority voted for them (even though they did not) simply because it was the party who won the most votes (but no majority)?

It happens in Poland, UK, U.S. and just about anywhere.

If you get 40 % of the votes, the number of representatives should be according to those 40 % votes - not fewer, but certainly not more!

They will have to negotiate with other parties then, thereby any laws the parliament pass will have support from a vast majority of the people's representatives in the country.

With MMP one nutjob MP can veto everything the sitting Govt. wants to put through, simply because that one person holds the balance of power and the Govt needs their vote because of a close election result and enough idiots voting for small, fringe parties.
STV was by far the better option, but people here were too stupid to understand it, and those with a vested self-interest in MMP hijacked the referendum.

We have Single Transferable Voting (STV) in Scandinavian countries. Not Mixed member proportional representation (MMP).
And that's what I was talking about being the only way to truly represent democracy.

I find it hard to believe people are too stupid to realize this fact. It's simple and it's effective.

You get one vote, you place your vote on a candidate (or, if you don't have a preferred candidate, you are allowed to vote for the party only).

There is no veto. Usually the ruling party changes each election, and so any major reforms need to be made cross-party from both sides.
That means most reforms are being made with representation from a very large majority of the votes. Not only 51 %, in Denmark most reforms are only being made with at least 60 or 70 % of the elected representatives voting in favor, after very long negotiations.

Yes. MMP is probably about the LEAST democratic of so-called 'democracies'. I really wanted STV but fuckwits didn't understand it and voted for the one with the 'catchier' name. STV is very good, but Switzerland's system is even better.

[HexHammer]

No, we have huge problems with growing corruption!
It's our economy model that works best, that distributes wealth to poor people!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No, we have huge problems with growing corruption!
It's our economy model that works best, that distributes wealth to poor people!

I don't think Denmark has STV.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Being an MP only grants you power as _one_ individual MP. You'd have to pursuade the remaining 50 % MPs to get your ideas through.

That's democracy.

For example, why on Earth should a party reaching only 40 % of the votes be granted extra MPs effectively making them rule as though the majority voted for them (even though they did not) simply because it was the party who won the most votes (but no majority)?

It happens in Poland, UK, U.S. and just about anywhere.

If you get 40 % of the votes, the number of representatives should be according to those 40 % votes - not fewer, but certainly not more!

They will have to negotiate with other parties then, thereby any laws the parliament pass will have support from a vast majority of the people's representatives in the country.

With MMP one nutjob MP can veto everything the sitting Govt. wants to put through, simply because that one person holds the balance of power and the Govt needs their vote because of a close election result and enough idiots voting for small, fringe parties.
STV was by far the better option, but people here were too stupid to understand it, and those with a vested self-interest in MMP hijacked the referendum.

We have Single Transferable Voting (STV) in Scandinavian countries. Not Mixed member proportional representation (MMP).
And that's what I was talking about being the only way to truly represent democracy.

I find it hard to believe people are too stupid to realize this fact. It's simple and it's effective.

You get one vote, you place your vote on a candidate (or, if you don't have a preferred candidate, you are allowed to vote for the party only).

There is no veto. Usually the ruling party changes each election, and so any major reforms need to be made cross-party from both sides.
That means most reforms are being made with representation from a very large majority of the votes. Not only 51 %, in Denmark most reforms are only being made with at least 60 or 70 % of the elected representatives voting in favor, after very long negotiations.

With MMP you can get a seat in parliament without a single vote in an election--just because you managed to manipulate and slither your way up the party list. Technically you could be PM without a single vote in an election--which was pretty much the case quite recently.

[Impenitent]

with all that socialized health care, I would have thought they cured STVs...

wait...

-Imp

[HexHammer]

I don't think Denmark has STV.

STV?!?!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't think Denmark has STV.

STV?!?!

Go back a couple of comments to philosopher's one.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

with all that socialized health care, I would have thought they cured STVs...

wait...

-Imp

True. Those with a vested interested in having the bonkers MMP system (i.e. those who wanted to be in power but knew they didn't have shit show in a proper system) made stupid jokes just like that.

[Spyrith]

Yes. MMP is probably about the LEAST democratic of so-called 'democracies'. I really wanted STV but fuckwits didn't understand it and voted for the one with the 'catchier' name. STV is very good, but Switzerland's system is even better.

One of the things I like about Switzerland's political system is that the people trust the Government. In all (or almost all I think) Swiss referendums, the Government issues a viewpoint on the referendum, whether to vote for or against.

Over time, the Swiss government has accumulated sufficient trust from the people that most simply vote according to how the Government suggests.

You could say people follow the guidance as sheep, but the results are there for all to see: a relatively equal country with a very, very high standard of living.