• Skasi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    12 hours ago

    collations that ignore the first choice are not legitimate

    Why so? Why do you assume that one party should arbitrarily be given more rights/power than others? Where does this idea come from?

    Imagine an even more extreme example. Assume the winning party had 5% of the votes and most other parties had around 4-5% of the votes. Then assume that the winning party is unable to convince any other parties to enter into a coalition with them. Should all other parties not be allowed to make a coalition to represent 95% of the voters? Should the “winning” party be allowed to block this? Why should such deadlocks be allowed? What is the argument behind this?

    • intelisense@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Also, consider the hypotherical case where the Kill All Kittens party wins the most votes, but at 30%, thankfully, it doesn’t have a majority. Understandably, none of the other parties want to form a coalition with this party. Should they be forced to? Should we start killing kittens, even though a majority didn’t vote for that?