![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In France, their presidential election has been whittled down to two candidates, neither of who come from mainstream parties. Which once again suggests voters in the West have had enough of the status-quo.
Democracy isn't a method for electing good governments, but a method for getting rid of unpopular ones. People would never have forced their rulers to submit to democracy if they were happy with how they were running the country. So it's in essence a negative method of choosing governments. You keep throwing your rulers out until you happen to select ones you're actually happy with, at which point you stick with them until they go bad.
All that being said, it would be good if your democracy was designed to give you a reasonable choice of alternatives to whoever's in power. This was demonstratively not the case in the American presidential election, where the choice was between an unpopular candidate representing the status-quo and just the one other, who was equally unpopular. (To all intents and purposes - I know there were a few others running.) So American democracy fails (in the presidential elections at least) at producing a good choice of alternatives to an unpopular administration. Maybe, (if you must have a president), the French method of selection is better than the US one?
Anyway, whether you're electing a president or a ruling party (or coalition), a system that produces a good mix of choices to whoever's in power would seem to be a desirable system to have.
Democracy isn't a method for electing good governments, but a method for getting rid of unpopular ones. People would never have forced their rulers to submit to democracy if they were happy with how they were running the country. So it's in essence a negative method of choosing governments. You keep throwing your rulers out until you happen to select ones you're actually happy with, at which point you stick with them until they go bad.
All that being said, it would be good if your democracy was designed to give you a reasonable choice of alternatives to whoever's in power. This was demonstratively not the case in the American presidential election, where the choice was between an unpopular candidate representing the status-quo and just the one other, who was equally unpopular. (To all intents and purposes - I know there were a few others running.) So American democracy fails (in the presidential elections at least) at producing a good choice of alternatives to an unpopular administration. Maybe, (if you must have a president), the French method of selection is better than the US one?
Anyway, whether you're electing a president or a ruling party (or coalition), a system that produces a good mix of choices to whoever's in power would seem to be a desirable system to have.
