In my view, as expressed in several publications, blogs and book reviews, Presidentialism would be acceptable (and, arguably better than Parliamentary systems), only if recall and referendums (not initiative petitions!) were available. Otherwise, I think Presidentialism makes for a pretty bad system, especially, as you point out, with exclusively winner-take-all elections everywhere.
Anyhow, I'm kind of impressed that you seem sort of sanguine about today's U.S. I will be hiding under my bed.
The most important part of putting your theory into practice is ensuring that we have at least two rounds of elections for president, with the final one being between two candidates, each of whom has a coalition of the previous candidates’ parties behind them. But you failed to describe how to make that happen in the US. I hope you will tackle this in a future article. Without that, we have the current system, where 3rd-party candidates are simply spoilers.
In my view, as expressed in several publications, blogs and book reviews, Presidentialism would be acceptable (and, arguably better than Parliamentary systems), only if recall and referendums (not initiative petitions!) were available. Otherwise, I think Presidentialism makes for a pretty bad system, especially, as you point out, with exclusively winner-take-all elections everywhere.
Anyhow, I'm kind of impressed that you seem sort of sanguine about today's U.S. I will be hiding under my bed.
The most important part of putting your theory into practice is ensuring that we have at least two rounds of elections for president, with the final one being between two candidates, each of whom has a coalition of the previous candidates’ parties behind them. But you failed to describe how to make that happen in the US. I hope you will tackle this in a future article. Without that, we have the current system, where 3rd-party candidates are simply spoilers.