• AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I just didn’t use the word you wanted me to use in my previous message even though we both knew that’s what I was talking about.

    At this point, I honest to goodness don’t know what we are talking about.

    My point is that PR isn’t the panacea that some people make it sound like.

    I actually agree, but that’s not what we were discussing. What we were disputing was how FPTP better protects against authoritarianism, and whether this principle supersedes PR (and by proxy democracy itself).

    If the population votes like idiots you still get an idiotic government. Better education and censorship of extremist ideas (like they do in French Belgium) would protect us much more than a different electoral system.

    Yes, actually, this was the whole point all along!! I’m glad we agree on one thing.

    • Kecessa
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Yes, actually, this was the whole point all along!! I’m glad we agree on one thing.

      Then why share a post that says the best way to protect ourselves against authoritarianism is an electoral reform?

      • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        Ah, my apologies, I wasn’t as clear as I should have been.

        With respect to an external authoritarian take over, a strong democracy (and by proxy PR) is the best way to protect ourselves.

        With respect to an internal authoritarian take over… that will require education and censorship of disinformation. FPTP hasn’t been demonstrated to help with this by any means.

        (Post titles are limited to 200 characters, so not all information can be conveyed in the title)