[EM] The monarchic principle: too much power to one person

[Richard Lung]

One cause, it would be worth making some progress on, would be to make 
single member elections the exception, rather than the rule. They bring 
the US and the UK into world disrepute, as rowdies who can't agree on 
anything.

As HG Wells said, over a century ago, when the obvious method of a 
single non-transferable vote is used, it follows there is only an 
either-or choice, and politics drifts into the hands of two antagonistic 
parties. (About a quarter century or so later, dubbed Duverger law.)

The monarch or elected monarch, the ancient Greek "tyrant," one man can 
hold the world to ransom. As previously suggested a 5-member executive 
STV elected from 5 centers of the US republic would have 5 independent 
sources of popular support, and have been less likely to follow one man 
(at a time) persisting in the Vietnam war, or one man for a second Iraq war.

The least democratic system is "maiorocracy" splintering nations into 
pieces of the cake small enough for some minority to become a dominating 
majority. Their ultimate logic is anarchy and chaos. Even the Kazakh 
leader rebuffed Putin, for that. Genuine proportional representation is 
needed, following the borders of natural communities, democratically 
consented. (Not the Versailles treaty model, an imposed Imperial model, 
rewarding allies, regardless of cultural composition of populations.)

Regards,

Richard Lung.