Is there something I’m missing? They won because they got the most votes between three parties(but not a majority) and then the most again during the second round of voting between the top two. They won both times.

Ideologies aside your comment is written like you suspect foul play or something. “It’s broken because they could never win if there was competition” is just a terrible take so I assume I must be interpretting it wrong, right?

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (14 children)

The new guy won despite winning <5% of votes in the last election. If people vote for the candidate they like instead of trying to game the system by calculating who they'd rather not win the most, then maybe we can kick out corrupt incumbents and get in fresh faces (they'll get corrupted over time too, at which point you rinse and repeat).

[–] Porcupine@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

Didn't that happen in France in 2017? A party got founded and won.

That happens sometimes even in first-past-the-post systems.

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)

load more comments (19 replies)