The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Or they lost because they're the ones still stuck in charge with Brexit.

The British system is widely criticized for its single member first past the post system. Many of those members were elected with less than 40% of the vote total. True reformists like proportional representation systems. The problem with those systems is that small single interest parties become king makers. In extreme examples it led to the rise of the Nazis. So countries create a clearing mechanism, say 5% of the vote, before you can enter Parliament. It took Belgium nearly two years to form a government because of how fractured the parties were.

For all the attractions of Parliamentary systems, they are mostly unstable. Look at how weak the Japanese government had been prior to Abe. They went through like 8 PM's in just a few years. Our system creates a strong government with a lot of built in checks to prevent wild swings in laws (we call it gridlock).

The British system is widely criticized for its single member first past the post system. Many of those members were elected with less than 40% of the vote total. True reformists like proportional representation systems. The problem with those systems is that small single interest parties become king makers.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

This is such an American-centric way of looking at it.

"Brexit lead to Trump. Trump is bad! British see Trump bad! British say no more Brexit because they no like Trump."

The Tories "lost" (they still control the government...so I wouldn't use that particular word) because they rushed a snap election and thought they had it in the bag anyways. But when party infrastructure is disorganized and unprepared it invites the unexpected. Sound familiar?

I can speak of parliamentary systems from my experience of living in and voting in Israel. They used to have a 2% threshold for a party to take seats, but they recently upped it to 4% in order to try to cut it down to 10 parties from the 15 it was before.

There really is no perfect electoral system, but I like parliaments as I at least felt I had an option to vote for that represented by views. We don't have that in the US and wonder why turnout is so low (plus we gerrymander everything so half of the congressional districts are rigged)

The LibDems are the biggest advocates for proportional representation, obviously because it would help them the most.

First-past-the-post helped the Tories immensely last night because Labour and the SNP split the vote in a bunch of Scottish constituencies. I don't think they'll be so lucky next time around.

I can speak of parliamentary systems from my experience of living in and voting in Israel. They used to have a 2% threshold for a party to take seats, but they recently upped it to 4% in order to try to cut it down to 10 parties from the 15 it was before.

There really is no perfect electoral system, but I like parliaments as I at least felt I had an option to vote for that represented by views. We don't have that in the US and wonder why turnout is so low (plus we gerrymander everything so half of the congressional districts are rigged)

Israel's current government is a perfect example where far right nut job parties are required for the government coalition.

First past the post is designed to force the country into a two party system. But what is unique about the UK is that it is actually several countries in one, so special interest parties have been able to take seats in Scotland and NI on relatively narrow issues.

The LibDems made a vote on proportional representation part of the coalition agreement with Cameron.

Another country that does not have a constitution. These countries like the UK and Israel deep down would like to emulate the rigid, stable American system as opposed to the chaotic shitshows they currently have. Ripping up the constitution is going backwards, I don't understand your love affair with countries that dont have one.

And the USA is 50 countries in one. You want the Texas First! party to decide who runs a coaltion government?

Many countries have a President and Prime Minister in Parliament, which makes no sense. Lots of figure heads in the other systems.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Like I said, everyone else divides head of state and head of government.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

I agree that it's not a matter of superiority, just about positives and negatives of other systems versus our own. I think we've been at a point for the last two years or so where it's been easier than ever to scrutinize the way we do things: because of the structure of our government and the incompetence of some who participate in it, we now have a nominal party of the people that can only govern by executive order or the courts. It doesn't feel right.

I agree that it's not a matter of superiority, just about positives and negatives of other systems versus our own. I think we've been at a point for the last two years or so where it's been easier than ever to scrutinize the way we do things: because of the structure of our government and the incompetence of some who participate in it, we now have a nominal party of the people that can only govern by executive order or the courts. It doesn't feel right.

Getting money out of politics would help.

I know that seems like the answer. But in a society with broad free speech rules, I just can't accept that we limit people from spending their money as they see fit for political interests. How would you campaign without money? Public funding of elections?

What if you and I wanted to support gay rights with an advertising campaign, would that be allowed?

The Government believes it has enough support in the House of Commons to pass the Queen's Speech following talks with the DUP.

After announcing a date for the speech setting out Theresa May's legislative agenda, a Tory source said discussions with the Northern Irish unionists had been "progressing".

But the source stopped short of saying that a deal had been finalised with the DUP and left the way open for further negotiations to continue, even after the monarch has set out what laws Ms May wants to pass.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Wow what a great system they have too bad we don't have regional parties deciding who forms a government in the USA.

Labour have won their first seat in Worthing for more than 40 years.

The party's candidate Beccy Cooper has claimed a shock win in the Worthing Borough Council by-election for Marine ward.

Labour took 47.8 per cent of the vote, an almost 30 per cent increase in their vote, while the defending Conservatives vote dropped six per cent to 38.8 per cent.

The victory follows on from major gains the party made in Adur and Worthing in the last election.

Dr Cooper, standing in Worthing West, more than doubled her party's efforts from two years earlier by securing 18,091 votes while Sophie Cook standing in East Worthing and Shoreham cut Tim Loughton's majority from around to 15,000 to just 5,000.

West Sussex County Councillor Michael Jones, Labour, said: "This is seismic.

"In West Sussex politics terms, it's the equivalent of the asteroid striking the Earth and wiping out all the dinosaurs."

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.