That does not capture their true influence. The coalition needed their support to form the slimmest of a majority, so their political weight is far beyond what their representation might suggest by numbers alone.
It often is. In a parliamentary system it's the way small parties can get influence.
1. Immigrants that have become Swedish citizens or that have been granted permission to continue living in Sweden have rights. They can't just be sent back to whatever country they came from...
2. Again: 20% does not equal any kind of win that results in some absolute amount of power. Everything the Sweden Democrats want to do will have to be negotiated with the others that hold roughly 30%. And those in the 30% are not going to agree to do everything the Sweden Democrats might want do...
I never implied they were running the government. A minor party capturing 20% of parliament is an indication that the primary cause of that party is striking resonance with a large enough majority of the population that it should be concerning to anyone watching political trends. Where the US is now didn't happen overnight. It's been 30 years in the making.
The US has always had the extremes like the members of Congress that make the news, but they tended to just protest and join fringe groups that had no political power. Now some of those very fringe characters are in a position to make laws and there are very vocal people in media positions who support them.
It seems to me that most US-formed people tend not to understand how typical parliamentary democracies work. The difference between multi-party coalitions and a two-party system is profound. When both types are sold democracies the two part system invariably draws more extreme views than does a multi-party system. Both can yield to extreme views but it's much harder to do so when coalitions are needed.
A lot of Americans don't understand much about other countries. I introduced my neighbors to British Christmas crackers last weekend and none of them had ever heard of them. I pay attention to news from all the English speaking countries and know a fair bit about the politics in each country.
I have thought for some time the US would be better off with a parliamentary system.
There I disagree. if first past the post must be, ranked choice voting seems to work very well.
Alaska is a prime example just now. Australia and Ireland have used it a long time. That is not a panacea, but it does improve the odds for some civility, as this old Economist article suggested:
A simple reform might fix America’s dysfunctional politics
www.economist.com
There is a learning curve and a lot of people are resistant to learning. There was an initiative on the ballot in this county to do ranked choice voting here for county elections, but it got voted down by a healthy margin.
With ranked choice voting you can take a flyer and vote for a less popular candidate you truly like and then back it up with choosing the more likely to win candidate you can tolerate as your second choice. It eliminates the situation where a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, but a minority following of significance from opening the door for a radical with a larger minority from slipping in.
That's what happened in the 2016 presidential race. The vote for Jill Stein was larger in many close battleground states than the margin of Clinton's loss. With ranked choice voting the Stein vote probably would have put Clinton second and she would have won those states. Not that I think she would have made a stellar president, but she would have been better than what we got. I'll take annoying but competent over annoying and incompetent any day.
In Alaska this time around Sarah Palin was able to come in second for the Congressional seat, but Peltola ended up winning by 10 points because Palin got almost none of the second choice votes. People were able to make a statement about preferring someone other than the eventual top two candidates in the first round, but they settled on Peltola in the end over the extremist candidate.
You previously recommended this book. I find it a constant resource on American history and cultures and the nations which make up our State. Thank you for an enlightening reference.
I refer back to the book often. It really touches on something in the US culture that most people don't really realize is there. It was recommended to me by someone else on the forum a few years ago.
If Russia gets ballistic missiles again it will make it more difficult to get them to the target. It's a good sign.
Due to the success of the American Patriot anti- missile, many countries, including Russia, have developed hypersonic missiles that travel in excess of Mach 12. They can change directions mid flight, and are essentially impossible to shoot down after launch.
Probably very limited in volume, but probably being rushed into service since the invasion.
Only way to defeat them is to kill them before launch.
Now that the gloves are off, and Ukraine has begun attacking Russia inside it's borders, the intensity will increase. Russians will need to come to terms that the war will not only be fought on Ukraine soil, but also make their own cities (Moscow) vulnerable. The Onion Domes are of tremendous significance to the Russians. One missile strike destroying them will cause tremendous consernation.
Missiles that are hypersonic in some part of their flight is not unusual. There was a lot of hype when the Kinzhal was first used in Ukraine, but it doesn't appear Russia has very many of them and they aren't as sophisticated as the true hypersonic missiles under development by China and the US. The Kinzhal is also air launched and can be carried by Russian tactical bombers like the MiG-31K. The Kinzhal is essentially an air launched Iskander, difficult to counter, but not impossible.
