I think the author is making a mistake here by conflating parliamentary systems that have single-member constituencies with those that have multi-member constituencies and proportional representation (And obviously there’s also a spectrum in between, with mixed systems where much larger coalitions form in parliamentary systems, depending on the electoral system that’s chosen.)
For instance, the UK’s single-member constituencies can result in governments with large majorities without getting majority support, whilst Israel’s proportional representation creates coalition governments with broad support (among the enfranchised at least).
That may be true, but does it change the bottom line that on the whole, parliaments are more likely to lead to larger coalitions than presidential systems? Like, despite the single-member constituencies, is the UK much worse than the typical presidential system?
I think the author is making a mistake here by conflating parliamentary systems that have single-member constituencies with those that have multi-member constituencies and proportional representation (And obviously there’s also a spectrum in between, with mixed systems where much larger coalitions form in parliamentary systems, depending on the electoral system that’s chosen.)
For instance, the UK’s single-member constituencies can result in governments with large majorities without getting majority support, whilst Israel’s proportional representation creates coalition governments with broad support (among the enfranchised at least).
That may be true, but does it change the bottom line that on the whole, parliaments are more likely to lead to larger coalitions than presidential systems? Like, despite the single-member constituencies, is the UK much worse than the typical presidential system?