The Hungarian system is basically two separate elections at once where the results are just added together. There are single-member districts where the candidate that wins the plurality of votes in the district is elected (almost always a Fidesz candidate). Then there are party list elections in larger multi-member districts where the party affiliation of the MPs elected is roughly proportional to the votes to each party in the district. There is no effort in this system to make the final results proportional.
Germany, New Zealand and devolved legislatures of Scotland and Wales use a different sort of system where the party lists are used to achieve proportionality. In a system like that, Fidesz wouldn't get a lot of seats from the party listes because they are way overrepresented already in the single-member districts.
The Netherland has pretty much the same system as Israel, there is slight geographic representation but nationwide party votes do dictate the composition of parliament.
All the Nordic countries also use a proportional system with multi-member districts and measures to make the overall party representation in parliament align with their national share of the votes.
Maybe the problems with Israel are just problems with Israel rather than their particular system of voting.
Coming from a non-Anglosphere country with a long tradition of proportional voting, this idea of "my" representative has simply never made any sense to me. How can a member of a legislative body represent voters that didn't actually vote for him? What does it effectively mean to have "your" representative that you share with half a million other people and who doesn't share your values?
I can understand fixed sites for natural resources. The coal mine is where the coal is. But historically, the sites chosen for manufacturing industry are determined by what is logistically feasible. The factory goes where the railroad is, not the other way around (most of the time).
I don't know if OpenTTD allows it but in the original TTD it was possible to plop down factories at will (but not mines, farms or oil wells).
Domesticated farm animals are far enough removed from their wild cousins to be their own species. They have been selectively bred over millenia for traits that make them easy to exploit for humans. Most of those traits work against them in the wild.
Is the BTicino plug (https://www.plugsocketmuseum.nl/Italian2.html) used at all in Italy now? There was a serious attempt at adopting it in Iceland in the late 1970s to early 1980s. These sockets can still be found in homes that were built in that period and they are just called "Italian sockets".
I often wonder how large a portion of all crypto holders are just FOMO-ing into a speculative asset because the number keeps going up, with no loyalty to the concept of cryptocurrency or its use cases.
"What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes..."
Arbitrary geographical lines don't define classes. Every state has both rural and urban segments. Is the "rural proletariat" of California better represented than the "urban bourgeoise" of Rhode Island in this system? It's an 18th century compromise where the justifications where invented after the fact. This seems to be true for a lot of things about the founding of the United States. Lots of mythology around the motives of the founding fathers and their supposedly great designs that don't really hold up to any scrutiny.
No, but urbanization does, and some states are more suitable to dense settlement than others.
> Lots of mythology around the motives of the founding fathers and their supposedly great designs that don't really hold up to any scrutiny.
Likewise the jabs aimed at the founding fathers by people who have an obvious axe to grind (namely an imperialist one). You'll forgive me if I prefer not to reject constitutionalism because it conflicts with someone's preferred method of exploitation.
Neither position is inherently absurd, nor is their contradiction.
A more thoughtful response might have taken the time to contemplate the origins of government and the relationship between “absurdity,” your understanding of government and of virtuous government, and of the post-enlightenment ideologies assumed natural to our societies; in truth the vague syllogism between law and privilege you present is not some physical reality or logical QED but a gestural summation of ideas only very lately arrived to human affairs. Contemplative silence is one among many more interesting responses that were available to you.
In short: it’s obvious that ancient institutions and modern humanism are absurdly dissonant. Cleary OP meant to provoke a reconsideration, not a restatement, of the obvious.
Ironically it is obvious that one should not bother trying to rescue internet comments from their own pig-headedness - but sometimes I do sorely miss past iterations of HN.
Germany, New Zealand and devolved legislatures of Scotland and Wales use a different sort of system where the party lists are used to achieve proportionality. In a system like that, Fidesz wouldn't get a lot of seats from the party listes because they are way overrepresented already in the single-member districts.