If it’s only four

It’s Germany’s biggest union

I’m pretty sure there are other exceptions

This “shaming” or the “shit storm” is usually (and I think here too) just some Incels commenting on Instagram. As Instagram optimizes for maximum engagement, the stupidest and most controversial take is always at the top of the comments, that’s how we end up with these idiots getting their platform. And these “news sites” then make a big deal out of a few losers also as engagement bait. This whole system is fucked

It’s looking at you and your stellar body

I guess we’re screwed

I know it as “Seitdem das Deutsche Reich besteht wird die Schraube rechts gedreht” (“Since the German Reich was founded, the screw has been turned to the right”), I always assumed it was because many things were standardized between the German states after unification and that this was one of these things, but I can’t find any reference to that.

Land of the free

There are many more examples than just Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan comes to mind but also many other Muslim countries use Islam and Shari’a law to control the population or use religious laws as an excuse for their authoritarianism. No religion is free of that.

The Chinese approach is far more effective I fear. The Soviet way worked only with mixed results and was more ideology driven than logical. In Poland, the Catholic Church became a huge factor in the opposition because of that. If religion is deeply rooted in society, controlling and steering religion makes for a powerful tool to control the masses while fighting it automatically makes it a strong opposition force.

Of the four ideas that are listed on this picture that’s the one you gonna go with for being the worst?

Actually, it looks delicious

Lol, sure it does

Two choices is not complete control

What? Not all positions are elected, in no system. Or when did you vote for secretary of state in the US?

The prime minister of France is not an elected position but appointed by the president. This has nothing to do with multiparty democracy.

Counter examples exist. Willy Brandt was social-democratic German chancellor in a coalition with the liberals while the conservatives were the biggest party in parliament. The conservatives could only watch.

Also recent state elections in Thuringia, the fascist AfD is the biggest party but nobody wants to work with them, so they don’t get a chance to form a government.

What’s important in both cases: the majority of voters want it that way. They wanted a social-democratic+liberal government under Willy Brandt and there is a clear majority in Thuringia that don’t want the AfD to govern. In both cases it’s more democratic to not let the biggest party govern.

In a two party system the power balance within the coalition is decided behind closed doors and the voters have no say in it

As long as the coalition represents the majority, I don’t see why the largest party needs to be part of the government. The largest party doesn’t represent the will of the people by itself, otherwise they would have a majority.