> This is downright dystopic and people don't get it. A countrys exceptional situation where a they get a new leader which is not being democratically decided by the people, but a minority of Tories that have the time to read "barbs" on Twitter.
That's not dystopian, it's just how that system of government works. Literally no system will satisfy everyone, and direct democracy has its own well-known flaws.
For what it's worth, a lot of US liberals are currently fetishising parliamentary systems like the UK's.
"It is how the system works", is not getting it... Twitter is used by a minority yet it supposedly captures significant political power. It is really hard to explain it to someone who doesn't care how supposed work and think I mean that it is about "direct democracy". Elected politicians should be working for the people regardless they voted for them or not. They aren't supposed to write crap on twitter about the "other guys" within the same fucking party.
I think Twitter's a red herring. IIRC, in the UK the prime minister is chosen by the MPs from the majority party. It's not just the ones on Twitter, though Twitter might be one of the channels some of those members use for rhetoric to influence the final decision. That rhetoric will happen somewhere, Twitter or no.
Also when it gets down to it, in an election the ultimate outcome is decided by the people who are on the fence, which is much smaller that the whole group.
That's not dystopian, it's just how that system of government works. Literally no system will satisfy everyone, and direct democracy has its own well-known flaws.
For what it's worth, a lot of US liberals are currently fetishising parliamentary systems like the UK's.